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

10/26/2009
10:00 AM
Adrian Lane
Adrian Lane
Commentary
50%
50%

The ABCs Of DAM

Database activity monitoring (DAM) has been the biggest advancement in database security in the past decade. Identity management controls access, and encryption protects data on media, but monitoring verifies usage.

Database activity monitoring (DAM) has been the biggest advancement in database security in the past decade. Identity management controls access, and encryption protects data on media, but monitoring verifies usage.But because of the complexities involved, this is not something you want to try to write yourself. Unlike assessment and auditing, the database does not provide built-in mechanisms for data collection, analysis, and policy enforcement.

DAM captures and records database events, which at a minimum is all Structured Query Language (SQL) activity, in real-time or near real-time, including database administrator activity, across multiple database platforms, and generating alerts on policy violations. DAM products follow a consistent process: collection of the events from the database, analysis of the activity in relation to established policies, and alerting when a policy violation is detected. DAM systems can be deployed as software or an appliance, and will use local agents installed on the database server to collect activity.

Some work in combination with network analysis, but agents are required to collect administrative activity, a necessity for regulatory compliance. What we want to focus on is the analysis because that is what separates DAM from auditing. Monitoring systems are designed to find violations instantly, utilize more advanced inspection techniques, alert, and even block activity. Let's look at how this happens:

Attribute Analysis is the most common technique used in monitoring. Statement attributes like operation type (Select, Update, Insert), the user who issued the statement, the time of day, the columns references, number of records returned or dozens of other items. A common policy is to alert when any users selects more than one customer record at a time, or anyone selecting social security numbers from outside the company after 6:00 pm. When a statement matches the attributes specified, an alert is generated and, with some platforms, the action is blocked.

Statement Analysis/Lexical Detection is the examination of the SQL structure. Examining components such as the where clause, the type and number of parameters, or even the size and type of input data, abnormal activity is detected because the statement just doesn't look right. This is commonly used to detect SQL Injection and buffer overflow attacks.

Behavioral Analysis combines one or both of the above analysis techniques, but augments the comparison with a behavioral profile. The profile is created by monitoring all database activity to establish a common reference for how the database is used. Once created, the behavioral profile is compared to incoming SQL statements, generating an alert if the users session activity is abnormal.

Content Analysis is looking at the data within the statements. This may be used in conjunction with attribute analysis, but the core of the policy is understanding the content that is moving in or out of the database. Credit card numbers or personally identifiable information are two such examples that are restricted for privacy and compliance initiatives.

In my next post, I'll discuss how to apply database activity monitoring to solve problems, and why it's an important advancement for compliance and security.

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
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...