data loss redux: thinking organically

Want to get paid for a vulnerability similar to this one?
Contact us at: sxsxdx@xbxexyxoxnxdxsxexcxuxrxixtxy.xcom

Originally posted to Black Cats and Smoke and Mirrors

A little while ago I wrote about DLP, or Data Loss Prevention, and how the term is something of a red herring because, in reality, everything we do is about preventing data loss; ergo, the concept can’t be neatly productized. I still feel that way.

However, a few days after I posted it, I was contacted by a fellow named Pablo Osinaga, who has co-founded a startup called Kormox. He wanted me to see his company’s DLP solution, profiled by SC Magazine.

After reading SC’s blurb on the subject, I was quite intrigued, and arranged a web/phone meeting with Mr. Osinaga. For a little over an hour, we discussed Kormox and the concept of DLP.

As I said, DLP is a very difficult concept to productize. Everyone needs to prevent the loss or leakage of data, but everyone — every enterprise, every business, every organization, even every person — has different data and different types of data that they need to protect. Some organizations are concerned with mobile data; some are concerned with file shares; some are concerned with PII; and so on. No one vendor — no one product — has a fully comprehensive DLP solution because what DLP means is so dependent on each organization’s mission and needs, which not only differs among organizations but can be subject to change within an organization over time.

One of the first things that Mr. Osinaga mentioned, in presenting his company’s solution, was that enterprises have become more organic and less structured. I could not agree more. I have worked for many different security solutions vendors, and I hear over and over about the “special snowflake syndrome”, how every organization thinks they are “different” in some way, but they are really all the same. The trend, with every security vendor I’ve worked with, is to pigeonhole potential and existing customers, to basically tell them that they can’t have what they say they want, to fit them to the solution that the vendor has, in their infinite wisdom, envisioned and created. Yet as time goes on, and as Mr. Osinaga noted, enterprise structure is becoming more fluid, less definable, and less able to be pigeonholed.

Kormox’s solution starts with data classification. It’s so simple, and so logical. Of course you have to classify your data. But it’s not enough to say “I have to protect medical records” or “I have to protect credit card numbers”. In the DLP-productization game, vendors talk about what kind of data you want to protect, and then they talk about how they’re going to protect it, but they don’t really cover the territory of what, exactly, your data means to the people who are using it. That’s your problem.

And that’s how Kormox differentiates itself from the crowd: data classification is a major step, and it involves finding out not only what the data is (as opposed to merely what kind of data), but the flow of the data: where it is, who is using it, how they use it, where it’s going, where it’s been, and so on. All this is part of the classification, and it brings DLP back to the true “asset management” model of Information Security, where the asset is the data itself, not the (often fungible) hardware on which it rests.

After the data has been classified, the product allows the asset owners to implement controls in a similarly organic fashion. In essence, it takes the organization from the situation of “I know I need to protect our data” to “I know where and what all our data is, how it’s used, and what controls are on it” — something that no other DLP solution does.

I’m not laboring under an illusion that this product is perfect; no product could be. But I do think that Kormox is going in a necessary direction with their concept of data flow as a part of classification. At the moment it’s a bit clunky looking, but from what I saw in our meeting, it is definitely worth a look.

I’d like to note that I am in no way compensated for writing about Kormox; I’m writing about it because Mr. Osinaga contacted me as a result of my last DLP article, and so I thought it was only fair to talk about what I found out in our meeting.

Dumb computer virus story recidivus

Want to get paid for a vulnerability similar to this one?
Contact us at: sxsxdx@xbxexyxoxnxdxsxexcxuxrxixtxy.xcom

A few days ago, I noted a very silly news story about someone getting hit with a computer virus. Well, maybe the administrators don’t know all that much about malware, and maybe a smaller local paper reporter didn’t know all that much about it, either.

But now the story has been taken up by a company that makes security software. A “Microsoft Gold Certified Partner,” according to their Website. A company that makes antivirus software. And their story is just as silly, or even worse.

They say the local admin “stated that, the virus is classified as harmful and they are being quite alert.” I suppose that is all well and good, but then they immediately say that, “[a]ccording to him, the anti-virus firms were not able to recognize it …” So, AV firms don’t know what it is, but it is classified as harmful? Oh, but not to worry, “the good part is that it doesn’t seem to do extensive harm.” So, it’s harmful, but it’s not harmful. Well, of course it’s not harmful. It only “collects information and details, such as bank accounts and passwords …” No possible problem there. (Oh, and, even though nobody knows what it is, it’s Qakbot.)

Right, then. Would you be willing to buy AV software from a firm that can make these kind of mistakes in a simple news story?

APT! Kill it! Kill it!! Kill it!!!

Want to get paid for a vulnerability similar to this one?
Contact us at: sxsxdx@xbxexyxoxnxdxsxexcxuxrxixtxy.xcom

Argh! Another dozen APT stories in the last couple of days! Will no one rid me of this meddlesome buzzword?

(No, I don’t expect an answer to that question. Yes, I know it’s a media meme. I just wish security professionals, who should know better, would stop using it.)

Quick tip: in order to identify useless stories that use the term, check to see if the author, at the beginning, clearly defines what an APT is. Those that do not are garbage. (That would be all of them.) Is it advanced? No, APTs use malware we already know about: viruses, trojans, remote access trojans (RATs), keyloggers, that sort of thing. APTs use social engineering (aka “lying”) in order to get users to install malware. (That’s hardly new or advanced.) Is it persistent? Well, in many cases that’s true: a lot of these attacks go on over time, but that’s not particularly new: even Cliff Stoll’s “wiley hacker” kept it up for years. (Don’t know who Cliff Stoll is? Kids these days. Go away and do some actual research and learn about the field before you start trying to tell me that APT is an actual thing.) Is it a threat? Yes, but so are a lot of things.

The latest article I’ve seen, this morning, says that an “APT occurrence is a low-frequency high-impact incident.” Oh, good. An APT is a Black Swan. As Lady St. Hillier would say, “Good. Very specific.”