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

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
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
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. 
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/4/2020
Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
How AI and Automation Can Help Bridge the Cybersecurity Talent Gap
Peter Barker, Chief Product Officer at ForgeRock,  6/1/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: What? IT said I needed virus protection!
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-13842
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). A dangerous AT command was made available even though it is unused. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200010 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13843
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS software before 2020-06-01. Local users can cause a denial of service because checking of the userdata partition is mishandled. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200014 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13839
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via a custom AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200007 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13840
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via an MTK AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200008 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13841
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 9 and 10 (MTK chipsets). An AT command handler allows attackers to bypass intended access restrictions. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200009 (June 2020).