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
Newest First  |  Oldest 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. 
DevSecOps: The Answer to the Cloud Security Skills Gap
Lamont Orange, Chief Information Security Officer at Netskope,  11/15/2019
Attackers' Costs Increasing as Businesses Focus on Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  11/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: -when I told you that our cyber-defense was from another age
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2011-3349
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
lightdm before 0.9.6 writes in .dmrc and Xauthority files using root permissions while the files are in user controlled folders. A local user can overwrite root-owned files via a symlink, which can allow possible privilege escalation.
CVE-2019-10080
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
The XMLFileLookupService in NiFi versions 1.3.0 to 1.9.2 allowed trusted users to inadvertently configure a potentially malicious XML file. The XML file has the ability to make external calls to services (via XXE) and reveal information such as the versions of Java, Jersey, and Apache that the NiFI ...
CVE-2019-10083
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
When updating a Process Group via the API in NiFi versions 1.3.0 to 1.9.2, the response to the request includes all of its contents (at the top most level, not recursively). The response included details about processors and controller services which the user may not have had read access to.
CVE-2019-12421
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
When using an authentication mechanism other than PKI, when the user clicks Log Out in NiFi versions 1.0.0 to 1.9.2, NiFi invalidates the authentication token on the client side but not on the server side. This permits the user's client-side token to be used for up to 12 hours after logging out to m...
CVE-2019-19126
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
On the x86-64 architecture, the GNU C Library (aka glibc) before 2.31 fails to ignore the LD_PREFER_MAP_32BIT_EXEC environment variable during program execution after a security transition, allowing local attackers to restrict the possible mapping addresses for loaded libraries and thus bypass ASLR ...