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.

Risk

8/16/2012
01:00 PM
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Don't Trust Cloud Security

Companies using cloud services need to verify, not trust, that a provider's controls will actually protect their data.

InformationWeek Green - August 20, 2012 InformationWeek Green
Download the entire August 20, 2012, issue of InformationWeek, distributed in an all-digital format as part of our Green Initiative
(Registration required.)
We will plant a tree for each of the first 5,000 downloads.

Don't Trust Cloud Security

A common question about the cloud is whether it's more secure than a data center. But that's the wrong question to ask. Instead, customers and potential customers of public cloud services--whether infrastructure-as-a-service, platform-as-a-service, software-as-a-service, or some other as-a-service--need to ask whether a cloud provider's controls are sufficient to limit the risk a customer is willing to take with its data.

Most cloud providers say, "Trust us, we're secure." But you shouldn't take them at their word. A variety of options are available to assess a cloud provider's controls: basic questionnaires, standardized reports, technical audits, vulnerability scans, and full-blown penetration attempts that put a provider's security to the test.

You must assess the pros and cons of each approach and find the provider that takes the same (or better) care with your data as you would. It's not easy, but it's a lot better than cleaning up the mess left by a breach.

Get The Security You Need

Security is a top concern with the public cloud. Consider that 27% of respondents to the InformationWeek 2012 Cloud Security and Risk Survey say they have no plans to use public cloud services. And 48% of those respondents say their primary reason for not doing so is related to security, including fears of leaks of customer and proprietary data.

What about those who have adopted, plan to adopt, or are considering cloud services? They're worried, too. Security concerns easily trump other significant issues, including cloud performance, vendor lock-in, and the ability to recover data if a customer ends the service or a provider goes out of business, according to our survey. However, while security concerns are paramount, companies also see significant benefits to cloud adoption. When we asked why companies adopt or would adopt cloud computing, the top response was lower capital costs. A close second was the reduced burden on IT. Despite security concerns, companies are moving to the cloud for business reasons.

In an ideal world, companies would carefully inspect any public cloud provider they intend to use. But that doesn't seem to be the case among all our survey respondents. We asked respondents using or planning to use a provider to compare the provider's security controls with their own; 20% say the provider has superior controls, and another 20% say the provider's controls are on par with their own. However, 31% say they have no idea, because they haven't examined the controls in depth. In other words, they're going on blind faith.

But it doesn't have to be this way. At the very least, companies considering a cloud service should take advantage of the documentation that most providers make available to customers and potential customers. The most common is the Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements 16, a set of auditing standards that replaced the well-known SAS 70. In an SSAE 16 report, a provider describes its security and technology controls, a third-party auditor reviews them, and the provider's management attests that the controls are in place.

To read the rest of the article,
Download the Aug. 20, 2012, issue of InformationWeek

Verify, Don't Trust

Our full report on cloud security is free with registration.

This report includes 31 pages of action-oriented analysis, packed with 25 charts. What you'll find:
  • Pros and cons of assessment tools
  • How to make the most of SSAE 16 and other reports
Get This And All Our Reports


Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 11/19/2020
New Proposed DNS Security Features Released
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  11/19/2020
The Yellow Brick Road to Risk Management
Andrew Lowe, Senior Information Security Consultant, TalaTek,  11/19/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: He hits the gong anytime he sees someone click on an email link.
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
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-14191
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
Affected versions of Atlassian Fisheye/Crucible allow remote attackers to impact the application's availability via a Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability in the MessageBundleResource within Atlassian Gadgets. The affected versions are before version 4.8.4.
CVE-2020-29070
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
osCommerce 2.3.4.1 has XSS vulnerability via the authenticated user entering the XSS payload into the title section of newsletters.
CVE-2020-26212
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
GLPI stands for Gestionnaire Libre de Parc Informatique and it is a Free Asset and IT Management Software package, that provides ITIL Service Desk features, licenses tracking and software auditing. In GLPI before version 9.5.3, any authenticated user has read-only permissions to the planning of ever...
CVE-2020-26243
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
Nanopb is a small code-size Protocol Buffers implementation. In Nanopb before versions 0.4.4 and 0.3.9.7, decoding specifically formed message can leak memory if dynamic allocation is enabled and an oneof field contains a static submessage that contains a dynamic field, and the message being decoded...
CVE-2020-25650
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
A flaw was found in the way the spice-vdagentd daemon handled file transfers from the host system to the virtual machine. Any unprivileged local guest user with access to the UNIX domain socket path `/run/spice-vdagentd/spice-vdagent-sock` could use this flaw to perform a memory denial of service fo...