Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Eric Ogren's picture
Eric Ogren

Security Impact

Security vendors are showing movement!

There have been some nice movements in the security space over the past couple of weeks that show large security vendors separating from the smaller tactical players. This is a trend I expect to see more of as IT investments become conservative and security solutions become integrated with the global business.

  • Cisco Ironport has enhanced its reputation-based anti-spam service to also block web exploits. The motivation behind this move is that attacks are infecting endpoints via legitimate web pages so quickly that it neuters signature protection and URL filtering defenses.  The pragmatic step is to continuously assess web sites for malware, augment signatures with reputation oriented, and nail exploits before they reach corporate endpoints. I liked Trend Micro's efforts in this space before, I like Ironport's capability now, and I like Symantec's directions. Cloud-oriented services are essential in an enterprise security portfolio - you're in trouble if your IT security strategy is to rely solely on the distribution of timely attack signatures.
  • Symantec announced it's Information Risk Management strategy with immediate products to protect unstructured data via Brightmail messaging security, Vontu DLP, and Enterprise Vault secure storage. Protecting a corporation's sensitive data requires a fundamentally different approach and mindset than that required for protecting against malware. While malware can be identified and outright blocked, organizations need to safely share information to stay in business. If you are looking to protect data, I'd start with those experienced in management of the full data lifecycle.
  • IBM announced SecureStore to assist retail organizations in securely managing their business assets. The one thing that IBM does better than anybody is to start with an analysis of the business. IBM SecureStore is a combination of services first to understand the business directions, and then applied technology to secure the business. It is a lesson we all can learn from - organizations always look at the bottom-line first.
  • Imperva is bringing its end -to-end application security (web servers and databases) down to mid-tier enterprises. This is one case where Gartner got it all wrong - they tried to artificially create a database auditing market category based on dubious requirements. Of course, database auditing belongs to the database vendors which explain why IPlocks is gone, Symantec is out of the business, AppSec and Tizor have new CEOs, and I only see Guardium making money on the golf course. The ability to audit the entire transaction path, from the user to the very back end, is important and is what I recommend IT looks for.

What People Are Saying

Full end to end is the only solution

The niche database auditing compliance market never took off as expected.

Imperva had the right approach from the beginning, customers don't want to try and cross-correlate data from different reports from different products.

Guardium has a very nice reporting interface, but they don't extend beyond the actual database transactions.

Tizor has good performance and scalability, but they long ago became an also-ran in this race. Their reports have always been sub-par and it took them too long to figure out a local auditing strategy.

IPLocks was doomed from beginning with their approach.

1) Let's see, users are

1) Let's see, users are potentially pooled at: their ISP, the Web server, middleware, app tier, and database. Yet with a glorified firewall Imperva parses through all that?

My goodness boys, you've drunk the Kool-Aid ;-) It's snake oil.

2) So, do the Db vendors own auditing (you'd really recommend _auditing_ Oracle with Oracle??) or does Imperva owns auditing? You suggest both.

3) Any auditor will tell you that the most important thing to audit are privileged users. How do propose to audit a Db admin sitting at the database over the network?

Well, that's the point isn't it?

Hey Anon,

That is actually one of the points. Is it really productive to have vendors go to great lengths to write agent software to audit DBAs with physical access to the database?? Of all the things an enterprise would want to pay money for, how high would this rank? Gartner made that a huge differentiator, which the auditors picked up. It's not that it is bad, but at the end of the day the business has many greater security needs that must be addressed.

Keeping things in context is one of the hardest things about security. Corporations are consolidating data centers, reducing server expenses with virtualization, accelerating performance to get data closer to the user, and scanning their environment to audit their vulnerability posture. There are lots more examples.

By itself database auditing is a fine idea, but in context it seldom helps evolution of the business infrastructure. That's why the capability has niche appeal to those with double-secret needs or desires.

There is a simple measure: customer dollars. While vendors say "you must deploy database auditing", customers are clearly saying "no we don't, you don't understand". Hard to argue with that one.