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

12/15/2011
10:36 AM
Adrian Lane
Adrian Lane
Commentary
50%
50%

Data Security, Top Down

Focus on what needs to be done, not how to do it

Continuing the database security trends with database activity monitoring (DAM), the next model I want to talk about is policy-driven data security. Conceptually this means you define the security or compliance task to be accomplished, and that task gets divided by a number of technologies that get the work done. Policies are mapped -- from the top down -- into one or more security tools, each performing part of the workload to accomplish a task.

In an ideal world, the tool best-suited to do the work gets assigned the task. To make this type of approach work, you must have a broad set of security capabilities and a management interface tightly coupled with underlying features.

For database security, this is the classic coupling of discovery, assessment, monitoring, and auditing -- each function overlapping with the next. The key to this model is policy orchestration: Policies are abstracted from the infrastructure, with the underlying database -- and even non-database -- tools working in unison to fulfill the security and compliance requirements. A policy for failed logins, as an example, will have assessment, monitoring, and auditing components that capture data and perform analysis. A central management interface includes lots of pre-generated rules that coordinate resources that allow customers to cover the basics quickly and easily. In practice, it's rare to see top-down security limited to database security, and it usually covers general network services and endpoints as well.

This model is great for reducing the pain of creating and managing security across multiple systems. It also lowers the bar on technical and compliance expertise required for users to manage the system -- that knowledge is built in.

Workers don't have to know "how" to do it, just what they need to do. And that is a big deal for mid-market firms that cannot afford to have lots of security and compliance experts on staff. Finally, since it's designed to leverage lots of tools, integrating with other platforms is much easier.

However, there are several significant detractors to the model because the lack of flexibility and deployment complexity overwhelms the midmarket buyer it conceptually best serves. Since the technologies are prebundled, you have more tools to accomplish tasks you can solve with a single product from a different vendor, resulting in a much larger footprint on your organization. While basic setup of policies is as simple as selecting a prewritten rule, custom policies have a greater degree of complexity as compared to more traditional database security systems.

In this model, DAM is just one of many tools to collect and analyze events, and not necessarily central to the platform. As such, policy-driven security is not an evolution or change to DAM (as it is with business activity monitoring and ADMP); it's more a vision of how DAM fits within the security ecosystem.

The intention of the model is to mask the underlying complexities of technology from the users who simply want to get a compliance or security task done. Many in IT don't have the time or desire to be a security expert, and want more of a "point-and-click" solution. This model has been around for a long time -- since at least 2006 with DAM. I know because this was the model I architected and was attempting to build out as a "next generation" DAM solution. Conceptually, it's very elegant, but every firm I have ever seen try to attempt this fails because the underlying technologies have not been best-of-breed, nor did the interfaces deliver on promised simplicity. It requires a great deal of commitment from the vendor to carry this off, and the jury is still out as to whether it will deliver on the intended value proposition.

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
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Commentary
Ransomware Is Not the Problem
Adam Shostack, Consultant, Entrepreneur, Technologist, Game Designer,  6/9/2021
Edge-DRsplash-11-edge-ask-the-experts
How Can I Test the Security of My Home-Office Employees' Routers?
John Bock, Senior Research Scientist,  6/7/2021
News
New Ransomware Group Claiming Connection to REvil Gang Surfaces
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  6/10/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Zero Trust doesn't have to break your budget!
Current Issue
The State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
In this report learn how enterprises are building their incident response teams and processes, how they research potential compromises, how they respond to new breaches, and what tools and processes they use to remediate problems and improve their cyber defenses for the future.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-34812
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-18
Use of hard-coded credentials vulnerability in php component in Synology Calendar before 2.4.0-0761 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2021-34808
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-18
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in cgi component in Synology Media Server before 1.8.3-2881 allows remote attackers to access intranet resources via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2021-34809
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-18
Improper neutralization of special elements used in a command ('Command Injection') vulnerability in task management component in Synology Download Station before 3.8.16-3566 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2021-34810
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-18
Improper privilege management vulnerability in cgi component in Synology Download Station before 3.8.16-3566 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2021-34811
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-18
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in task management component in Synology Download Station before 3.8.16-3566 allows remote authenticated users to access intranet resources via unspecified vectors.