Endpoint

10/31/2015
09:00 AM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

7 Elements Of Modern Endpoint Security

What it takes to secure and tap into the 'source of the truth' in today's threatscape.
Previous
1 of 8
Next

Most businesses are still wrestling with beefing up their existing endpoint security tools--typically a mix of antivirus, host intrusion prevention system (HIPS), host firewall, whitelisting, and heuristics, for example--to better defend against attacks that are morphing so fast that it's impossible to catch everything and targeted malware or attacks that bypass security measures. Bottom line: the human behind the endpoint keyboard is impossible to shield from harm when all it takes is a click to be attacked.

But change is coming. Longtime endpoint security giants Symantec and McAfee, now Intel Security, this week each rolled out integrated security architectures that begin the process of evolving endpoint security beyond the old-school, signature-based prevention approach, to one that is more about quickly detecting and fixing endpoints when inevitable attack attempts occur. And next-generation startups are pushing the endpoint detection & response (EDR) approach, where the endpoint is not merely the problem with security, but a key piece of the solution. 

[A slew of startups and veteran security firms are moving toward proactive and adaptive detection and mitigation for securing the endpoint. But few enterprises are ready to pull the antivirus plug. Read The Rebirth Of Endpoint Security.]

There are several key features in modern, or next-generation, endpoint security, and different vendors have different approaches. But the underlying philosophy of the new wave of offerings is the reality that endpoints will be targeted as the initial attack vector, so rapid detection and incident response at the device is crucial.

Here are some of the main elements in modern (or reborn) endpoint security.  

 

Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 8
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
MikkoK496
0%
100%
MikkoK496,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/18/2015 | 8:33:27 AM
#8
Encryption & Wiping?
Gebildete
0%
100%
Gebildete,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/9/2015 | 4:58:17 AM
Testing.
It's only time of the question how can we secure our data. I always test all the apps on the konstruktor. The ASAP bugs are connected with the security. What can we do to protest ourselves? We can work not fast but efficiently.  
wkupersa
100%
0%
wkupersa,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/2/2015 | 10:22:01 PM
Post-exploit
n important differentiator of these tools versus traditional tools like AV is that these tools can see post-exploit behavior and that is where we are traditionally blind. Our traditional tools focus on the exploit. A motivated adversary will eventually find a way in. We haven't had tools that collect the data required to differentiate a malicious attacker from a benign administrator. These types of tools have the potential to give us useful insight into the intention of actions taken on our end point devices.
kshaurette
100%
0%
kshaurette,
User Rank: Strategist
11/2/2015 | 9:31:25 AM
User Activity and Behavior Monitoring
Has anyone looked into the smaller company out of Wisconsin called Sergeant Laboratories, www.sgtlabs.com.  They've recently been making a claim to be able to provide a level of behavior monitoronig that other solutions don't do.  I"ve worked with their product in the past in a former life implementing it in schools, governmennt and a couple banks.  Back then it was really strong for forensics and tracking activity, but I hear from a recent confernece the've really changed the arcitecture to offer a much more robust tracking and was wondering if any others had seen or experience this to refute or confirm the claims.
12 Free, Ready-to-Use Security Tools
Steve Zurier, Freelance Writer,  10/12/2018
Most IT Security Pros Want to Change Jobs
Dark Reading Staff 10/12/2018
Most Malware Arrives Via Email
Dark Reading Staff 10/11/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
The Risk Management Struggle
The Risk Management Struggle
The majority of organizations are struggling to implement a risk-based approach to security even though risk reduction has become the primary metric for measuring the effectiveness of enterprise security strategies. Read the report and get more details today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-17534
PUBLISHED: 2018-10-15
Teltonika RUT9XX routers with firmware before 00.04.233 provide a root terminal on a serial interface without proper access control. This allows attackers with physical access to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges.
CVE-2018-17980
PUBLISHED: 2018-10-15
NoMachine before 5.3.27 and 6.x before 6.3.6 allows attackers to gain privileges via a Trojan horse wintab32.dll file located in the same directory as a .nxs file, as demonstrated by a scenario where the .nxs file and the DLL are in the current working directory, and the Trojan horse code is execute...
CVE-2018-18259
PUBLISHED: 2018-10-15
Stored XSS has been discovered in version 1.0.12 of the LUYA CMS software via /admin/api-cms-nav/create-page.
CVE-2018-18260
PUBLISHED: 2018-10-15
In the 2.4 version of Camaleon CMS, Stored XSS has been discovered. The profile image in the User settings section can be run in the update / upload area via /admin/media/upload?actions=false.
CVE-2018-17532
PUBLISHED: 2018-10-15
Teltonika RUT9XX routers with firmware before 00.04.233 are prone to multiple unauthenticated OS command injection vulnerabilities in autologin.cgi and hotspotlogin.cgi due to insufficient user input sanitization. This allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges.