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.

Partner Perspectives  Connecting marketers to our tech communities.
SPONSORED BY
2/7/2018
09:00 AM
Paul Martini
Paul Martini
Partner Perspectives
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
50%
50%

Top Cloud Security Misconceptions Plaguing Enterprises

Contrary to popular opinion, there is no one single cloud. There are a wealth of cloud-based providers that own dedicated server space across the globe. Here's how to find the best fit for your company.

Despite all the buzz over the past decade, the cloud remains a bit of a mystery for many users who rely on it day-to-day. The cloud has made it easy for companies to embrace a number of "as-a-service" technologies seamlessly and lowered cost by eliminating the need to purchase security tools and appliances.

Yet adopting cloud operations blindly – as with any new workflow or technology – comes with risks. This is especially important in the context of how these tools are delivered, and whether they are a good fit for an organization based in specific needs.

All Clouds Are Not Created Equal
For starters, there is not just one single cloud. There are a wealth of cloud-based security providers that own dedicated server space across the globe, and each of their offerings is unique based upon their own business focus and target demographics. The cloud providers operating most widely in the enterprise are shared-tenant cloud environments where customers’ data and information is managed in one database and controlled using the same central operating system.

While a shared environment may not be much of a concern when cloud applications are used for programs such as marketing, that don't involve customer data or other personal identifiable information.  However, there may be significant impacts on enterprises who store and manage customer data in the cloud, for example, when security tools might redirect a customer’s traffic from one jurisdiction to a data center in a location with a different set of compliance standards. If a business operates within an industry that is privy to heavy regulations – especially where geolocation and PII sharing is concerned – they need to be sure their cloud provider isn’t bringing the data to a location that leaves them exposed to noncompliance penalties.

A prime example of this is the increased regulations stemming from Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR  – which dictates strict rules about collecting personally identifiable information (PII) – further complicate  the issue of protecting customer data in the cloud. When a customer’s data is in a multi-tenant cloud that is shared, the ability to isolate a customer’s data becomes difficult. Next-generation cloud security solutions are making fast-work of addressing this, by leveraging multi-tenant cloud platforms with non-shared architectures, which give each customer their own operating system for content management and control.

Synchronized Management Workflow
A significant concern when implementing cloud security solutions from a multi-tenant shared cloud provider is that these tools might force organizations to employ a number of non-compatible security solutions, requiring multiple management consoles that create a disjointed workflow. For instance, in situations where organizations are collecting highly sensitive information, they may require an on-premises secure web gateway to ensure that data is isolated from outside traffic. The traditional ‘hybrid’ solution – using cloud-based and on-premises security tools to vet traffic –doesn’t provide a seamless view across the organization, resulting in security blind spots that impact the ability of teams to respond to an incident.

The majority of newer cloud security solutions within the industry decouple the physical from the virtual and provide a multi-tenant cloud with non-shared resources that deliver the best of both worlds. The result is greater visibility across the organization, shorter incident response times and substantial cost savings by avoiding the need to purchase appliances. Businesses need to consider protections that can align their security mission without forcing teams to continually purchase hardware and overcomplicate their security infrastructure. 

Paul Martini is the CEO, co-founder and chief architect of iboss, where he pioneered the award-winning iboss Distributed Gateway Platform, a web gateway as a service. Paul has been recognized for his leadership and innovation, receiving the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of The ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 7/9/2020
Omdia Research Launches Page on Dark Reading
Tim Wilson, Editor in Chief, Dark Reading 7/9/2020
4 Security Tips as the July 15 Tax-Day Extension Draws Near
Shane Buckley, President & Chief Operating Officer, Gigamon,  7/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15105
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
Django Two-Factor Authentication before 1.12, stores the user's password in clear text in the user session (base64-encoded). The password is stored in the session when the user submits their username and password, and is removed once they complete authentication by entering a two-factor authenticati...
CVE-2020-11061
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
In Bareos Director less than or equal to 16.2.10, 17.2.9, 18.2.8, and 19.2.7, a heap overflow allows a malicious client to corrupt the director's memory via oversized digest strings sent during initialization of a verify job. Disabling verify jobs mitigates the problem. This issue is also patched in...
CVE-2020-4042
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
Bareos before version 19.2.8 and earlier allows a malicious client to communicate with the director without knowledge of the shared secret if the director allows client initiated connection and connects to the client itself. The malicious client can replay the Bareos director's cram-md5 challenge to...
CVE-2020-11081
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
osquery before version 4.4.0 enables a priviledge escalation vulnerability. If a Window system is configured with a PATH that contains a user-writable directory then a local user may write a zlib1.dll DLL, which osquery will attempt to load. Since osquery runs with elevated privileges this enables l...
CVE-2020-6114
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
An exploitable SQL injection vulnerability exists in the Admin Reports functionality of Glacies IceHRM v26.6.0.OS (Commit bb274de1751ffb9d09482fd2538f9950a94c510a) . A specially crafted HTTP request can cause SQL injection. An attacker can make an authenticated HTTP request to trigger this vulnerabi...