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

4/23/2018
02:30 PM
50%
50%

New Survey Shows Hybrid Cloud Confidence

Executives are mostly confident in their hybrid cloud security, according to the results of a new survey.

A new survey of executives shows that the vast majority are deploying hybrid cloud architectures for their organization. When queried about the state of their IT security, the breakdown is interesting: Half say it's healthy, one-quarter have some level of concern, and one-quarter seem to be at best overconfident, at worst delusional. More on that, shortly.

The survey, sponsored by Cavirin Systems, asked executives about how they were building their application architectures for the business. Roughly 80% say that they are building hybrid clouds, with half of those saying that Microsoft Azure is part of their infrastructure.

When the survey turned to how they are protecting the applications and workloads on those hybrid clouds, 40% say that they rely solely on the tools available through the cloud provider. Among the rest, respondents listed cloud workload protection systems (CWPP), CASB, and SIEM tools as part of their security platforms. Nearly two-thirds say that cloud and on-premise systems are protected by entirely separate security tools.

With the diversity of approaches and tools, 53% of those responding say that their cybersecurity posture is "healthy." Another 23% say that their cybersecurity health is on the spectrum between average and terrible. A confident 23% describe their cybersecurity health as "impenetrable." History suggests that those in the final group might be wrong.

For more, read here.

Interop ITX 2018

Join Dark Reading LIVE for an intensive Security Pro Summit at Interop IT X and learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the agenda here.Register with Promo Code DR200 and save $200.

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Why Vulnerable Code Is Shipped Knowingly
Chris Eng, Chief Research Officer, Veracode,  11/30/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-16123
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-04
An Ubuntu-specific patch in PulseAudio created a race condition where the snap policy module would fail to identify a client connection from a snap as coming from a snap if SCM_CREDENTIALS were missing, allowing the snap to connect to PulseAudio without proper confinement. This could be exploited by...
CVE-2018-21270
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-03
Versions less than 0.0.6 of the Node.js stringstream module are vulnerable to an out-of-bounds read because of allocation of uninitialized buffers when a number is passed in the input stream (when using Node.js 4.x).
CVE-2020-26248
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-03
In the PrestaShop module "productcomments" before version 4.2.1, an attacker can use a Blind SQL injection to retrieve data or stop the MySQL service. The problem is fixed in 4.2.1 of the module.
CVE-2020-29529
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-03
HashiCorp go-slug before 0.5.0 does not address attempts at directory traversal involving ../ and symlinks.
CVE-2020-29534
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-03
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel before 5.9.3. io_uring takes a non-refcounted reference to the files_struct of the process that submitted a request, causing execve() to incorrectly optimize unshare_fd(), aka CID-0f2122045b94.