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.

Comments
Why Are We So Slow To Detect Data Breaches?
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Clerkendweller
50%
50%
Clerkendweller,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2013 | 10:26:44 AM
re: Why Are We So Slow To Detect Data Breaches?
And remember real-time attack detection and adaptive response within applications themselves where there is knowledge of the user context. Like this http://www.crosstalkonline.org...
douglasmow
50%
50%
douglasmow,
User Rank: Apprentice
6/24/2013 | 8:51:55 PM
re: Why Are We So Slow To Detect Data Breaches?
Erika - The 2013 Verizon Data Breach Report you point to
also highlights how innocent a data breach can appear. Three out of four
intrusions exploit weak or stolen (but otherwise legitimate) credentials, and
another 13 percent result from misuse of information by privileged users,
according to the Report. Organizations need new ways to detect misuse of
information systems. While an account may be legitimate, generally the action
taken is not which can provide early detection of a potential breach.



This is why we see the security industry focusing on the
need for real-time security intelligence and big data, particularly related to
identities, their access, and behavior data to reveal patterns that look risky.
By having a way to analyze risk associated with user access on a continuous
basis, organizations will be able to better protect themselves against internal
and external threats.
James McCabe
50%
50%
James McCabe,
User Rank: Apprentice
6/24/2013 | 2:29:58 PM
re: Why Are We So Slow To Detect Data Breaches?
Ericka makes some well thought out points regarding detection of data breaches. But she misses a major point. Detection is a reactionary response! I think it's great that we can do all this tuning to our sensors and SIEMS, but we're still not PROTECTING the data! You must put protection controls closer to the target - the DATA itself. It must have strong usage policies and encryption. It must restrict who the data is decrypted for. Data should never be decrypted for Administrators/superusers/Root level users. They need to administer the environment in which the data runs in. They are not paid to "look"at data. Having these types of controls in place will go a long way in reducing the attack surface! Let's get our heads out of sand and start thinking about controls closer to the target. We need a paradigm shift in our security thinking.


Florida Town Pays $600K to Ransomware Operators
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  6/20/2019
Pledges to Not Pay Ransomware Hit Reality
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  6/21/2019
AWS CISO Talks Risk Reduction, Development, Recruitment
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/25/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-10133
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
A flaw was found in Moodle before 3.7, 3.6.4, 3.5.6, 3.4.9 and 3.1.18. The form to upload cohorts contained a redirect field, which was not restricted to internal URLs.
CVE-2019-10134
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
A flaw was found in Moodle before 3.7, 3.6.4, 3.5.6, 3.4.9 and 3.1.18. The size of users' private file uploads via email were not correctly checked, so their quota allowance could be exceeded.
CVE-2019-10154
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
A flaw was found in Moodle before versions 3.7, 3.6.4. A web service fetching messages was not restricted to the current user's conversations.
CVE-2019-9039
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
The Couchbase Sync Gateway 2.1.2 in combination with a Couchbase Server is affected by a previously undisclosed N1QL-injection vulnerability in the REST API. An attacker with access to the public REST API can insert additional N1QL statements through the parameters ?startkey? and ?endkey? of the ?_a...
CVE-2018-20846
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
Out-of-bounds accesses in the functions pi_next_lrcp, pi_next_rlcp, pi_next_rpcl, pi_next_pcrl, pi_next_rpcl, and pi_next_cprl in openmj2/pi.c in OpenJPEG through 2.3.0 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash).