IT Concerns About Targeted Malware Rising

April 4, 2013

When it comes to servers, IT and security professionals’ concerns about targeted malware and data breaches are escalating while their confidence in their ability to identify and stop advanced threats is on the decline, according to a new survey by security firm Bit9.

“Targeted malware was the top security concern for the second year in a row,” says Ilana Goddess, product marketing manager for Bit9, noting that 52.4 percent of survey respondents (up 15 percent from a year ago), cite targeted malware as their primary concern.

“The whole thing with targeted malware is that targeted threats are aimed at you,” says Goddess. “They are the most difficult to defend against because it’s like a virus that only affects you. And the attackers are not stopping. They’ll persist until they get in whether it takes months or years. Antivirus isn’t going to work because people haven’t seen the signatures before.”

In November and December of 2012, Bit9 polled 966 IT and security professionals worldwide for its second annual Server Security Survey. Most respondents (58 percent) administered up to 50 servers; 29 percent administered 100 to 500 servers; and 13 percent administered, on average, 2,000 servers. About one-half (51 percent) said they are running Windows as their primary platform (i.e., Windows comprises more than 75 percent of total servers); 12 percent said they are running Linux as their primary platform (up 13 percent from last year); 2 percent said they run Unix as their primary platform.

One-Quarter of Firms Have Been Victims of Targeted Malware

Goddess notes that it comes as no surprise that respondents again identified targeted malware and data breaches as a top server security concern, given the proliferation of such attacks in 2012. Attacks like Flame, Gauss, mini-Flame and the Flashback Trojan garnered significant media attention last year. Twenty-five percent of Bit9′s respondents say they had been the victims of advanced malware (up 8 percent since 2012), while 18 percent said they didn’t know whether they had been attacked (according to the F.B.I., two-thirds of breaches are detected by a third party). And according to security firm Mandiant, attackers have, on average, been in place for 416 days prior to detection.

At the same time, server data has become much more vulnerable to attack. Verizon’s 2012 Data Breach Investigations report found that 94 percent of all data compromised in 2012 involved servers (an increase of 18 percent from 2011). Goddess says IT and security professionals are losing confidence in their ability to identify and thwart these advanced threats: Only 18 percent of respondents said they were very confident in their ability to stop advanced malware; 59 percent said they were somewhat confident, 20 percent said they were not confident (up from 10 percent in 2011) and 4 percent said they were unsure.

Security Pros Mistakenly Believe Virtual Servers Are More Secure

In addition to an increase in the use of Linux as the primary server platform, companies are increasingly going virtual. One-third of survey respondents say that more than 50 percent of their servers are virtual. Also, half of the respondents said they had deployed virtual desktops, are in the process of rolling them out or have plans to do so.

Goddess says many IT and security professionals believe that their virtual servers are more secure than their physical servers, despite a 2012 Gartner study that found 60 percent of virtualized servers were less secure than the physical servers they replaced.

“People think their virtual servers are more secure than their physical servers, but that’s just not the case,” Goddess says. “They’re really the same vulnerabilities that you find elsewhere in physical servers, but somehow they think of virtual servers as not being as much on the frontline.”

For instance, she says, many professionals think the frequent re-imaging of virtual servers protects them from advanced threats. However, she notes, these threats frequently get in and do their damage within 15 minutes, moving on to other areas quickly.

In fact, when asked to rank types of servers according to the risk they represent, only 6 percent of respondents considered virtual servers to be high risk. Most respondents (66 percent) felt Web servers were the most high risk; 38 percent felt file servers were high risk; 34 percent pointed to email servers; 26 percent cited domain controllers; 14 percent labeled application servers high risk; and 11 percent ranked databases as high risk.

Goddess says that may indicate that IT and security professionals are looking in the wrong direction. After all, the most valuable enterprise information is found on file servers (e.g., intellectual property), databases (e.g., customer information) and especially domain controllers (e.g., passwords, administrative rights).

IT and security professionals are also concerned about the administrative effort required by security solutions. When asked to rank their top concerns about server security, nearly 12 percent cited “too much administrative effort on security solution” as a top concern, ranking it even higher than an actual attack.

“These results highlight the need for greater control in identifying and stopping advanced attacks on valuable server resources-before they execute-while decreasing the security-related administrative workloads of IT and security professionals,” said Brian Hazzard, vice president of product management for Bit9. “The key to securing enterprise servers-both physical and virtual-is to allow only trusted software to execute and prevent all other files from running.”

via IT Concerns About Targeted Malware Rising – Network World.


Using Varonis: Who Owns What?

December 13, 2012

(This one entry in a series of posts about the Varonis Operational Plan – a clear path to data governance.  You can find the whole series here.)

All organizational data needs an owner. It’s that simple, right? I think most of us would be hard pressed to argue against that as a principle—the data itself is an organizational asset, so of course it’s not the Help Desk or AD Admin folks who own it, it’s the users or business units that should own it. Of course, that’s great in theory, but with 1, 5, 10, or even 20 years’ worth of shared, unstructured data, figuring out who owns data is far from simple, let alone involving those owners in any meaningful way.

Before we get into using Varonis to locate owners, I want to talk about why finding a single data owner can be such a problem. IT probably knows who owns the Finance folder.  It’s the CFO or a delegated steward. Same with HR, Marketing or Legal—these tend to be clearly-delineated departmental shares and it’s not hard to figure out whom to go to if we need an informed decision. (Regularly involving those owners in data governance is a different problem, and one I will cover in future posts.)  The identification for these folders is relatively straightforward.

But what happens if you need to find the owner of a folder that has a less obvious name? What if the folder’s name is a project ID, or an acronym of some kind? In my experience, a majority of unstructured data resides in folders that aren’t obviously owned by anyone.

What IT tends to do then is a few different things:

  • Check the ACL and see which groups have access. If it’s a single group with an obvious owner, that’s a likely candidate. If the ACL contains many different groups or a global access group like Domain Users, though, this tactic tends to fail.
  • Check the Windows owner under Special Permissions. This metadata can be helpful, but can also be a red herring since it’s often just set to the local Administrator of the server. Even if there’s actually a human user there (who likely created the folder), that value may be outdated or inaccurate.
Special Permissions Dialog
  • Check the owner of files within the folder. Same problems as above.
File Properties Dialog
  • Enable operating system auditing to identify the most active user. Anyone out there excited about turning on file level auditing in Windows? I have yet to talk to anyone who answers yes to this question because of the performance hit on the server as well as the storage required and expertise to parse the logs effectively.
  • Turn off access and see who complains. Not an optimal strategy when it comes to critical data.
  • Email the world and hope for a response. In general, people don’t want to take ownership of something without good reason, since it may mean more work. How confident are you that the proper owners (who may be at a management or director level) are going to know exactly which data sets their teams are using regularly? If they’re not sure, are they going to jump to take responsibility?

So finding owners is hard, let alone finding owners at scale. If you’ve got thousands of unique ACLs and you want owners for all of them (or at least the ones that make sense) you’re going to have to go through some version of this process for each one. It’s no wonder we haven’t done a good job of this over time. Thankfully, there’s a better way.

Step 4: Identify Data Owners

The key difference between attempting to solve this problem manually and attacking it intelligently with Varonis is the DatAdvantage audit trail. A normalized, continuous, non-intrusive audit record of all data access is a key piece of DatAdvantage, and it allows us to actually identify data owners at scale without having to hunt and peck. Once you start gathering usage data and rolling it up into high level stats you can start to see the likely owners of any data set, not just the obvious ones.

DatAdvantage gives you two straightforward ways to get this information: First, we can quickly take a look at a high-level view of a single folder within the Statistics pane of the DatAdvantage GUI. This will show us the most active users of a particular folder. We like to say that at most, you’re one phone call away, since if the most active user isn’t the data owner, they almost certainly know who is.

You can operationalize this process even further by creating a statistics report, which can be run on an entire tree or even a server. A single report can show the top users of every unique ACL, and it’s possible to set up advanced filters to make this even more useful—showing only users outside of IT or in a specific OU, for example. You can even add additional properties from AD to the report, showing each user’s department or line manager, if available. None of this is possible without constantly gathering access activity and providing an interface to combine it with other available metadata.

Identifying owners is useful, but actually involving them is where IT can really start to make headway when it comes to ongoing governance. We’ll tackle that next.


Best Practices for Deploying ioMemory in VDI Environments

July 23, 2012

Image representing Fusion-io as depicted in Cr...

Image via CrunchBase

Fusion Powered VDI servers deliver uncompromised I/O to support a guaranteed number of users at a far lower cost than centralized storage.

The benefits of Fusion-io for VDI are significant, and include the following:

  • More virtual desktops per virtual server
  • High performance even during peak loads
  • Faster clone generation
  • Low latency for faster end user desktop experiences
  • Reduced reliance on expensive, complex external storage
  • Lower overall cost per desktop

VMware View VDI environments are ideal for ioMemory. The figure below illustrates a Fusion Powered VDI architecture.

Figure 1. Example ioMemory and VMware View VDI architecture

Fusion’s Technical Guide 209 – Deploying ioMemory in VMware Environments provides information on how to use ioMemory, VMware View 5.x, and ESXi 5 in VDI configurations to increase desktop performance and density, while lowering costs. For example, you can provision 100 or more virtual desktop sessions per server, with the ability to scale overall installation nearly linearly by adding more servers — while minimizing external storage costs.

For more information please contact http://www.c24.co.uk

 


A hands on look at the new Microsoft Surface : video

June 22, 2012

The Microsoft Surface tablet has finally made it’s debut. Not discussed in the presentation was the capacitive touch button, the really solid feeling build quality and all the way down to the Windows logo on the front. October can’t come soon enough for us to get some more hands-on time with this device.


Will Windows 8 tablets do well?

March 15, 2012

Microsoft is really pushing that Windows 8 will truly unite their platform across all devices and really give it a consistent look.  However, the biggest issues are how well will Windows 8 tablets (slates) do and how will the OS fair on the desktop.  Honestly, there shouldn’t be another OS that is better fitted for the enterprise than Windows 8.  Sure there is a learning curve; but that SAME learning curve is there when one would hand an executive an iPad.

Things that could really work in Microsoft’s favor:

  1. Unified across devices
  2. Able to support many Windows applications; not just 500,000 apps
  3. Windows tablets will provide more accessibility via USB input etc.
  4. Multiple arenas for running applications (Metro or Windows desktop)

Bottom line:  If Windows 8 turns out to be truly portable and is not overly expensive on a tablet this could potentially be a shifting in the tides.

Thanks to Dexter Johnson


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 752 other followers