Vulnerabilities / Threats
10/28/2013
01:46 PM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Failure To Deploy: Aided And Abetted By Shelfware

It takes more than technology acquisition to protect against the insider threat -- just ask the NSA

Recent news reports indicate the NSA had acquired technologies to help prevent the leakage of classified data, but failed to deploy them before contractor Edward Snowden began working there. The technologies in question were purchased in the wake of the 2010 WikiLeaks scandal, but went uninstalled at NSA's Hawaii facility due to what was described as "bandwidth issues."

The path that allowed Snowden to pilfer large quantities of classified information was paved by the NSA's failure to deploy the technologies the agency had already acquired and presumably deployed at other facilities. As the technologies sat unused by the Hawaii facility, Snowden was, in essence, aided and abetted by shelfware.

This calls to mind an all-too-common story in many of today's enterprises when acquired technology is simply not deployed, but sits on the shelf where it may look good -- but doesn't do jack squat. With some technologies, the impact of not having these technologies in place is minimal. But when it comes to safeguarding sensitive data and protecting against inside threats, you could be playing a very high stakes game of chicken. And the consequences of losing the game? Simply disastrous. Just ask the NSA.

But lest I get too dramatic in my oversimplification, shelfware does not always represent a simple failure to deploy. In terms of the inside threat, there are varying levels on the fail scale, each of which we have likely encountered in our own experience. It's one thing to stick your head in the sand and pretend the threat does not exist. It's another to courageously acknowledge the threat -- but take no action. And it's something else entirely to face the threat head on, acquire technologies to protect against that threat, and then fail to put the technologies to their most beneficial use.

That said, we all know efforts made in good faith sometimes go awry. The overall initiative to protect against the insider threat may be carefully planned over months or even years, with meaningful requirements established, budgets approved, RFPs released, products evaluated, and, ultimately, dollars spent. But if organizations fail to put the technologies to their most effective use, budget is wasted and, worse yet, sensitive data is put at risk.

While we may not often see instances of blatant shelfware in our own organizations, where acquired products never even see the light of day, most organizations are guilty to some degree of lesser offenses when acquired technologies are not used to their full potential. Failure to make the most of a technology purchase may sound trivial or, at worst, just a sin of omission, but as demonstrated by the NSA's recent experience, the results can have very serious consequences. Jared is president of DLP Experts, a value-added reseller dedicated exclusively to data loss prevention (DLP) and other data protection technologies and services. For over twenty years Jared has held executive level positions with technology firms, with the last six years ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
James McCabe
50%
50%
James McCabe,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/29/2013 | 8:49:25 PM
re: Failure To Deploy: Aided And Abetted By Shelfware
In some instances it becomes a requirements check box rather than a full implementation. Sad state of affairs.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading Must Reads - September 25, 2014
Dark Reading's new Must Reads is a compendium of our best recent coverage of identity and access management. Learn about access control in the age of HTML5, how to improve authentication, why Active Directory is dead, and more.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-5485
Published: 2014-09-30
registerConfiglet.py in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote attackers to execute Python code via unspecified vectors, related to the admin interface.

CVE-2012-5486
Published: 2014-09-30
ZPublisher.HTTPRequest._scrubHeader in Zope 2 before 2.13.19, as used in Plone before 4.3 beta 1, allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers via a linefeed (LF) character.

CVE-2012-5487
Published: 2014-09-30
The sandbox whitelisting function (allowmodule.py) in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote authenticated users with certain privileges to bypass the Python sandbox restriction and execute arbitrary Python code via vectors related to importing.

CVE-2012-5488
Published: 2014-09-30
python_scripts.py in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote attackers to execute Python code via a crafted URL, related to createObject.

CVE-2012-5489
Published: 2014-09-30
The App.Undo.UndoSupport.get_request_var_or_attr function in Zope before 2.12.21 and 3.13.x before 2.13.11, as used in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1, allows remote authenticated users to gain access to restricted attributes via unspecified vectors.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
In our next Dark Reading Radio broadcast, we’ll take a close look at some of the latest research and practices in application security.