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

12/16/2019
11:00 AM
By Monier Jalal, Head of Product Marketing, Check Point Software
By Monier Jalal, Head of Product Marketing, Check Point Software
Sponsored Article
100%
0%

Cloud Confidence in the Age of Advanced Threats

The cloud - a place that feels (not) like home.

If you ask most information security practitioners to describe cloud security or draw an analogy to security challenges in the cloud, they would probably best describe this through an example - one that reflects the responsibility and challenges that take place between that of a provider and a user of the cloud. So, as an example, let’s say you run a small business out of your home. You own the building and the security for your home. You have the keys to your home, and you have close visibility of the assets, as well as the people that work there, including the visitors that come and go. Your scope of responsibility is narrow, well known, and easy to manage.

Now imagine one day you decided to move your business to an office space in a 15-story rented office building. You (the user) no longer own the building; the landlord (the provider) does. You share the building with other tenants, and you may not know who those tenants are or what type of business they run. Tenants frequently come and go, and it’s hard to keep track of your surrounding shared office environment and who is in it – good or bad. The landlord has the responsibility to secure entrance into the building and to protect against fire and theft. The landlord does not know (or care) what sort of business you or others own – and you are free to fit-out your office space as you desire. You may even decide to expand and move into a bigger office space in the same building as your business grows. In essence, what we have drawn similarities to is the basic principles of the cloud shared responsibility model.

The distinction in this example is that after the move, the environment and your responsibilities are no longer the same. A similar situation exists when we move our business (services and applications) from on premise into the cloud. The scope (visibility of the cloud), dynamics (agility of the cloud) and responsibility for securing applications in the cloud change. It’s these key elements that are partly the reason why trying to implement security for businesses in the cloud is such a challenge.

When Security is not at the Speed of DevOps
Traditional, on premise security controls lack DevOps agility; they cannot deploy the necessary automation or offer the continuous insights needed to instantly pin-point, monitor, and secure rapid changes within the cloud. The availability of cloud services and a workplace emphasis on agility means that DevOps teams often move at a breakneck speed, leaving security behind. The DevOps team may create the right environment for application deployment, but DevSecOps must ensure that cloud security is firmly in place, and appropriately prevents large-scale threats. The more that organizations can 'Shift Left' and identify vulnerabilities early, the greater the long-term payoff in terms of business outcomes.

Trying to Avoid the Multi-million Dollar "Whoops"
Cloud security failures commonly occur due to human negligence or human error. When the DevOps team wants to move fast, but mature security configurations require a slower approach, employees may try to cut corners, causing integration issues and security flaws. In 90% of cases, data breaches are not the fault of the cloud provider. Gartner predicts that, by 2020, at least 95% of cloud security errors will be the fault of the customer. The desire for immediate corporate growth and lack of forethought can stall or upend business objectives, resulting in costly multi-million dollar breaches and fines. To develop and deploy frequently and securely requires investment in an equally agile and dynamic threat prevention and security compliance solution.

You Can’t Secure What You Can’t See
The fast scale of cloud, log data, and the elastic and dynamic nature of cloud makes it extraordinarily difficult for security teams to see and understand what’s going on. Seeing what’s happening in the cloud reduces rates of incidents, and shortens incident response time. As the cloud has evolved through the introduction of new services and technologies, so has event logging. Today’s cloud environments can track terabytes of log data per consumer. Trying to establish context and an understanding of these logs, especially during incident response, can be a challenge. Graphical relationship presentation of data seems to be the next shift in log presentations.

The Bottom Line
Maintaining confidence in your cloud security depends on an ability to keep pace with the agile nature of the cloud, visibility into rich data analytics, implementing a threat prevention first mindset, and upholding compliance standards. By placing these elements at the core of your cloud security strategy, you’ll build operational transparency and consistency that drives trust. If you’re seeking a best-in-class cloud threat prevention solution, Check Point Software offers powerful, flexible, scalable, and comprehensive cloud security solutions designed to move your business forward.

About The Author
Monier Jalal, Head of Product Marketing, Check Point Software
Monier Jalal has over 20 years of leadership in the security space. He has helped companies successfully market and launch security products, and has been part of the founder and executive leadership team driving the acquisition and IPO for a number of security startups, most recently Whitehat security (acquired by NTT Security), Sift security (acquired by Netskope), Vyatta (Acquired by Brocade), Cisco Systems and Juniper Networks. Monier earned a Bachelor of Science degree in electronics and computer science from the University of Bradford in the UK. 
 

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...