Attacks/Breaches

2/22/2018
02:30 PM
Yaron Galant
Yaron Galant
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

It's Not What You Know, It's What You Can Prove That Matters to Investigators

Achieving the data visibility to ensure you can provide auditors with the information they need after a breach, and do so in just a few days, has never been more difficult.

Speaking at a recent conference, Heather Adkins, Google's information security manager, posed a question to the audience that every organization should ask itself: "The question is not whether or not you're going to get hacked, but are you ready? Are you going to be able to very quickly make decisions about what to do next?"

When a breach occurs, you must do more than confirm you have implemented the appropriate information security technologies. You will also have to demonstrate you have complete visibility into the location of sensitive data, who has accessed it, and how they used and shared those files.

And you will have to do so more quickly than you might expect.

Research shows that it requires security and IT team days, even weeks, to identify the cause of a breach, and determine which files may have been exposed. The Ponemon Institute reports that it takes an average of 191 days to identify a breach, and more than two months (66 days) to contain it. That's not going to fly with lawmakers and regulatory agencies.

Consider the looming May 25, 2018, deadline to demonstrate compliance with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which establishes strict requirements for protecting customer data. There are two key components to GDPR that create anxiety among security professionals and compliance officers: the broad definition of what constitutes publicly identifiable information, and the short time frame to report a breach — within 72 hours after discovery.

In the US, the North Carolina state legislature is considering an update to the Act to Strengthen Identity Theft Protections that requires that a breached entity notify affected consumers and the attorney general's office within 15 days. You can rest assured that other states will follow suit.

To make matters worse, achieving the necessary level of data visibility to ensure you are able to provide auditors with the information on specific files that may have been exposed in a breach, and do so in just a few days, has never been more difficult.

For one, there is more technology creating more data — and most of it is sensitive. Second, a typical organization has sensitive information widely distributed across its network, both on-premises and in the cloud. Your organization may have customer information stored in content systems and business applications like SAP, SharePoint, OpenText, Oracle, Box, Office 365, and many more.

These challenges pertain only to the content that stays in your organization. In today's environment, it has become virtually impossible to get business done without sharing confidential information with partners and other third-party services providers.

Consider a loan application received by a bank that must be routed to multiple third parties to conduct background and credit checks as well as a property appraisal, and secure the tax and lien history. Or a physician who forwards a patient's medical records to a colleague for a second opinion and then sends the agreed-upon treatment plan to the patient's insurance company. These kinds of use cases occur all the time.

Managing and monitoring who is accessing sensitive information and what they're doing with it is seldom done efficiently — if done at all — and yet these are critical to data security and regulatory compliance. 

While IT has ceded the control it once had over enterprise content, it remains responsible for protecting sensitive information from both outside hackers and the rising insider threat — either the malicious actor who steals information or the innocent employee whose mistake accidentally exposes sensitive data.

The trouble is, security has become anathema to efforts to improve business agility and employee productivity levels. End users are increasingly interrupted with notifications and requests from security solutions to install updates and perform system sweeps, disrupting workflows and hurting employee productivity.

This constant tug of war between IT's efforts to secure data and users' needs to share data has given rise to Shadow IT. Users embrace consumer (read: unsecure) solutions without IT's permission (or knowledge) to share files by downloading them to USB thumb drives, or uploading them to a cloud-based service like Dropbox. Users are drawn to these solutions for their functionality and ease of use; however, IT loses critical visibility over the movement and usage of files. The problem boils down to this: you can't secure what you can't see.

IT must have the controls necessary to demonstrate compliance with internal policies and industry standards. There are three key steps you can take to ensure you are able to supply information on file activity in an auditable format to internal auditors, government regulators, and/or legal teams when a security incident happens:

  1. Monitor all sensitive data: You must gain an understanding of how your employees and partners are accessing, using, and sharing your organization's sensitive data.
  2. Create detailed audit logs that show all content activity: Knowing exactly who accessed your content, when they accessed it, and how they used it will enable you to demonstrate your organization's compliance with rigorous industry regulations.
  3. Keep content where it belongs: Instead of creating duplicate copies of content for the purposes of collaboration, integrate with the applications that create the content to manage the associated workflows. 

Simply showing investigators your security system will not relieve you of the responsibility of a data breach and the resulting financial and legal consequences. Identifying the root cause of a security incident, mitigating the damage, and demonstrating full compliance requires you and your IT department know the details of the location, access controls, and activities around every single file, including how it may be shared externally. That is critical to quickly and effectively identifying the root cause of a security incident, mitigating the damage, and demonstrating full compliance.

Related Content:

 

Black Hat Asia returns to Singapore with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier solutions and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

Yaron Galant joined Accellion in 2017 and brings 25 years of experience in product strategy, management, and development. A pioneer in security and analytics, Mr. Galant has played a leading role in the creation of the Web application security space and ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Microsoft, Mastercard Aim to Change Identity Management
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  12/3/2018
Windows 10 Security Questions Prove Easy for Attackers to Exploit
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  12/5/2018
Starwood Breach Reaction Focuses on 4-Year Dwell
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  12/5/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: I guess this answers the question: who's watching the watchers?
Current Issue
10 Best Practices That Could Reshape Your IT Security Department
This Dark Reading Tech Digest, explores ten best practices that could reshape IT security departments.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-19653
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-09
HashiCorp Consul 0.5.1 through 1.4.0 can use cleartext agent-to-agent RPC communication because the verify_outgoing setting is improperly documented. NOTE: the vendor has provided reconfiguration steps that do not require a software upgrade.
CVE-2018-19982
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-09
An issue was discovered on KT MC01507L Z-Wave S0 devices. It occurs because HPKP is not implemented. The communication architecture is APP > Server > Controller (HUB) > Node (products which are controlled by HUB). The prerequisite is that the attacker is on the same network as the target HU...
CVE-2018-19983
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-09
An issue was discovered on Sigma Design Z-Wave S0 through S2 devices. An attacker first prepares a Z-Wave frame-transmission program (e.g., Z-Wave PC Controller, OpenZWave, CC1110, etc.). Next, the attacker conducts a DoS attack against the Z-Wave S0 Security version product by continuously sending ...
CVE-2018-19980
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-08
Anker Nebula Capsule Pro NBUI_M1_V2.1.9 devices allow attackers to cause a denial of service (reboot of the underlying Android 7.1.2 operating system) via a crafted application that sends data to WifiService.
CVE-2018-19961
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-08
An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.11.x on AMD x86 platforms, possibly allowing guest OS users to gain host OS privileges because TLB flushes do not always occur after IOMMU mapping changes.