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.

Endpoint Security

// // //
4/17/2018
09:35 AM
Joe Stanganelli
Joe Stanganelli
Joe Stanganelli

Endpoint Security: 3 Big Obstacles to Overcome

Two recent reports highlight three major challenges in enterprise endpoint security.

In a report released last month on "next-generation endpoint security," Enterprise Security Group (ESG) analyst Jon Oltsik observed that enterprises and antivirus vendors alike find keeping up with endpoint security difficult because of the sophisticated nature, prolific volume, and exponentiating complexity of attacks.

"40% to 50% of new sophisticated malware attacks could evade endpoint AV, compromise PCs, and act as a beachhead for advanced cyber-attacks," wrote Oltsik. "CISOs realize today that, regardless of the controls they deploy, some malware will sneak through, so they need continuous monitoring and visibility of endpoint behavior."

"Continuous," however, has practical limits.

ESG found that the top endpoint-security challenge -- as indicated by approximately 25% of the 385 cybersecurity professionals surveyed for ESG's report -- was respondents' InfoSec teams taking too long dealing with too many security alerts, many of which are "false alarms." This suggests a -- ahem -- continuous trend.

In a separate ESG study last year, 36% of respondents reported that "keeping up with the volume of security alerts" was their top challenge. Little wonder that enterprise security alerts are commonly treated as so much noise. 31% admitted that their organizations ignore at least 50% of their security alerts; an additional 34% reported that their organizations ignore 26% to 50% of their security alerts.

Endpoint-security obstacle #1: insufficient automation
ESG and other pundits have concluded that proper endpoint-security management demands enhanced automation and machine-learning tools -- with the clearing out of security alerts being but one use case.

In an Industrial Internet Consortium (IIC) whitepaper on best practices in endpoint security, published in March, IIC emphasized automated protocols as a common denominator for both secure endpoint identities and secure attestations. Automation driven by public-key cryptography standards (PKCS), reported IIC, is critical to ensuring safety and certainty in the digital supply chain of certificates, firmware updates, etc. -- helping to keep at bay any malware that might otherwise slip through (sub)standard AV solutions.

Indeed, 17% of ESG study respondents identified their AV software as their top endpoint-security challenge, while 19% pointed to too many manual processes because of their lack of integrated endpoint-security automation. (It should be noted that respondents were allowed to select up to two responses.)

When it comes to malicious bots and the like, some contend that fighting AI with AI can be a losing battle. Consequently, a wholesale ban on non-whitelisted bots can help cut down on endpoint-security alerts and keep them manageable.

Nonetheless, IIC maintains that automated endpoint updates should be reliable without in-house whitelists or blacklists (typically manually input) as a matter of scalability.

"The number of attacks on industrial endpoints has grown rapidly in the last few years and has severe effects," wrote Steve Hanna, co-author of the whitepaper. "Unreliable equipment can cause safety problems, customer dissatisfaction, liability, and reduced profits."

Endpoint-security obstacle #2: legacy devices
Despite these admonitions against equipment unreliability, the authors make allowances for legacy endpoints. Still, they concede (1) that some of the most effective endpoint-security measures are embedded in hardware (typically not an option for legacy devices), and (2) that inadequately secure legacy endpoints must rely on network-security measures.

This latter point rather defeats the purpose of endpoint security. Why struggle against the most modern, most secure endpoints when there are more vulnerable legacy endpoints to be pwned?

To be fair, it is feasible to implement lower levels of trust across legacy endpoints -- but perhaps impractical. Legacy endpoints are maintained for a reason (usually involving cost). Presumably, therefore, these legacy endpoints still need levels of accessibility appropriate for more up-to-date endpoints -- despite the confidentiality and integrity risks.

Endpoint-security obstacle #3: poor security culture
This preference among enterprises -- even among InfoSec workers -- to mortgage endpoint security for agility's sake is further evident in ESG's findings:

  • Respondents' second-biggest endpoint-security challenge (23%) was that regular re-imaging of infected endpoint devices creates more work for respondents' helpdesks and "imped[es] end-user productivity."
  • 17% of respondents also complained that "imped[ed] end-user productivity" caused by endpoint-security agents slowing down endpoint processes was their organization's top endpoint-security challenge.
  • 14%, meanwhile, said that their top endpoint-security woe was lacking the budget for "the right endpoint-security products".

ESG is not alone in making such findings. Verizon Wireless , for instance, recently reported that nearly one third of surveyed mobility professionals admitted that their organizations sacrificed mobile security in favor of business agility -- at significant risk. (See: Verizon Mobility Security Index Shows Enterprises Not Doing Enough.)

More depressingly, in a world where enterprises can be split into the hacked and the unaware of being hacked, a doubtlessly overly optimistic 10% of ESG respondents reported having no endpoint-security challenges whatsoever.

Related posts:

—Joe Stanganelli, principal of Beacon Hill Law, is a Boston-based attorney, corporate-communications and data-privacy consultant, writer, and speaker. Follow him on Twitter at @JoeStanganelli.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Creating an Effective Incident Response Plan
Security teams are realizing their organizations will experience a cyber incident at some point. An effective incident response plan that takes into account their specific requirements and has been tested is critical. This issue of Tech Insights also includes: -a look at the newly signed cyber-incident law, -how organizations can apply behavioral psychology to incident response, -and an overview of the Open Cybersecurity Schema Framework.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-4194
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-30
Use after free in Accessibility in Google Chrome prior to 108.0.5359.71 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
CVE-2022-4195
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-30
Insufficient policy enforcement in Safe Browsing in Google Chrome prior to 108.0.5359.71 allowed a remote attacker to bypass Safe Browsing warnings via a malicious file. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
CVE-2022-4175
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-30
Use after free in Camera Capture in Google Chrome prior to 108.0.5359.71 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)
CVE-2022-4176
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-30
Out of bounds write in Lacros Graphics in Google Chrome on Chrome OS and Lacros prior to 108.0.5359.71 allowed a remote attacker who convinced a user to engage in specific UI interactions to potentially exploit heap corruption via UI interactions. (Chromium security severity: High)
CVE-2022-4177
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-30
Use after free in Extensions in Google Chrome prior to 108.0.5359.71 allowed an attacker who convinced a user to install an extension to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted Chrome Extension and UI interaction. (Chromium security severity: High)