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.

Mobile

5/9/2017
02:00 PM
John Brenberg
John Brenberg
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Shining a Light on Security’s Grey Areas: Process, People, Technology

The changing distributed and mobile business landscape brings with it new security and privacy risks. Here's how to meet the challenge.

Security and privacy programs are best managed within the boundaries of a company’s people, processes and technologies. But now the lines that define those boundaries are changing – even disappearing.

Today’s workers aren’t isolated to fixed locations and routine schedules. They’re mobile, with virtually anytime, anywhere access to a growing abundance of sensitive information. And data can no longer be expected to be stored and transmitted on premise, but rather through cloud-based and virtual systems.

The transition from well-defined boundaries to these “grey areas” has created greater complexity and confusion when it comes to protecting data. But there are actions companies can take to better understand the risks, and ensure security and privacy programs keep pace with them.

Process: Refreshing Privacy and Security Efforts
Business is changing faster than ever in today’s connected, global economy through traditional means such as acquisitions, organic growth and new market opportunities, as well as more and better data, and connectivity. Both trends are dramatically upending business models, operations, products and services.

As companies change, so should their security and privacy efforts. For example, security and privacy professionals should continually monitor their company’s most valuable assets, such as intellectual property and customer data. From there, they can identify the risks that those assets face, and implement the appropriate safeguards.

People: Managing the Human Factor
The burden of information protection is shifting toward the workers as they become more mobile. Companies must be proactive about providing technology and training to help workers be mindful of their surroundings and the information they access in public places.

These efforts are important. But employee behavior can be hard to change - and will always be prone to human error. That’s why additional safeguards that provide an added level of protection and reduce the burden on the employee can be vital.

Visual hacking prevention is one key example. Visual hacking is the act of viewing or capturing private, sensitive or classified information for unauthorized use. It can be as simple as someone seeing and remembering your company network’s log-in details. Or it can involve using any number of modern technologies to record private organizational or customer information. Employees can – and should – use physical safeguards to block out views of onlookers, who might be looking to glean information from a quick glance or even by recording it with a smartphone camera.

Meanwhile, office workers face increasingly sophisticated attacks. This includes spearphishing, which use social engineering and knowledge about specific workers to target and trick them into clicking on malware-laced links and attachments.

Real-time training, such as with mock phishing services, can test employee performance against these schemes and help companies keep pace with fast-evolving threats. Data-loss prevention technologies can track and restrict employee actions when handling sensitive data, which can help prevent both unintentional and malicious data breaches.

Technology: Addressing New Risks
Security and privacy professionals should revisit their policies when making network and technology infrastructure changes, such as moving from traditional data centers to cloud computing. For instance, security teams will need to identify whether the log-monitoring technologies used in their corporate data centers can be extended to data in the cloud. They may discover they need to incorporate additional security, such as security incident and event management (SIEM) services.

Additionally, a number of security services, such as authentication, file-integrity management and vulnerability scanning, are available through the cloud. This may be more efficient and cost-effective than licensing, installing and managing such services at the company’s on-premise data center.

Either way, whether security services are managed through the cloud or in company-managed data centers, policies and standards should be updated to clearly define an approved approach.

Related Content:

 

John Brenberg has over 30 years of experience spanning new product introduction, system development, infrastructure management and information security and compliance across multiple business segments and processes. He is responsible for leading the IT programs for ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
RetiredUser
50%
50%
RetiredUser,
User Rank: Ninja
7/31/2017 | 3:57:58 PM
Re: Agreed, process must be revisited
One process area that is in sore need of revision in InfoSec is Requirements Gathering.  While InfoSec should always be a DevOps environment (IMHO), when it isn't (security appliance industry) there must be a more expansive R&D process to fully understand the technology being used to penetrate large enterprises, especially where the most sensitive data is at risk.  We see so many large apps go to market with fancy tools that seem to entirely rely upon the user to configure and make successful.  InfoSec should not be in the business of selling widgets.  Instead, we need more proactive, intelligent and fully operational defenses for users where development keeps up with the underground and is constantly gathering requirements that lend to patches and point releases that can keep pace with the quickly evolving tools of cyber criminals.

 
LMaida
50%
50%
LMaida,
User Rank: Author
7/17/2017 | 3:51:13 PM
Agreed, process must be revisited
Great insights, John. I especailly agree with the idea that organizations need to revisit process, especially around security operations and incident response. Sometimes the process is the problem, and makes organizations reative instead of proactive. 
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/21/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
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
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-5783
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-23
In IgniteNet HeliOS GLinq v2.2.1 r2961, the login functionality does not contain any CSRF protection mechanisms.
CVE-2020-11031
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-23
In GLPI before version 9.5.0, the encryption algorithm used is insecure. The security of the data encrypted relies on the password used, if a user sets a weak/predictable password, an attacker could decrypt data. This is fixed in version 9.5.0 by using a more secure encryption library. The library c...
CVE-2020-5781
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-23
In IgniteNet HeliOS GLinq v2.2.1 r2961, the langSelection parameter is stored in the luci configuration file (/etc/config/luci) by the authenticator.htmlauth function. When modified with arbitrary javascript, this causes a denial-of-service condition for all other users.
CVE-2020-5782
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-23
In IgniteNet HeliOS GLinq v2.2.1 r2961, if a user logs in and sets the ‘wan_type’ parameter, the wan interface for the device will become unreachable, which results in a denial of service condition for devices dependent on this connection.
CVE-2020-24213
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-23
An integer overflow was discovered in YGOPro ygocore v13.51. Attackers can use it to leak the game server thread's memory.