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

9/20/2010
11:28 AM
Adrian Lane
Adrian Lane
Commentary
50%
50%

Protegrity Gets Aggressive

Last week Protegrity announced it had filed patent infringement suits against NuBridges and Voltage Security Inc., its main competitors. Patent infringements suits are nothing new with technology companies, but this one was a little odd in that the suits were actually filed in May.

Last week Protegrity announced it had filed patent infringement suits against NuBridges and Voltage Security Inc., its main competitors. Patent infringements suits are nothing new with technology companies, but this one was a little odd in that the suits were actually filed in May.We also learned of a patent infringement suit leveled against Ingrian Networks (now part of Safenet) back in April 2008. It looks like more lawsuits could be coming in the future.

Protegrity is a vendor of encryption products for data security, and many of its products have centered on protecting data that resides in databases. It has always been, in my opinion, technically innovative. And it has authored many patents during the past decade. A couple of the security startups I worked for authored similar patent claims; I was responsible for the technical side of patent development, so I reviewed and contrasted the Protegrity patents at the request of several patent authorities. Though I am not a patent attorney, I do have a basic understanding of the technologies described. There are several patents referenced in the official Protegrity press release, but the "Multi-encryption levels on a data element" is the key claim, with the others building off this central invention.

How I interpret Protegrity's multilevel patent is as follows: It describes a solution for row- or cell-level encryption of data stored in a database. What's of interest is the encryption -- or any other security measures that may be employed -- is described in another database. For the sake of simplicity, this is about the relationship between encrypted data storage and external key management. The second database describes what protections are in place, such as which encryption algorithm was used, the key, the mode of operation, or perhaps describe some masking function. By having a second database that acts as a lookup table for security means, I can implement different encryption schemes and do key rotation on a row-by-row, even element-by-element basis -- very adaptable, and a very easy way to manage complex key/encryption substitutions.

I have asked a couple of people at Protegrity to explain what this really means, specifically the use of "multilevel database encryption," but they are unable to comment at this time over and above what's in the press release. I wanted to know if they felt my interpretation was faulty, but they cannot provide any input at this time.

So there are three lingering questions:

1) What does this mean for the competition? I am not aware that the competitors use such a scheme. Or if they do, there are subtle changes to their deployment that would place them outside of the Protegrity claim.

2) Why didn't it file suit against all of the database and key management vendors? Most databases provide an API for row- and cell-level encryption, and an external key management server is, in fact, a database -- a specialized database, but a database nonetheless.

3) Why announce now? Does this mean it feels it is going to win the suit with Ingrian, or does it mean it just discovered evidence of infringement. Or is there some other motivation?

If you narrowly interpret the claims, then odds are Protegrity does not win this suit. If you broadly apply the principle that Protegrity has described in the patents, then it looks like it owns row- and cell- level database encryption when used with external key management. That would make this battle bigger than a couple of squabbling midtier security providers.

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
DevSecOps: The Answer to the Cloud Security Skills Gap
Lamont Orange, Chief Information Security Officer at Netskope,  11/15/2019
Attackers' Costs Increasing as Businesses Focus on Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  11/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
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-2019-19037
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-21
ext4_empty_dir in fs/ext4/namei.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.12 allows a NULL pointer dereference because ext4_read_dirblock(inode,0,DIRENT_HTREE) can be zero.
CVE-2019-19036
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-21
btrfs_root_node in fs/btrfs/ctree.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.12 allows a NULL pointer dereference because rcu_dereference(root->node) can be zero.
CVE-2019-19039
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-21
__btrfs_free_extent in fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.12 calls btrfs_print_leaf in a certain ENOENT case, which allows local users to obtain potentially sensitive information about register values via the dmesg program.
CVE-2019-6852
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-20
A CWE-200: Information Exposure vulnerability exists in Modicon Controllers (M340 CPUs, M340 communication modules, Premium CPUs, Premium communication modules, Quantum CPUs, Quantum communication modules - see security notification for specific versions), which could cause the disclosure of FTP har...
CVE-2019-6853
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-20
A CWE-79: Failure to Preserve Web Page Structure vulnerability exists in Andover Continuum (models 9680, 5740 and 5720, bCX4040, bCX9640, 9900, 9940, 9924 and 9702) , which could enable a successful Cross-site Scripting (XSS attack) when using the products web server.