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

11/17/2010
07:58 AM
Adrian Lane
Adrian Lane
Commentary
50%
50%

Survey Provides Peek Inside Database Security Operations

Database security budgets on the rise, 20 percent expect to suffer a data breach in the next 12 months

The big news in database security last week was Application Security Inc.'s Database Security Survey (PDF).

Unisphere conducted the research project, surveying 761 SQL Server database professionals, asking questions about environment, budget, security issues, and drivers for security testing. In essence, the study finds that budget for database security is on the rise, that companies are aware that sensitive information is scattered around their organizations without much in the way of controls, and that some 20 percent think they will suffer a data breach in the coming 12 months.

Having tracked this market closely for a decade now, I had a couple of observations on the study:

* It's interesting that database administrators were only involved in security 75 percent of the time (Figure 4). As it stands, most database security tasks involve the database administrator in some way. The setup of auditing, patch management, vulnerability assessment and many other actions must be performed by the DBA. The fact that DBA involvement was _down_ to 75 percent is indicative of the impact data privacy and regulatory efforts, which require separation of duties, are having on the industry.

* The percentage of respondents with monitoring in place was 41 percent (Figure 26). While this is SQL Server specifically, and by my informal count SQL Server databases are more commonly monitored that DB2, MySQL, Postgres, Sybase or just about any database not called Oracle, this percentage seems high to me. I would have expected less than 30 percent using DAM. When you look at which activities are being monitored (Fig 24), the top three -- or 5 of the top 6 for that matter -- are actions normally gathered by native auditing. If I was to venture a guess I would say that these 'monitoring' functions are not Database Activity Monitoring (DAM), rather auditing provided by native audit features such as tracing or system event logging.

* Those reporting no breaches in the last 12 months were 74 percent (Fig 7). Small firms and even small enterprises are not usually targeted the way large enterprises have been. Even if they were susceptible to 0-day attacks or "drive-by malware," odds are they would not have adequate detection and forensics in place to know that they were breached. The number of actual breaches or incidents of information leakage is likely far higher than being reported during the last 12 months.

* Local state data laws was the biggest driver for security (Fig 29), followed by Sarbanes-Oxley. I am not surprised by this, but I imagine that many people are. If I was taking bets I would have said SOX was number one, with state privacy laws at number two. Activity monitoring and assessment has proven incredibly effective at implementing financial controls in complex accounting systems, and can be done in such a way that the auditor is not totally dependent upon IT or accounting to gather information. Similarly, activity monitoring is effective at identifying data misuse, a key for various state data privacy laws. There is a lot of hoopla around PCI and HIPPA, but the customers I speak with use database encryption for compliance, and are far less likely to invest in monitoring and assessment.

* The report implies that most firms are using generalized "configuration management" tools determine database patch levels, or Microsoft's native revision checker. Specialized database assessment tools that look at patching as well as vulnerabilities, configuration defects and user authorization maps. Maybe it's an issue of budget, but most configuration management tools miss the bigger security picture. This is a serious omissions from my perspective as DB assessment is the single greatest tool for database security as it covers all of the basic database security issues. The report is lengthy, but there is a lot of good information here. And 761 respondents, with a nice distribution of company sizes, is a great cross section of the database security market. Thanks to Application Security for funding this project and publishing the results. Definitely worth your time to review.

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

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/3/2020
Data Loss Spikes Under COVID-19 Lockdowns
Seth Rosenblatt, Contributing Writer,  5/28/2020
Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-6497
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-03
Insufficient policy enforcement in Omnibox in Google Chrome on iOS prior to 83.0.4103.88 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a crafted URI.
CVE-2020-6498
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-03
Incorrect implementation in user interface in Google Chrome on iOS prior to 83.0.4103.88 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6499
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-03
Inappropriate implementation in AppCache in Google Chrome prior to 80.0.3987.87 allowed a remote attacker to bypass AppCache security restrictions via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6500
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-03
Inappropriate implementation in interstitials in Google Chrome prior to 80.0.3987.87 allowed a remote attacker to spoof the contents of the Omnibox (URL bar) via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6501
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-03
Insufficient policy enforcement in CSP in Google Chrome prior to 80.0.3987.87 allowed a remote attacker to bypass content security policy via a crafted HTML page.