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

12/8/2008
11:44 PM
George V. Hulme
George V. Hulme
Commentary
50%
50%

When It Comes To Database Security: Enterprises Seem Confused

This October, research firm Enterprise Strategy Group surveyed 179 North American businesses with 1,000-plus employees about their database security efforts. The survey results (published today) reveal the bifurcated nature and the scary state of database security.

This October, research firm Enterprise Strategy Group surveyed 179 North American businesses with 1,000-plus employees about their database security efforts. The survey results (published today) reveal the bifurcated nature and the scary state of database security.While this survey has a limited sampling of 179 companies, and was funded by a security vendor, the results are nonetheless frightening. And it is scary not because it seems security managers still lack adequate budget, manpower, and executive leadership to keep systems secure. That's always been the sad state of IT security at many companies.

And it's neither that the survey found most companies hold just about everyone "responsible" for database security. It's true. When asked in the survey what teams are responsible for database security, security admins came in highest at 66%. Then the IT operations group (60%), data center managers (58%), system administrators (57%), network administrators (49%), and DBAs (42%).

Now, all of these groups have a role to play in database security, for sure. But they all can't be "responsible" for it. The buck has to stop somewhere.

It wasn't even that disarray that was scariest. No. The headline in this survey is that 84% of the respondents believe that all to most of their company's confidential data is adequately protected. But this very same sample of survey respondents reported that they either had one confidential data breach (41%) or multiple confidential data breaches (8%).

So there you have it -- nearly 50% of respondents suffered a significant breach, yet a whopping majority believe (84%) their database security is adequate.

Does this mean that a single breach of confidential data is acceptable? Or, are these companies over-estimating the health of their risk posture?

Either way you slice that, the result doesn't add up.

Here's a link to a press release that announced the survey. I wasn't able to find a link to the survey results, but will update this post should one become available.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
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
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...