Perimeter

3/8/2017
10:30 AM
Stan Black
Stan Black
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Trust, Cloud & the Quest for a Glass Wall around Security

In the next year, we're going to see a leap towards strategic, business-level objectives that can be resolved by simplifying infrastructure and granting greater visibility in real time.

With more businesses committed to the cloud, we all need to be asking questions about where our data is stored, how it’s accessed, how data is regulated as it crosses international borders, and how threats are detected, mitigated or (hopefully it doesn’t come to this) remediated.

Security is a business and needs to be treated like one. Instead of getting into the technical weeds and trying to solve security problems with tactics, businesses need a smart strategy. That starts with asking the right questions and up-leveling the conversation with the goal of getting to the heart of a problem to put an end to it.

As found in a recent study by Citrix and the Ponemon Institute:

  • 64% of respondents said they do not believe their organization can effectively reduce the inherent risk of unmanaged data.
  • 68% said their employee-owned devices might be allowing criminals access to corporate networks and data.
  • 60% said that they’re not effective in protecting sensitive apps and data at-rest, in-use and in-motion
  • Only 37% of respondents said their organization is highly effective in using access control and multi-factor authentication solutions to protect information on devices, servers or in the cloud.

All of these statistics show the same thing – businesses are still trying to solve security business challenges with tactics, instead of looking at the big picture. The industry itself needs to adopt a more proactive, preventative mindset, and build security into solution architectures. Only by doing that can businesses get back to the core of their business and let IT companies worry about IT.

Prevention Trumps Detection
As businesses get smarter about security, we’re going to see them taking a closer look at prevention technologies rather than detection. This will move the industry to a more strategic level, versus tactical problem-solving through traditional detection and analysis services that merely confirm that you have a problem. (Not helpful!) Organizations need to know where to find the solution and what they can do about the problem. These are the business-level questions that need to be addressed first.

In the next couple of years, we’re going to see more adoption of prevention technologies that incorporate machine learning and predictive analytics that identify normal versus abnormal behaviors. The process of behavior analytics will be automated to proactively identify anomalous behaviors, flag them, and require additional credentials to “pass go.” As more businesses adopt and become familiar with cloud security and emerging technology best practices, trust is going to become a measureable outcome.

Don’t Underestimate Trust
For the first time, we’re seeing that trust can be delivered across the hybrid infrastructure without ten layers of detection and "deterrents.” In the next year, we’re going to see a leap towards simplification of infrastructure, and removal of security technologies that aren’t adding value.

Going back to the Ponemon study, respondents said that the top two goals of a new security framework include a unified view of users across the enterprise (53%) and the ability to keep up with new or emerging attacks (48%). These are business-level strategic objectives that can be solved by simplifying infrastructure and creating more visibility.

This simplification is going to naturally lead to a more unified view across the enterprise. The goal is to give IT a glass wall where they can easily see what’s happening across the enterprise and address issues in real-time. The outcome of that will be a more strategic security organization that can stop threats before they become breaches.

Related Content:

 

Stan Black, CISSP, is CSIO of Citrix where he is in charge of the secure delivery of applications and data to some of the world's largest organizations in healthcare, financial services, public sector, and manufacturing. Black defines a converged cyber security posture ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Election Websites, Back-End Systems Most at Risk of Cyberattack in Midterms
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/14/2018
Intel Reveals New Spectre-Like Vulnerability
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  8/15/2018
Australian Teen Hacked Apple Network
Dark Reading Staff 8/17/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-14981
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-17
Certain LG devices based on Android 6.0 through 8.1 have incorrect access control for SystemUI application intents. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-180005.
CVE-2018-14982
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-17
Certain LG devices based on Android 6.0 through 8.1 have incorrect access control in the GNSS application. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-180004.
CVE-2018-15482
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-17
Certain LG devices based on Android 6.0 through 8.1 have incorrect access control for MLT application intents. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-180006.
CVE-2018-15473
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-17
OpenSSH through 7.7 is prone to a user enumeration vulnerability due to not delaying bailout for an invalid authenticating user until after the packet containing the request has been fully parsed, related to auth2-gss.c, auth2-hostbased.c, and auth2-pubkey.c.
CVE-2018-15471
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-17
An issue was discovered in xenvif_set_hash_mapping in drivers/net/xen-netback/hash.c in the Linux kernel through 4.18.1, as used in Xen through 4.11.x and other products. The Linux netback driver allows frontends to control mapping of requests to request queues. When processing a request to set or c...