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.

Perimeter

10/8/2009
10:10 AM
Adrian Lane
Adrian Lane
Commentary
50%
50%

Avoiding Database Audit Pitfalls

Many seasoned database administrators howl in protest at the mere suggestion of running native auditing functions due to the poor performance and log management headaches that often come with auditing.

Many seasoned database administrators howl in protest at the mere suggestion of running native auditing functions due to the poor performance and log management headaches that often come with auditing.What's with the stigma? And what kind of performance degradation given that database auditing is supposed to provide an accurate and complete source of information for a broad range of security and compliance requirements? In several series of performance tests I have conducted during the past four years, just turning on the audit decreased transactional throughput by 44 percent for an Oracle audit, 31 percent for IBM DB2, and 37 percent for SQL Server trace. This is not acceptable. And this decrease came just from creating the audit trail and doesn't include moving the data to an external analysis or reporting tool.

But once I tuned the process, the performance decrease was 6 percent for Oracle, 9 percent for DB2, and 4 percent for SQL Server.

How did I do this? By carefully selecting the right options at my disposal. Specifically, consider the following:

  • Different Audit Variants: Database vendors offer more than one way to collect audit data, and each variant has different performance characteristics. For example, DB2 event monitors performed worse than DBAudit, with increasing degradation as transaction rates increased.

  • Filtering: The more event types you want to collect, the more data the database must collect, assemble into an audit record, and then write. But you can direct SQL Server, for example, to only collect certain event types you need, often reducing total events to a fraction. By only collecting the events specific to your business need, you reduce processing overhead and disk I/O.

  • Audit Destinations: You can choose to keep audit data within the database, stored in a table, or write it externally. For example, with Oracle you can write to an internal audit table, write to disk files, and even stream the audit data as XML. Writing to external files is much faster.

  • Data Management and Clean-Up: If you process 1 million transactions, your audit log will contain 1 million or more rows. As the size of the data stored within the audit log grows, overhead increases. Try to purge audit records as fast as you can or move data to external platforms for analysis and reporting. You can write your own scripts to do this or leverage log management, system event management, or database activity monitoring products to assist.

In general, the relational database vendors know their customers rely on auditing to support compliance and security requirements, and they have greatly improved performance during the past four years. If you are smart with your setup, then auditing is no longer the performance nightmare it once was. Don't let a previous bad experience keep you from exploring database auditing as an option.

Adrian Lane is an analyst/CTO with Securosis LLC, an independent security consulting practice. Special to Dark Reading. Adrian Lane is a Security Strategist and brings over 25 years of industry experience to the Securosis team, much of it at the executive level. Adrian specializes in database security, data security, and secure software development. With experience at Ingres, Oracle, and ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
SOC 2s & Third-Party Assessments: How to Prevent Them from Being Used in a Data Breach Lawsuit
Beth Burgin Waller, Chair, Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Practice , Woods Rogers PLC,  12/5/2019
Navigating Security in the Cloud
Diya Jolly, Chief Product Officer, Okta,  12/4/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Our Endpoint Protection system is a little outdated... 
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-1689
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
Mozilla Firefox 20.0a1 and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash), related to event handling with frames.
CVE-2016-10001
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
inets in Erlang possibly 22.1 and earlier follows RFC 3875 section 4.1.18 and therefore does not protect applications from the presence of untrusted client data in the HTTP_PROXY environment variable, which might allow remote attackers to redirect an application's outbound HTTP traffic to an arbitra...
CVE-2019-6183
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
A denial of service vulnerability has been reported in Lenovo Energy Management Driver for Windows 10 versions prior to 15.11.29.7 that could cause systems to experience a blue screen error. Lenovo Energy Management is a client utility. Lenovo XClarity Energy Manager is not affected.
CVE-2019-6192
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
A potential vulnerability has been reported in Lenovo Power Management Driver versions prior to 1.67.17.48 leading to a buffer overflow which could cause a denial of service.
CVE-2019-4095
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
IBM Cloud Pak System 2.3 is vulnerable to cross-site request forgery which could allow an attacker to execute malicious and unauthorized actions transmitted from a user that the website trusts. IBM X-Force ID: 158015.