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

4/15/2015
05:30 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

How Ionic Says It Makes Data Breaches Irrelevant

Ionic Security goes public with a data security platform that manages trillions of encryption keys and enables a user to sign each pixel with its own unique key.

In Misson Impossible, when a message reached its intended recipient it would self-destruct so nobody else could view it. If data could be treated the same way, then when an attacker exfiltrated it to a new server, the copy would self-destruct. Data breaches would be somewhat irrelevant.  

The technology created by startup Ionic Security doesn't do that exactly, but it achieves largely the same effect. The company just came out of stealth mode this week, unveiling the Ionic.com data protection platform. 

It's an encryption solution that seals the encryption keys onto the data and doesn't let go. It encrypts everything, then grants access based on very specific parameters...very specific.

If necessary, you could use the tool to say that this particular word in this particular file can only be seen by this user, and only when he's using this device, and only when he's in this building, and only on this date.  

For organizations dealing with classified data and redacted documents, this makes perfect sense. It could assuage worries about Social Security numbers that might be copied and pasted into document after document after document. It could address the concerns of organizations worried about intellectual property being slurped onto a removable drive and sold to a competitor. 

The tool, says Adam Ghetti, Founder and CTO of Ionic Security, makes sure "your data is really, really dumb. If it goes somewhere [Ionic is] not, it doesn't work."

Of course, in order to accomplish this "pixel-level security," as Ghetti describes it, you need a lot of encryption keys; one file might contain dozens of separate pieces of data, each signed with its own unique key. Sounds problematic, since one of the main reasons enterprises eschew encryption is because key management is such a hassle.

Ionic offers "key management management" as a service, and manages literally trillions of keys through a key grid, which customers could either have in the cloud or on-premise. 

Ghetti says that making the tool user-friendly was also a priority, so that the IT department could set the umbrella policies, but the individual data encryption keys could be easily managed by the regular staff (or line of business managers) who own the data.

He says the company's goal is to move away from a fear-based approach to security and instead be fearless. Instead of saying you can't, say "You can get the data. But under the way we've negotiated."

Sara Peters is Senior Editor at Dark Reading and formerly the editor-in-chief of Enterprise Efficiency. Prior that she was senior editor for the Computer Security Institute, writing and speaking about virtualization, identity management, cybersecurity law, and a myriad ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Drew Conry-Murray
50%
50%
Drew Conry-Murray,
User Rank: Ninja
4/17/2015 | 10:42:21 AM
Policy Complexity?
This sounds like a step forward from enterprise DRM products that tried something similar but didn't really catch on. One issue that occurs to me is policy. It's great if you can as granular as the article describes, but it seems like that granularity requires a lot of management and updating as people are added or removed, access levels change, who needs to see the data changes, etc. Maybe this is a technology you'd want to use sparingly, just for the most-sensitive data types and where the policy hang-ups would be worth the risk reduction.
Whoopty
50%
50%
Whoopty,
User Rank: Ninja
4/16/2015 | 7:19:08 AM
Interesting
Interesting concept. Since Ionic is a US company though, I wonder if it would be held accountable by the NSA or FBI if criminal organisations manage to use this technology to obfuscate their files and information? Similarly so, would Ionic be forced to hand over keys to the authorities if they are unable to monitor company data that way?
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/14/2020
Lock-Pickers Face an Uncertain Future Online
Seth Rosenblatt, Contributing Writer,  8/10/2020
Hacking It as a CISO: Advice for Security Leadership
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 New Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities That Could Put Your Enterprise at Risk
In this Dark Reading Tech Digest, we look at the ways security researchers and ethical hackers find critical vulnerabilities and offer insights into how you can fix them before attackers can exploit them.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-17475
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of authentication in the network relays used in MEGVII Koala 2.9.1-c3s allows attackers to grant physical access to anyone by sending packet data to UDP port 5000.
CVE-2020-0255
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2020-10751. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2020-10751. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2020-10751 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-14353
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2017-18270. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2017-18270. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2017-18270 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-17464
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none.
CVE-2020-17473
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of mutual authentication in ZKTeco FaceDepot 7B 1.0.213 and ZKBiosecurity Server 1.0.0_20190723 allows an attacker to obtain a long-lasting token by impersonating the server.