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.

Operations

9/30/2019
09:00 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

8 Microsegmentation Pitfalls to Avoid

Don't fall victim to these common mistakes on the path to developing better security boundaries and limiting the blast radius of security incidents.
Previous
1 of 9
Next

Image Source: Adobe

Image Source: Adobe

The practice of microsegmentation takes the principles of least privilege to their logical conclusion by atomizing the isolating techniques of network segmentation. Security architects use microsegmentation to create security boundaries that can extend all the way into individual workloads by controlling East-West, or server-to-server, traffic flows between applications. The bulkheads put up through microsegmentation make it possible to better limit lateral movement of attackers, even in a cloudy world with no perimeter.

But the practice can be tricky to get right, and many experts warn that the journey to effective microsegmentation is fraught with pitfalls. Here are a few suggestions about how to avoid the mistakes en route to effective microsegmentation.

 

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 9
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
ArielZ999
50%
50%
ArielZ999,
User Rank: Author
11/7/2019 | 4:55:18 AM
Micro-segmentation is scary
From my experience the truth is that simple segmentation and zoning is very hard in todays environments - people are struggling to separate PROD from DEV in anything but non trivial environments. let alone doing smth that is even close to micro.
The biggest mistake that people make, imho, is that they try to move from 0 to 100 and the comlexity vs. the marginal benefit over a much more modest segmentation goals is what kills the project, unfortunatelly for many years in an organization, once they fail it will take them a long time to try again. And frankly for most organizations it seams so "unachievable" that they do not even start doing it. 
My recommendation is to define modest goals such as separate prod from dev and select ~10-20 of you most cirital apps to ring-fence this achievable especially if leveraging the modern micro-segmentation technologies and you will be in a much much better place from your risk perspective. 
Firms Improve Threat Detection but Face Increasingly Disruptive Attacks
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/20/2020
Ransomware Damage Hit $11.5B in 2019
Dark Reading Staff 2/20/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-17274
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
NetApp FAS 8300/8700 and AFF A400 Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) firmware versions 13.x prior to 13.1P1 were shipped with a default account enabled that could allow unauthorized arbitrary command execution via local access.
CVE-2019-17275
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
OnCommand Cloud Manager versions prior to 3.8.0 are susceptible to arbitrary code execution by remote attackers.
CVE-2020-3169
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
A vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco FXOS Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying Linux operating system with a privilege level of root on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of arguments passed to a spe...
CVE-2020-3170
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
A vulnerability in the NX-API feature of Cisco NX-OS Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause an NX-API system process to unexpectedly restart. The vulnerability is due to incorrect validation of the HTTP header of a request that is sent to the NX-API. An attacker could expl...
CVE-2020-3171
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
A vulnerability in the local management (local-mgmt) CLI of Cisco FXOS Software and Cisco UCS Manager Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system (OS) of an affected device. The vulnerability is due to insufficient input vali...