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

6/17/2008
05:56 PM
George V. Hulme
George V. Hulme
Commentary
50%
50%

There's Value In Data Leak Prevention

Richard "IDS Is Dead" Stiennon is back to his absolutist ways. This time he is aiming (again) at the DLP space.

Richard "IDS Is Dead" Stiennon is back to his absolutist ways. This time he is aiming (again) at the DLP space.Over at his Stiennon On Security Blog, he published the post "Don't Think Data Leak Prevention technology will stop data leaks.":

I pointed out before that data leak prevention is impossible. There are just too many ways for a determined data thief to walk out the door with your most sensitive information.

His example is the recent case where some ninny at MI5 allegedly left top secret documents on a train in the U.K., where they were later located left unattended. Actually, there were two such incidents. Now, any way you slice these incidents it turns out bad. And those responsible were (I hope) breaking clearly defined policies not to carry such documents around town.

More than 20 years ago I was personally fired from an assistant manager's position for leaving a safe unlocked, overnight, with $200 cash in it. The district manager came into the store, and found the safe. I admitted to the neglect, and was fired. And I deserved to be fired. From then on, I learned how to read and follow policy.

I'm not sure why being so lax with confidential documents relating to Iraq and al-Qaeda shouldn't, at the very minimum, result in a public flogging and firing. But I digress.

Back to "Don't Think Data Leak Prevention technology will stop data leaks."

From his post:

With all those paper documents being used to run the intelligence service of England it is surprising there are not more incidents like this. Am I recommending more use of electronic documents? Definitely not, they will just fall into the hands of the Chinese.

All I am saying is that no leak prevention solution will stop leaks. You can curtail the wholesale loss of data though e-mail, and file transfers, but you will not stop executives from leaving printed documents in taxi cabs or airplanes.

So every protected electronic file is going to end up in China? And no data leak prevention solution will stop leaks? OK: let's just give up on technological mitigating controls and policy enforcement. They don't stop anything.

I've news. Hear this: it's the rare security product that will stop any type of breach, in the absolute sense. Security is about risk mitigation, not absolute safety from bad things happening.

Calling DLP impossible is little more than a cheap shot at the DLP market.

Consider the following headlines:

Door Locks Don't Stop Burglaries Vitamins Don't Stop Illness Safes Don't Stop Theft Seat-Belts Don't Stop Automobile Fatalities

Each of these things have value, but they don't (completely) stop anything. They reduce risk, and they stop enough bad things from happening that they're worthwhile. Door locks aren't about making it impossible for your home to be robbed. And no one argued (that I'm aware) that seat belts would bring the end to deadly accidents. It's about lowering your risk for these potentialities. And if you want to further reduce the risk of a home being robbed, one adds more mitigating controls: alarms, dogs, cameras, and armed guards. Maybe you could add nukes with tripwires at the perimeter.

But, oh no, wait a minute. None of those things will stop the risk of burglary. There could always be someone who doesn't care about getting caught, with more guns and a helicopter -- a more powerful adversary who outwits the designed defenses. And maybe, one day, someone would forget to turn the alarm on. It's just impossible.

So maybe I should have protested, so long ago, to my district manager at that retail store that he shouldn't fire me. I mean, locked safes don't stop theft. Someone could always crack the combination, watch the combo being entered, grab the money while it was open, or even force employees at gun-point to open it. It's just impossible to stop the money in that safe from being stolen.

But I suspect that would be missing the point.

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
How to Identify Cobalt Strike on Your Network
Zohar Buber, Security Analyst,  11/18/2020
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-2020-29071
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
An XSS issue was found in the Shares feature of LiquidFiles before 3.3.19. The issue arises from the insecure rendering of HTML files uploaded to the platform as attachments, when the -htmlview URL is directly accessed. The impact ranges from executing commands as root on the server to retrieving se...
CVE-2020-29072
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
A Cross-Site Script Inclusion vulnerability was found on LiquidFiles before 3.3.19. This client-side attack requires user interaction (opening a link) and successful exploitation could lead to encrypted e-mail content leakage via messages/sent?format=js and popup?format=js.
CVE-2020-26241
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
Go Ethereum, or "Geth", is the official Golang implementation of the Ethereum protocol. This is a Consensus vulnerability in Geth before version 1.9.17 which can be used to cause a chain-split where vulnerable nodes reject the canonical chain. Geth's pre-compiled dataCopy (at 0x00...04) co...
CVE-2020-26242
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
Go Ethereum, or "Geth", is the official Golang implementation of the Ethereum protocol. In Geth before version 1.9.18, there is a Denial-of-service (crash) during block processing. This is fixed in 1.9.18.
CVE-2020-26240
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-25
Go Ethereum, or "Geth", is the official Golang implementation of the Ethereum protocol. An ethash mining DAG generation flaw in Geth before version 1.9.24 could cause miners to erroneously calculate PoW in an upcoming epoch (estimated early January, 2021). This happened on the ETC chain on...