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

12/15/2012
11:59 AM
Wendy Nather
Wendy Nather
Commentary
50%
50%

You Are The Big Data

Monitoring isn't just about systems anymore

As the art and science of security monitoring have grown, so has the trend that the subject of the monitoring is people.

I’m not just talking about buying habits and the infamous story of Target, which figured out that a teenager was pregnant before her father did. And I’m not including discussions about governments monitoring dissident activity and capturing citizen data within or outside of the bounds of law. It has become much bigger than that.

I’ve given talks before about how government accountability conflicts with citizen privacy: If you want to know in extreme detail how well your government is delivering services, then you’ll end up with that detail being about the individual citizens who receive those services. All sorts of entities today are using big data techniques, ostensibly to improve their offerings. But that’s a double-edged sword: Not only does the ability to store more data mean more persistent data, it also means more wrong data.

My insurance company monitors what medications I receive, obviously. But the conclusions it draws aren’t always correct. I was prescribed a drug that is intended to treat heart issues, but is also very commonly used off-label to treat a minor, unrelated medical symptom. As a result, all my communications from the insurance company now include cheery newsletters about heart health, and numerous congratulations about my managing my heart disease. Do I correct their mistake? Or is it better for me to let them stay confused about my actual condition?

I once applied for a loan using my parents’ address when I was staying with them while house-hunting. Thanks to data sharing, several entities out there think my parents are now living with me at my current address. (I even get junk mail for my parents’ cat, which has been dead nearly 20 years.) Is wrong data a danger, or is it a form of protective camouflage?

The big data trend now also allows more context around monitoring, analyzing events against combinations of other factors. My employer might implement access control that is based on a risk score derived from my login name, my organizational function, my geolocation, the kind of device I’m using for access, the time of day, and what I did during my past five sessions. This is intended to detect intruders, of course, and even insider fraud; it also means that my employer is monitoring where I am and whether I’m using my own phone or tablet. It might even include checking where I’ve browsed lately from that device, or what other applications I’m running on it.

Does a company have the right to collect data about its employees that is not resulting from or generated by the actual work they’re performing? Does it have the right to retain that information permanently, after the employment relationship is terminated? If you change employers frequently, then does that mean you’ll have multiple organizations researching all of your public data on the Internet and keeping tabs on your online activities, all in the name of analyzing their own risk?

We've gotten better about profiling and monitoring behavior, rather than just network traffic and computing states. But that means we’ve gotten better at monitoring ourselves. As we draw closer to a state of precision, it means we have to worry even more about accuracy. How much do we want to keep, for how long, and how important is it that the data be correct?

When you’re considering your enterprise security monitoring options, take time to think about how that data collection could be used on you, personally -- even after you leave. We’re at that tipping point now.

Wendy Nather is Research Director of the Enterprise Security Practice at the independent analyst firm 451 Research. You can find her on Twitter as @451wendy.

Wendy Nather is Research Director of the Enterprise Security Practice at independent analyst firm 451 Research. With over 30 years of IT experience, she has worked both in financial services and in the public sector, both in the US and in Europe. Wendy's coverage areas ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
MoviePass Leaves Credit Card Numbers, Personal Data Exposed Online
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/21/2019
New FISMA Report Shows Progress, Gaps in Federal Cybersecurity
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  8/21/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-7617
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-22
When the Elastic APM agent for Python versions before 5.1.0 is run as a CGI script, there is a variable name clash flaw if a remote attacker can control the proxy header. This could result in an attacker redirecting collected APM data to a proxy of their choosing.
CVE-2019-14751
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-22
NLTK Downloader before 3.4.5 is vulnerable to a directory traversal, allowing attackers to write arbitrary files via a ../ (dot dot slash) in an NLTK package (ZIP archive) that is mishandled during extraction.
CVE-2019-9153
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-22
Improper Verification of a Cryptographic Signature in OpenPGP.js <=4.1.2 allows an attacker to forge signed messages by replacing its signatures with a "standalone" or "timestamp" signature.
CVE-2019-9154
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-22
Improper Verification of a Cryptographic Signature in OpenPGP.js <=4.1.2 allows an attacker to pass off unsigned data as signed.
CVE-2019-9155
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-22
A cryptographic issue in OpenPGP.js <=4.2.0 allows an attacker who is able provide forged messages and gain feedback about whether decryption of these messages succeeded to conduct an invalid curve attack in order to gain the victim's ECDH private key.