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.

Analytics

12/27/2012
09:14 PM
Dark Reading
Dark Reading
Quick Hits
50%
50%

How To Get Your MSSP In Line With Expectations

Managed security service providers can help your organization save time and money -- if you know the right way to work with them

Excerpted from "How to Get Your MSSP In Line With Expectations," a new, free report posted this week on Dark Reading's Security Services Tech Center.]

Managed security service providers (MSSPs) can be an effective addition to your security portfolio, or they can be a real drag on your operations. For most companies, the reality of working with a managed security service provider is somewhere in the middle.

Any managed service provider should lift at least some cost and effort burden from IT professionals' shoulders. In a perfect world, any managed service provider should meet all service-level requirements, follow escalation procedures to the letter, and provide five nines (at least) of uptime. Of course, some of your providers will be better than others at meeting these goals. Should you cut all ties with providers that aren't even close? Perhaps, but sometimes it's hard to tell where they -- and your organization as a result -- stand.

Some security service providers promise the moon to get your business, then disappear after you've signed the contract. Others almost -- but don't quite -- meet service-level agreements (SLAs). Some providers will be up front when they have dropped the ball, while others hope you don't find out, setting the IT department up for a doozy of a blindside.

The reality is that MSSPs can miss a disastrous breach. They can fail you at the most inopportune time. They can miss SLAs, and they may not actually be as cheap as you originally thought. And outsourcing business functions doesn't mean that you're also outsourcing responsibility and oversight. You need to manage a service provider just as you would any IT staff person or vendor.

Although it may not feel this way sometimes, the success or failure of a relationship with any security service provider is very much within your control. And that success or failure is as much about the capabilities of your service provider as it is about your ability to manage that provider. You may have to play the part of a lawyer, an engineer, a quality-assurance pro, and a project manager.

Structurally and contractually speaking, managing a relationship with a security service provider is in some ways like managing a relationship with an ISP. ISPs promise you a certain level of service and uptime, and, as a customer, your expectation for how an ISP will perform comes from the service level you were contractually promised.

But that may be where the similarities end.

It's easy to get a handle on how an ISP is performing. With an ISP, your service is either up or down. With an ISP, you can easily quantify and measure uptime, and you can easily test SLAs and escalation procedures.

With MSSPs, on the other hand, it can be much more difficult to verify that you're getting the service you expect. Whether you're entering into an MSSP relationship for the first time or have been using an MSSP for years, you need to commit to designing a process to ensure that your provider is performing as advertised. So while you may not be actively managing your firewall or scanning IPS logs every day, you need to make sure that your MSSP is doing these jobs effectively on your behalf.

For a list of tests and practices you can use to monitor your MSSP's performance -- and some suggestions on what to do if it isn't up to snuff -- download a free copy of the Dark Reading report on managing MSSPs.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add a Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 7/9/2020
Omdia Research Launches Page on Dark Reading
Tim Wilson, Editor in Chief, Dark Reading 7/9/2020
4 Security Tips as the July 15 Tax-Day Extension Draws Near
Shane Buckley, President & Chief Operating Officer, Gigamon,  7/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
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
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
This report describes some of the latest attacks and threats emanating from the Internet, as well as advice and tips on how your organization can mitigate those threats before they affect your business. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15105
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
Django Two-Factor Authentication before 1.12, stores the user's password in clear text in the user session (base64-encoded). The password is stored in the session when the user submits their username and password, and is removed once they complete authentication by entering a two-factor authenticati...
CVE-2020-11061
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
In Bareos Director less than or equal to 16.2.10, 17.2.9, 18.2.8, and 19.2.7, a heap overflow allows a malicious client to corrupt the director's memory via oversized digest strings sent during initialization of a verify job. Disabling verify jobs mitigates the problem. This issue is also patched in...
CVE-2020-4042
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
Bareos before version 19.2.8 and earlier allows a malicious client to communicate with the director without knowledge of the shared secret if the director allows client initiated connection and connects to the client itself. The malicious client can replay the Bareos director's cram-md5 challenge to...
CVE-2020-11081
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
osquery before version 4.4.0 enables a priviledge escalation vulnerability. If a Window system is configured with a PATH that contains a user-writable directory then a local user may write a zlib1.dll DLL, which osquery will attempt to load. Since osquery runs with elevated privileges this enables l...
CVE-2020-6114
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
An exploitable SQL injection vulnerability exists in the Admin Reports functionality of Glacies IceHRM v26.6.0.OS (Commit bb274de1751ffb9d09482fd2538f9950a94c510a) . A specially crafted HTTP request can cause SQL injection. An attacker can make an authenticated HTTP request to trigger this vulnerabi...