Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Cloud

6/18/2019
05:45 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

As Cloud Adoption Grows, DLP Remains Key Challenge

As businesses use the cloud to fuel growth, many fail to enforce data loss prevention or control how people share data.

The cloud is no longer a mystery to today's companies, which capitalize on its benefits to fuel growth, but securing cloud-based data, applications, and infrastructure remains a challenge.

As part of its most recent "Cloud Adoption and Risk Report," researchers with McAfee polled 1,000 enterprise organizations around the world and combined their data with insight from billions of anonymized cloud events across their customer base. Most cloud adopters (87%) report business acceleration, and 52% claim to experience better security. A closer look at the numbers, however, reveals a need to better control information and applications in the cloud.

Only 26% of respondents say they can audit infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) configurations such as open access to storage buckets. One-third say they can control application collaboration settings. Slightly more (36%) can enforce data loss prevention (DLP) in the cloud. More than 35% of businesses with a cloud access security broker (CASB) are more likely to be able to launch new products and speed time to market — but only one-third of respondents use them.

"It's a matter of maturity," says Vittorio Viarengo, vice president of product for McAfee's cloud unit. Two years ago, security was the main obstacle to cloud adoption as companies hesitated to share data with providers. Now, with providers buckling down on security and business decisions accelerating the transition to the cloud, they've grown accustomed to the switch but fail to realize cloud providers don't cover all security. In some ways, they're still responsible.

As researchers point out in the report, the one element of security that cloud providers can't cover for their customers is how their services are actually used, specifically the data that is stored in those services, shared externally, and accessed from myriad devices and locations. For example, say confidential data is stored in an Office 365 file shared with a customer, Viarengo explains. "Of course, Microsoft isn't going to be responsible for that … that's user behavior."

It's worth noting only 40% of respondents can control access to cloud data for personal devices, meaning 60% have no knowledge of how employees are putting sensitive files on their phones or laptops and taking it out of the organization. Thirty percent enforce the same DLP policies across employee devices, the corporate network, and the cloud, researchers discovered.

The shared responsibility model dictates how businesses are responsible for data. Businesses need to know what data needs to be protected, where it goes, and who can access it based on internal policies and compliance requirements. First, they have to know where data resides.

Sensitive Data: Emerging from Shadow IT
One-third of respondents say they can discover and remediate shadow IT, but Viarengo points out that companies have taken steps to address this problem and officially sanction cloud apps and services. Researchers report only 10% of sensitive company data resides in unsanctioned applications, and the overall risk of sensitive data exposure via shadow IT has diminished.

So, where is sensitive data stored? Sixty-five percent is stored in collaboration and business apps, including Office 365, which holds 31% of sensitive enterprise data. Salesforce holds 16%, and Box and Dropbox together hold 7%. Overall, 25% of sensitive corporate data lives in IaaS platforms, including Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform.

When protecting data in the cloud, researchers recommend starting with apps that hold the majority of sensitive information and working your way down. Whether the business already uses those apps or is planning to launch them, the approach can help maximize risk mitigation.

Related Content:

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance & Technology, where she covered financial ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
DevSecOps: The Answer to the Cloud Security Skills Gap
Lamont Orange, Chief Information Security Officer at Netskope,  11/15/2019
Attackers' Costs Increasing as Businesses Focus on Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  11/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19037
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-21
ext4_empty_dir in fs/ext4/namei.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.12 allows a NULL pointer dereference because ext4_read_dirblock(inode,0,DIRENT_HTREE) can be zero.
CVE-2019-19036
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-21
btrfs_root_node in fs/btrfs/ctree.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.12 allows a NULL pointer dereference because rcu_dereference(root->node) can be zero.
CVE-2019-19039
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-21
__btrfs_free_extent in fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.12 calls btrfs_print_leaf in a certain ENOENT case, which allows local users to obtain potentially sensitive information about register values via the dmesg program.
CVE-2019-6852
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-20
A CWE-200: Information Exposure vulnerability exists in Modicon Controllers (M340 CPUs, M340 communication modules, Premium CPUs, Premium communication modules, Quantum CPUs, Quantum communication modules - see security notification for specific versions), which could cause the disclosure of FTP har...
CVE-2019-6853
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-20
A CWE-79: Failure to Preserve Web Page Structure vulnerability exists in Andover Continuum (models 9680, 5740 and 5720, bCX4040, bCX9640, 9900, 9940, 9924 and 9702) , which could enable a successful Cross-site Scripting (XSS attack) when using the products web server.