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

4/8/2008
06:47 PM
George V. Hulme
George V. Hulme
Commentary
50%
50%

Online Storage: Security Risk Is Minimal

InformationWeek security reporter Thomas Claburn questions the security of online storage services. Do online storage services pose a grave security risk?

InformationWeek security reporter Thomas Claburn questions the security of online storage services. Do online storage services pose a grave security risk?I don't think so. I've been using iDisk (as part of Apple's iLife suite) for a little less than a year now, and enjoy the benefits tremendously. It's not only an online backup service, it also synchronizes files among several Macs, so my current files are kept in sync and available (whether I'm online or not at the time) wherever I happen to be.

Being a security-head, I used to recommend to friends that they not use services such as Mozy, Box.net, Carbonite, or iBackUp.

Now, as Tom points out in his post, HP's new service, dubbed Upline, is competitively priced. But he asks:

But as the price of online storage declines, tempting more and more people to embrace the benefits of having an online remote backup, I have to wonder whether enough attention is being paid at these services to data security. (It seems like an appropriate worry with the commencement of the RSA Conference this week.)

Now it may be that the major data security risk most people face is hard drive failure, in which case having an off-site backup of one's personal files is worth risking the more remote chance of a compromise in the cloud.

But data breaches are a fact of life and many organizations with sophisticated IT security practices have been victimized by even more sophisticated cybercriminals. It's naive to think that consumer-oriented data storage services might be somehow immune.

He has a good point. Nothing is immune, or invulnerable, to attack. But, I'd bet -- especially for those services that charge a reasonable fee -- that these services are far, far more secure than the average hard-drive on an Internet-connected PC. In fact, it's probably more secure than the vast majority of PCs. Yet, because it's such a trove of data, it's also a big, humungo target.

Nonetheless, I feel safe using these services. And if you're really concerned, you can use your own encryption on sensitive files.

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/14/2020
Lock-Pickers Face an Uncertain Future Online
Seth Rosenblatt, Contributing Writer,  8/10/2020
Hacking It as a CISO: Advice for Security Leadership
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 New Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities That Could Put Your Enterprise at Risk
In this Dark Reading Tech Digest, we look at the ways security researchers and ethical hackers find critical vulnerabilities and offer insights into how you can fix them before attackers can exploit them.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-17475
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of authentication in the network relays used in MEGVII Koala 2.9.1-c3s allows attackers to grant physical access to anyone by sending packet data to UDP port 5000.
CVE-2020-0255
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2020-10751. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2020-10751. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2020-10751 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-14353
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2017-18270. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2017-18270. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2017-18270 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-17464
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none.
CVE-2020-17473
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of mutual authentication in ZKTeco FaceDepot 7B 1.0.213 and ZKBiosecurity Server 1.0.0_20190723 allows an attacker to obtain a long-lasting token by impersonating the server.