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

Obstacles Nick NAC, But Growth Continues

Most companies are getting network access control, but cost and lack of integration still are pain points

The vast majority of companies are deploying network access control (NAC) technology as a means of securing their endpoints -- but they aren't all happy about it.

That's the gist of a new survey, conducted by Applied Research West, which was published earlier today by Symantec.

In interviews with 300 security pros at the recent InfoSecurity 2007 conference in New York, Applied Research found that nearly 70 percent of companies surveyed have already implemented NAC products or plan to do so in the next 12 months.

NAC, which is offered by virtually all the major security tool vendors, including Cisco and Microsoft, has often been ballyhooed as the answer to the question of how to secure desktops, laptops, and mobile endpoints. But a diversity of products and confusion about the technology's capabilities have slowed deployment. (See NAC: Can't Get No Satisfaction.)

Interestingly, 86 percent of the survey respondents who had deployed NAC said they had "no problems" deploying NAC and that everything went smoothly. But the question allowed users to have multiple responses, and 21 percent said they had difficulty integrating NAC with other security hardware and software. Eighteen percent said NAC used too many resources, including people, equipment, and time, and 16 percent complained about the lack of industry standards.

More than 30 percent of respondents said they have no plans to deploy NAC within the next 12 months. Of those respondents, 35 percent said the technology is too costly; 27 percent said NAC is not interoperable with their current infrastructure or operating systems; 20 said it is "too disruptive" to implement.

Many of the security pros complained about NAC's interoperability issues. Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would prefer to buy all-in-one products from a single vendor, rather than multiple products from multiple vendors. Sixty-one percent say they believe vendors should adopt standards for NAC.

In its early phases, NAC was promoted as a means of safely connecting guests and mobile users to the corporate network. So far, however, only 27 percent of users say they are using NAC for guest access. Eighty percent of enterprises that have deployed NAC say they did it to prevent unauthorized users from entering their networks. Sixty-six percent say they did it to protect critical business assets and prevent data loss.

Similarly, early discussions of NAC focused on policy enforcement at the endpoint, forcing users to meet specific security requirements before allowing them onto the network. But 63 percent now say they prefer NAC enforcement to take place within the network, using existing network security features, rather than at the endpoint.

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

Tim Wilson is Editor in Chief and co-founder of Dark Reading.com, UBM Tech's online community for information security professionals. He is responsible for managing the site, assigning and editing content, and writing breaking news stories. Wilson has been recognized as one ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
News
Former CISA Director Chris Krebs Discusses Risk Management & Threat Intel
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/23/2021
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
Security + Fraud Protection: Your One-Two Punch Against Cyberattacks
Joshua Goldfarb, Director of Product Management at F5,  2/23/2021
News
Cybercrime Groups More Prolific, Focus on Healthcare in 2020
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/22/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Building the SOC of the Future
Building the SOC of the Future
Digital transformation, cloud-focused attacks, and a worldwide pandemic. The past year has changed the way business works and the way security teams operate. There is no going back.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-20327
PUBLISHED: 2021-02-25
A specific version of the Node.js mongodb-client-encryption module does not perform correct validation of the KMS server’s certificate. This vulnerability in combination with a privileged network position active MITM attack could result in interception of traffic between the Node....
CVE-2021-20328
PUBLISHED: 2021-02-25
Specific versions of the Java driver that support client-side field level encryption (CSFLE) fail to perform correct host name verification on the KMS server’s certificate. This vulnerability in combination with a privileged network position active MITM attack could result in inte...
CVE-2020-27543
PUBLISHED: 2021-02-25
The restify-paginate package 0.0.5 for Node.js allows remote attackers to cause a Denial-of-Service by omitting the HTTP Host header. A Restify-based web service would crash with an uncaught exception.
CVE-2020-23534
PUBLISHED: 2021-02-25
A server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Upgrade.php of gopeak masterlab 2.1.5, via the 'source' parameter.
CVE-2021-27330
PUBLISHED: 2021-02-25
Triconsole Datepicker Calendar <3.77 is affected by cross-site scripting (XSS) in calendar_form.php. Attackers can read authentication cookies that are still active, which can be used to perform further attacks such as reading browser history, directory listings, and file contents.