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

3/4/2016
12:30 PM
Paul Shomo
Paul Shomo
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Why Marrying Infosec & Info Governance Boosts Security Capabilities

In today's data centric world, security pros need to know where sensitive data is supposed to be, not just where it actually is now.

Cybersecurity is an industry of espionage, crime markets, and cyber mercenaries reverse engineering the weapons of warring states. Perhaps these stories are so sensational that we’re focusing a too much on the bad guys. That’s a bold assertion in an industry driven by threat intelligence, yet our perimeters have already been invaded, and we’re occupied. Shouldn’t we focus on circling the wagons around our sensitive data?

It used to be that a perimeter breach caused a stir. Today, hacker ownage of endpoints could be another day at the office -- unless our beloved customer data has been accessed. Unfortunately, the Identity Theft Resource Center reports the number breaches stayed the same in 2015, yet hackers have been twice as successful getting to our data. Confidential data only exists on a minority of endpoints, yet cyber criminals are better at getting to these select machines than we are at defending them. We had better prioritize our defense with data-centric thinking, fast.

When I say data-centric security, I’m not really talking about the traditional role of Data Loss Prevention (DLP), which in the past has attempted to block commandeering of sensitive data. History teaches us that the perimeter is no match for today’s cybercriminals. Hackers shouldn’t be holding our crown jewels with only perimeter technologies standing between them and victory. Data-centric security begins far earlier and involves knowing where our sensitive data is supposed to be, versus where it is now.

If we know that only 10 percent of our endpoints hold sensitive data, our vital attack surface is significantly reduced. We certainly wouldn’t surrender the 90 percent, but for this vital network segment we’d have the ability to tighten policies, increase budget, and prioritize response. Our security team’s efficiency would skyrocket by focusing on 1/10th of our attack surface.

Selectively spotting data during transfer is one thing, but digging through all the sensitive data “at rest” is not that easy. Anyone who has keyword searched their hard drive knows how time and I/O intensive it is. Searching every endpoint is one thing, but proprietary document stores, intranets and cloud repositories, are difficult to access. Yet, software exists to do this, and is probably already utilized by your compliance departments for data audits and to respond to court subpoenas in the eDiscovery process.

The second problem is that knowledge of what sensitive data looks like is segregated within companies. Finding customer contact info, credit card, and social security numbers is fairly straightforward. Using jargon to locate health records and financials is a little tougher. But do you think infosec at Coca Cola knows the secret ingredients needed to spot its intellectual property? Hardly! This type of knowledge is siloed in compliance, legal, and other departments accustomed to hierarchies of privilege where certain employees know secret IP keywords, conduct searches, view intimate user data, and provide sterilized reports to the uninitiated. Herein lies the integration point between infosec and compliance: communicating this map of endpoints storing privileged data.

Recently the FCC entered a $25 million settlement with AT&T Services, related to unauthorized disclosure of 280k customer records. The uncertainty over U.S. legal penalties and new EU privacy regulations are driving a new Information Governance (IG) market. These IG folks will soon appear in new positions, such as chief information governance officer (CIGO), or other titles with the acronym IG. Their mission will be tracking, regulating, and enforcing sensitive data policies.

The growth of the IG market is sure to funnel some resources from infosec, but making data-centric security possible is a net gain. The Ponemon Institute counts the average cost of a single stolen customer record at $154, and goes as high as $363 for healthcare organizations. This means theft of only a few thousand records incurs costs in the millions.

As I’ve already mentioned, infosec efficiency could be increased with a map of endpoints housing these confidential records. Today we receive alerts as these records exit our perimeter. Why not receive a “Data Displacement Event” earlier, as data appears where it’s not supposed to be? Detecting data gathered by hackers before exfiltration could save millions.

Infosec should respond to a data displacement event with the same vigor as locating malware. Quick, put the forensic security expertise on answering the priority questions of the day! How did these records get here? Which users or programs accessed them? Have they already been transferred externally?

In the post perimeter world, it’s time for a new way of thinking. If there isn’t a boat or a shoreline nearby, nobody cares if a Tsunami hits the middle of the ocean. Similarly, the location of sensitive data means everything in judging the importance of a security incident or endpoint pwnage. It’s time we allow the people who defend an organization’s private data to benefit from those who can recognize what these records look like, and where they are.

Related Content:


Interop 2016 Las VegasFind out more about security threats at Interop 2016, May 2-6, at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center, Las Vegas. Register today and receive an early bird discount of $200.

Prior to becoming an independent analyst, Paul Shomo was one of the engineering and product leaders behind the forensics software EnCase. In addition to his work in the digital forensics and incident response (DFIR) space, he developed code for OSes that power many of today's ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
News
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Commentary
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
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
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-28797
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
A stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability has been reported to affect QNAP NAS devices running Surveillance Station. If exploited, this vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary code. QNAP have already fixed this vulnerability in the following versions: Surveillance Station 5.1.5.4.3 (an...
CVE-2020-36323
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
In the standard library in Rust before 1.50.3, there is an optimization for joining strings that can cause uninitialized bytes to be exposed (or the program to crash) if the borrowed string changes after its length is checked.
CVE-2021-31162
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
In the standard library in Rust before 1.53.0, a double free can occur in the Vec::from_iter function if freeing the element panics.
CVE-2017-20004
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
In the standard library in Rust before 1.19.0, there is a synchronization problem in the MutexGuard object. MutexGuards can be used across threads with any types, allowing for memory safety issues through race conditions.
CVE-2018-25008
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
In the standard library in Rust before 1.29.0, there is weak synchronization in the Arc::get_mut method. This synchronization issue can be lead to memory safety issues through race conditions.