Download the Report
Advanced Threat Protection
Download the Datasheet
Let's Go Threat Hunting: Gain Visibility and Insight into Potential Threats and Risks
Download the Whitepaper
Bracing for the Tidal Wave of Data Privacy Compliance in America
View Recent Catches
Catch More Threats
June 10, 2010
Correlation – what’s it good for? Absolutely nothing!*
* Thank you Edwin Starr.
Ok, that might be a little harsh, but hear me out.
The grand vision of Security Information and Event Management is that it will tell you when you are in danger, and the means to deliver this is through sifting mountains of log files looking for trouble signs. I like to think of that as big-C correlation. Big-C correlation is an admirable concept of associating events with importance. But whenever a discussion occurs about correlation or for that matter SIEM – it quickly becomes a discussion about what I call little-c correlation – that is rules-based multi-event pattern matching.
To proponents of correlation, correlation can detect patterns of behavior so subtle that it would be impossible for a human unaided to do the same. It can deliver the promise of SIEM – telling you what is wrong in a sea of data. Heady stuff indeed and partially true. But the naysayers have numerous good arguments against as well; in no particular order some of the more common ones:
• Rules are too hard to write
• The rule builders supplied by the vendors are not powerful enough
• Users don’t understand the use cases (that is usually a vendor rebuttal argument for the above).
• Rules are not “set and forget” and require constant tuning
• Correlation can’t tell you anything you don’t already know (you have to know the condition to write the rule)
• Too many false positives
The proponents reply that this is a technical challenge and the tools will get better and the problem will be conquered. I have a broader concern about correlation (little c) however, and that is just how useful is it to the majority of customer uses cases. And if it is not useful, is SIEM, with a correlation focus, really viable?
The guys over at Securosis have been running a series defining SIEM that is really worth a read. Now the method they recommend for approaching correlation is that you look at your last 4-5 incidents when it comes to rule-authoring. Their basic point is that if the goals are modest, you can be modestly successful. OK, I agree, but then how many of the big security problems today are really the ones best served by correlation? Heck it seems the big problems are people being tricked into downloading and running malware and correlation is not going to help that. Education and Change Detection are both better ways to avoid those types of threats. Nor will correlation help with SQL injection. Most of the classic scenarios for correlation are successful perimeter breaches but with a SQL attack you are already within the perimeter. It seems to me correlation is potentially solving yesterdays’ problems – and doing it, because of technical challenges, poorly.
So to break down my fundamental issue with correlation – how many incidents are 1) serious 2) have occurred 3) cannot be mitigated in some other more reasonable fashion and 4) the future discovery is best done by detecting a complex pattern?
Not many, I reckon.
No wonder SIEM gets a bad rap on occasion. SIEM will make a user safer but the means to the end is focused on a flawed concept.
That is not to say correlation does not have its uses – certainly the bigger and more complex the environment the more likely you are going to have cases where correlation could and does help. In F500 the very complexity of the environment can mean other mitigation approaches are less achievable. The classic correlation focused SEM market started in large enterprise but is it a viable approach?
Let’s use Prism as an example, as I can speak for the experiences of our customers. We have about 900 customers that have deployed EventTracker, our SIEM solution. These customers are mostly smaller enterprises, what Gartner defines as SME, however they still purchased predominantly for the classic Gartner use case – the budget came from a compliance drive but they wanted to use SIEM as a means of improving overall IT security and sometime operations.
In the case of EventTracker the product is a single integrated solution so the rule-based correlation engine is simply part of the package. It is real-time, extensible and ships with a bunch of predefined rules.
But only a handful of our customers actually use it, and even those who do, don’t do much.
Interestingly enough, most of the customers looked at correlation during evaluation but when the product went into production only a handful actually ended up writing correlation rules. So the reality was, although they thought they were going to use the capability, few did. A larger number, but still a distinct minority, are using some of the preconfigured correlations as there are some uses cases (such as failed logins on multiple machines from a single IP) that a simple correlation rule makes good sense for. Even with the packaged rules however customers tended to use only a handful and regardless these are not the classic “if you see this on a firewall, and this on a server, and this in AD, followed by outbound ftp traffic you are in trouble” complex correlation examples people are fond of using.
Our natural reaction was there was something wrong with the correlation feature so we went back to the installed base and started nosing about. The common response was, no nothing wrong, just never got to it. On further questioning we surfaced the fact for most of the problems they were facing – rules were simply not the best approach to solving the problem.
So we have an industry that, if you agree with my premise, is talking about core value that is impractical to all but a small minority. We are, as vendors, selling snake oil.
So what does that mean?
Are prospects overweighting correlation capability in their evaluations to the detriment of other features that they will actually use later? Are they setting themselves up to fail with false expectations into what SIEM can deliver?
From a vendor standpoint are we all spending R&D dollars on capability that is really simply demoware? Case in point is correlation GUIs. Lots of R&D $$ go into correlation GUIs because writing rules is too hard and customers are going to write a lot of rules. But the compelling value promised for correlation is the ability to look for highly complex conditions. Inevitably when you make a development tool simpler you compromise the power in favor of speed of development. In truth you have not only made it simpler, but also stupider, and less capable. And if you are seldom writing rules, per the Securosis approach, does it need to be fast and easy at all?
That is not to say SIEM is valueless, SIEM is extremely valuable, but we are focusing on its most difficult and least valuable component which is really pretty darn strange. There was an interesting and amusing exchange a week or so ago when LogLogic lowered the price of their SEM capability. This, as you might imagine, raised the hackles of the SEM apologists. Rocky uses Arcsight as an example of successful SIEM (although he conveniently talks about SEM as SIEM, and the SIEM use case is broader now than SEM) – but how much ESM is Arcsight selling down-market? I tend to agree with Rocky in large enterprise but using that as an indicator of the broad market is dangerous. Plus the example of our customers I gave above would lead one to believe people bought for one reason but using the products in an entirely different way.
So hopefully this will spark some discussion. This is, and should not be, a slag between Log Management, SEM or SIM because it seems to me the only real differences between SEM and LM these days is in the amount of lip service paid to real-time rules.
So let’s talk about correlation – what is it good for?
June 07, 2010
This post introduces the concepts behind secure auditing. In subsequent posts we will look at secure auditing implementations in several of the Unix (Solaris, AIX, HP-UX) and Linux distributions. My apologies that this intro is a bit long at about 10 minutes but I think the foundation is worthwhile.
June 02, 2010
Mike Rothman of Securosis has a thread titled Understanding and Selecting SIEM/Log Management. He suggests both disciplines have fused and defines the holy grail of security practitioners as “one alert telling exactly what is broken”. In the ensuing discussion, there is a suggestion that SIEM and Log Mgt have not fused and there are vendors that do one but not the other.
After a number of years in the industry, I find myself uncomfortable with either term (SIEM or Log Mgt) as it relates to the problem the technology can solve, especially for the mid-market, our focus.
The SIEM term suggests it’s only about Security, and while that is certainly a significant use-case, it’s hardly the only use for the technology. That said if a user wishes to use the technology for only the security use case, fine, but that is not a reflection of the technology. Oh by the way, Security Information Management would perforce include other items such as change audit and configuration assessment data as well which is outside scope of “Log Management”.
The trouble with the term Log Management is that it is not tied to any particular use case and that makes it difficult to sell (not to mention boring). Why would you want to manage logs anyway? Users only care about solutions to real problems they have; not generic “best practice” because Mr. Pundit says so.
SIEM makes sense as “the” use case for this technology as you go to large (Fortune 2000) enterprises and here SIEM is often a synonym for correlation.
But to do this in any useful way, you will need not just the box (real or
virtual) but especially the expert analyst team to drive it, keep it updated and ticking. What is this analyst team busy with? Updating the rules to accommodate constantly changing elements (threats, business rules, IT components) to get that “one alert”. This is not like AntiVirus where rule updates can happen directly from the vendor with no intervention from the admin/user. This is a model only large enterprises can afford.
Some vendors suggest that you can reduce this to an analyst-in-a-box for small enterprise i.e., just buy my box, enable these default rules, minimal intervention and bingo you will be safe. All too common results are either irrelevant alerts or the magic box acts as the dog in the night time. A major reason for “pissed-off SIEM users”. And of course a dedicated analyst (much less a team) is simply not available.
This not to say that the technology is useless absent the dedicated analyst or that SIEM is a lost cause but rather to paint a realistic picture that any “box” can only go so far by itself; and given the more-with-less needs in this mid-market, obsessing on SIEM features obscures the greater value offered by this technology.
Most Medium Enterprise networks are “organically grown architectures” a response to business needs — there is rarely an overarching security model that covers the assets. Point solutions dominate based on incidents or perceived threats or in response to specific compliance mandates. See the results of our virtualization survey for example. Given the resource constraints, the technology must have broad features beyond the (essential) security ones. The smarter the solution, the less smart the analyst needs to be — so really it’s a box-for-an-analyst (and of course all boxes now ought to be virtual).
It makes sense to ask what problem is solved, as this is the universe customers live in. Mike identifies reacting faster, security efficiency and compliance automation to which I would add operations support and cost reduction. More specifically, across the board, show what is happening (track users, monitor critical systems/applications/firewalls, USB activity, database activity, hypervisor changes, physical eqpt etc), show what has happened (forensic, reports etc) and show what is different (change audit).
So back to the question, what would you call such a solution? SIEM has been pounded by Gartner et al into the budget line items of large enterprises so it becomes easier to be recognized as a need. However it is a limiting description. If I had only these two choices, I would have to favor Log Management where one (essential) application is SIEM.
May 19, 2010
PCI Logging HOWTO, Part 2 Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) was created by the major card brands and is now managed by the PCI Security Standards Council. Since its creation in 2006, PCI DSS continues to affect how thousands of organization approach security. PCI applies to all organizations that handle credit card transactions or that store or process payment card data – and such organizations number in the millions worldwide. Despite its focus on reducing payment card transaction risk, PCI DSS also makes an impact on broader data security as well as network and application security.
April 26, 2010
Continuing our series on user activity monitoring, today we look at something that is very hard to do in Vista and later, and impossible in XP and earlier — that is reporting on system idle time. The only way to accomplish this in Windows is to setup a domain policy to lock the screen after a certain amount of time and then calculate from the time the screen saver is invoked to when it is cleared. In XP and prior, however, the invocation of the screensaver does not generate an event so you are out of luck. In Vista and later, an event is triggered so it is slightly better, but even there the information generated should only be viewed as an estimate as the method is not fool-proof. We’ll look at the Pro’s (few) and Con’s (many). Enjoy.
April 21, 2010
PCI Logging HOWTO Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) was created by the major card brands – Visa, MasterCard, American Express, JCB and Discover – and is now managed by the PCI Security Standards Council. Since its creation in 2006, PCI DSS continues to affect how thousands of organization approach security. PCI applies to all organizations that handle credit card transactions or that store or process payment card data – and such organization number in the millions worldwide.
April 14, 2010
Today we continue our series on user activity monitoring using event logs. The beginning of any analysis of user activity starts with the system logon. We will take a look at some sample events and describe the types of useful information that can be pulled from the log. While we are doing user logons, we will also take a short diversion into failed user logons. While perhaps not directly useful for activity monitoring paying attention to attempts to logon are also critical.
April 07, 2010
Today we begin a new miniseries – looking at and reporting on user activities. Most enterprises restrict what users are able to do — such as playing computer games during work hours. This can be done through software that restricts access, but often it is simply enforced on the honor system. Regardless of which approach a company takes, analyzing logs presents a pretty good idea of what users are up to. In the next few sessions we will take a look at the various logs that get generated and what can be done with them.
March 31, 2010
Today we look at an interesting operational use case of logs that we learned about by painful experience — static IP address conflicts. We have a pretty large number of static IP addresses assigned to our server machines. Typical of a smaller company we assigned IP addresses and recorded them in a spread sheet. Well, one of our network guys made a mistake and we ended up having problems with duplicate addresses. The gremlins came out in full force and nothing seemed to be working right! We used logs to quickly diagnosis the problem. Although I mention a windows pop-up as a possible means of being alerted to the problem I can safely say we did not see it, or if we did, we missed it.
– By Ananth
March 26, 2010
Anomaly Detection and Log Management: What we Can (and Can’t) Learn from the Financial Fraud Space Have you ever been in a store with an important purchase, rolled up to the cash register and handed over your card only to have it denied? You scramble to think why: “Has my identity been stolen?” “Is there something wrong with the purchase approval network?” “Did I forget to pay my bill?” While all of the above are possible explanations
March 09, 2010
In the conclusion of our three part series on monitoring workstations we look at the 10 reports that you should run and review to increase your overall security and prevent outages.
February 25, 2010
In part 2 of our series on workstation monitoring we look at the 6 things that are in your best interest to monitor — the types of things that if you proactively monitor will save you money by preventing operational and security problems. I would be very interested if any of you monitor other things that you feel would be more valuable. Hope you enjoy it.
February 18, 2010
Today we are going to start a short series on the value of monitoring logs on Windows workstations. It is commonly agreed to that log monitoring on servers is a best practice, but until recently the complexity and expense of log management on workstations made most people shy away, but log monitoring on the workstation is valuable, and easy as well, if you know what to look for. These next 3 blogs will tell you the why, how and what.
February 07, 2010
Turning log information into business intelligence with relationship mapping Now that we’re past January, most of us have received all of our W2 and 1099 tax forms. We all know that it’s important to keep these forms until we’ve filed our taxes and most of us also keep the forms for seven years after filing in case there is a problem with a previous year’s filing. But how many of us keep those records past the seven year mark? Keeping too much data can be as problematic as not keeping records at all. One of the biggest problems with retention of too much information is that storage needs increase and it becomes difficult to parse through the existing data to find what’s most important.
February 04, 2010
I am often asked that if Log Management is so important to the modern IT department, then how come more than 80% of the market that “should” have adopted it has not done so?
The cynic says “unless you have best practice as an enforced regulation (think PCI-DSS here)” then twill always be thus.
One reason why I think this is so is because earlier generations never had power tools and found looking at logs to be hard and relatively unrewarding work. That perception is hard to overcome even in this day and age after endless punditry and episode after episode has clarified the value.
Still resisting the value proposition? Then consider a recent column in the NY Times which quotes Dov Seidman, the C.E.O. of LRN who describes two kinds of values: “situational values” and “sustainable values.”
The article is in the context of the current political situation in the US but the same theme applies to many other areas.
“Leaders, companies or individuals guided by situational values do whatever the situation will allow, no matter the wider interests of their communities. For example, a banker who writes a mortgage for someone he knows can’t make the payments over time is acting on situational values, saying: I’ll be gone when the bill comes due.”
At the other end, people inspired by sustainable values act just the opposite, saying: I will never be gone. “I will always be here. Therefore, I must behave in ways that sustain — my employees, my customers, my suppliers, my environment, my country and my future generations.”
We accept that your datacenter grew organically, that back-in-the-day there were no power tools and you dug ditches with your bare hands outside when it was 40 below and tweets were for the birds…but…that was then and this is now.
Get Log Management, it’s a sustainable value.
January 27, 2010
Today we conclude our journey through the PCI Standard with a quick look at Requirement 12. Requirement 12 documents the necessity to setup and maintain a policy for Information Security for employees and contractors. While this is mostly a documentation exercise it does have requirements for monitoring and alerting that log management can certainly help with.
January 17, 2010
Time won’t give me time: The importance of time synchronization for Log Management
Does this sound familiar? You get off a late night flight and wearily make your way to your hotel. As you wait to check in, you look at the clocks behind the registration desk and do a double-take.
January 12, 2010
Today we look at the grand-daddy of all logging requirements in PCI — Section 10 (specifically, Section 10.5) and Section 11. As with most of PCI, the requirements are fairly clear and it is hard to understand how someone could accomplish them without log management.
December 16, 2009
Today we look at PCI-DSS Requirements 7, 8 and 9. In general these are not quite as applicable as the audit requirements in Requirement 10 which we will be looking at next time, but still log management is useful in several ancillary areas. Restricting access and strong access control are both disciplines log management helps you enforce.
December 11, 2009
Tuning Log Management and SIEM for Compliance Reporting The winter holidays are quickly approaching, and one thing that could probably make most IT Security wish lists is a way to produce automated compliance reports that make auditors say “Wow!” In last month’s newsletter, we took a look at ways to work better with auditors. This month, we’re going to do a deeper dive into tuning of log management and SIEM for more effective compliance reporting.
December 08, 2009
Ananth, the CEO of Prism is fond of remarking “there is gold in them thar logs…” this is absolutely true but the really hard thing about logs is figuring out how to get the gold out without needing to be the guy with the pencil neck and the 26 letters after their name that enjoys reading logs in their original arcane format. For the rest of us, I am reminded of the old western movies where prospectors pan for gold – squatting by the stream, scooping up dirt and sifting through it looking for gold, all day long, day after day. Whenever I see one of those scenes my back begins to hurt and I feel glad I am not a prospector. At Prism we are in the business of gold extraction tools. We want more people finding gold and lots of it. It is good for both of us.
One of the most common refrains we hear from prospects is they are not quite sure what the gold looks like. When you are panning for gold and you are not sure that glinty thing in the dirt is gold, well, that makes things really challenging. If very few people can recognize the gold we are not going to sell large quantities of tools.
In EventTracker 6.4 we undertook a little project where we asked ourselves “what can we do for the person that does not know enough to really look or ask the right questions?” A lot of log management is looking for the out-of-ordinary, after all. The result is a new dashboard view we call the Enterprise Activity Monitor.
Enterprise Activity uses statistical correlation to looks for things that are simply unusual. We can’t tell you they are necessarily trouble, but we can tell you they are not normal and enable you to analyze them and make a decision. Little things that are interesting – like if you get a new IP address coming into your enterprise 5000 times. Or if a user generally performs 1000 activities in a day, but suddenly does 10,000, or even as simple as a new executable showing up unexpectedly on user machines. Will you chase the occasionally false positive ? definitely, but a lot of the manual log review being performed by the guys with the alphabets after their names is really simply manually chasing trends – this enables you to stop wasting significant time in detecting the trend — all the myriad clues that are easily lost when you are aggregating 20 or 100 million logs a day.
The response from the Beta customers indicates that we are onto something. After all, any thing that can make our (hopefully more) customers’ lives less tedious and their backs hurt less, is all good!
December 07, 2009
Last we looked at PCI-DSS Requirements 3 and 4, so today we are going to look at Requirements 5 and 6. Requirement 5 talks about using AV software, and log management can be used to monitor AV applications to ensure they are running and updated. Requirement 6 is all about building and maintaining a secure network for which log management is a great aid.
November 17, 2009
Today we continue our journey through the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS). We left off last time with Requirement 2, so today we look at Requirements 3 and 4, and how log management can be used to help ensure compliance.
November 16, 2009
Working Well with Auditors For some IT professionals, the mere mention of an audit conjures painful images of being trussed and stuffed like a Thanksgiving turkey. If you’ve ever been through an audit that you weren’t prepared for, you may harbor your own unpleasant images of an audit process gone wrong. As recently as 10-15 years ago, many auditors were just learning their way around the “new world” of IT, while just as many computer and network professionals were beginning to learn their way around the audit world.
October 28, 2009
Have you been wondering how some of the statements coming from the credit card processing industry seem a little contradictory? You hear about PCI compliant entities being hacked but the PCI guys are still claiming they have never had a compliant merchant successfully breached. Perhaps not, but if both statements are true, you certainly have an ineffective real world standard or problematic certification process at the very least.
Not to pick on Heartland again but Heartland passed their PCI mandated audit and were deemed compliant by a certified PCI Auditor approximately one month prior to the now infamous hack. Yet, at Visa’s Global Security Summit in Washington in March, Visa officials were adamant in pointing out that no PCI compliant organization has been breached.
Now, granted, Heartland was removed from their list of certified vendors after the breach although perhaps this was just a bizarre Catch 22 in play – you are compliant until you are hacked, but when you are hacked the success of the hack makes you non-compliant.
Logically it seems 4 things or a combination of the 4 could potentially have occurred at Heartland. 1) The audit could have been inadequate or the results incorrect leading to a faulty certification. 2) Heartland in the intervening month made a material change in the infrastructure such that it threw them out of compliance. 3) The hack was accomplished in an area outside of the purview of the DSS, or 4) Ms. Richey (and others) is doing some serious whistling past the graveyard.
What is happening in the Heartland case is the classic corporate litigation-averse response to a problem. Anytime something bad happens the blame game starts with multiple targets, and as a corporation your sole goal is to be sure to get behind one or the other (preferably larger) target because when the manure hits the fan the person in the very front is going to get covered. Unfortunately this behavior does not seem to really foster solving the problem as everyone has their lawyers and are not talking.
Regardless, maybe the PCI should not be saying things like “no compliant entity has ever been breached” and maybe say something like “perhaps we have a certification issue here”, or “how do we reach continuous compliance?” or even “what are we missing here?”
October 23, 2009
Today’s blog looks at Requirement 1 of the PCI Data Security Standard, which is about building and maintaining a secure network. We look at how logging solutions such as EventTracker can help you maintain the security of your network by monitoring logs coming from security systems.
October 20, 2009
Today we are going to start a new series on how logs help you meet PCI DSS. PCI DSS is one of those rare compliance standards that call out specific requirements to collect and review logs. So in the coming weeks, we’ll look at the various sections of the standard and how logs supply the information you need to become compliant. This is the introductory video. As always, comments are welcome.
– By Ananth
October 12, 2009
I saw a headline a day or so ago on BankInfoSecurity.com about the Heartland data breach: Lawsuit: Heartland Knew Data Security Standard was ‘Insufficient’. It is worth a read as is the actual complaint document (remarkably readable for legalese, but I suspect the audience for this document was not other lawyers). The main proof of this insufficiency seems to be contained in point 56 in the complaint. I quote:
56. Heartland executives were well aware before the Data Breach occurred that the bare minimum PCI-DSS standards were insufficient to protect it from an attack by sophisticated hackers. For example, on a November 4, 2008 Earnings Call with analysts, Carr remarked that “[w]e also recognize the need to move beyond the lowest common denominator of data security, currently the PCI-DSS standards. We believe it is imperative to move to a higher standard for processing secure transactions, one which we have the ability to implement without waiting for the payments infrastructure to change.” Carr’s comment confirms that the PCI standards are minimal, and that the actual industry standard for security is much higher. (Emphasis added)
Despite not being a mathematician, I do know that the lowest common denominator does not mean minimal or barely adequate, but that aside lets look at the 2 claims in the last sentence.
It is increasingly popular to bash compliance regulations in the security industry these days and often with good reason. We have heard and made the arguments many times before that compliant does not equal secure and further, don’t embrace the standard, embrace the spirit or intent of the standard. But to be honest the PCI DSS Standard is far from minimal, especially by comparison to most other compliance regulations.
The issue with standards has been the fear that they make companies complacent. Does PCI-DSS make you safe from attacks from sophisticated hackers? Well, no, but there is no single regulation, standard or practice out there that will. You can make it hard or harder to get attacked, and PCI-DSS does make it harder, but impossible, no.
Is the Data Security Standard perfect? No. Is the industry safer with it than without it? I would venture a guess that in the case of PCI DSS it is, in fact. That there was significant groaning and a lot of work on the part of the industry to implement the standard would lead one to believe that they were not doing it prior and that there are not a lot of worthless requirements in the DSS. PCI DSS makes a company take positive steps like run vulnerability scans, examine logs for signs of intrusion, and encrypt data. If all those companies handling credit cards prior to the standard were not doing these things, imagine what it was like before?
The second claim is where the real absurdity lays — the assertion that the industry standard for security is so much better than PCI DSS. What industry standard are they talking about exactly? In reality, the industry standard for security is whatever the IT department can cajole, scare, or beg the executives into providing them in terms of budget and resources – which is as little as possible (remember this is capitalism – profits do matter). Using this as a basis, the actual standard for security is to do as little as possible for the least amount of money to avoid being successfully sued, your executives put in jail or losing business. Indeed PCI DSS forced companies to do more, but emphasis on the forced. (So, come to think of it maybe Heartland did not do the industry standard, as they are getting sued, but let’s wait on that outcome!).
Here is where I have my real problem with the entire matter. The statements taken together imply that Heartland had some special knowledge to the DSS’s shortcomings and did nothing, and indeed did not even do what other people in the industry were doing – the “industry standard”. The reality is anyone with a basic knowledge of cyber security and the PCI DSS would have known the limitations, this included no doubt many, many people on the staffs of the banks that are suing. So whatever knowledge Heartland had, the banks that were customers of Heartland knew as well, and even if they did not, Mr. Carr went so far as to announce it in the call noted above. If this statement was so contrary to the norm, why didn’t the banks act in the interest of their customers and insist Heartland shape up or fire them? What happened to the concept of the educated and responsible buyer?
If Heartland was not compliant I have little sympathy for them, or if it can be proved they were negligent, well, have at them. But the banks here took a risk getting into the credit card issuing business– and no doubt made a nice sum of money – but they knew the risk of a data breach and the follow-on expense existed. I thought the nature of risk was that you occasionally lose and in the case of business risk impacts your profits. This lawsuit seems to be like the recent financial bailout – the new expectation of risk in the financial community is when it works, pocket the money, and when it does not, blame someone else to make them pay or get a bailout!
October 05, 2009
Today we wrap up our series on the Consensus Audit Guidelines. Over the last couple of months we have looked at the 15 CAG controls that can be automated, and we have examined how log management and log management solutions such as EventTracker can help meet the Guidelines. Today we look at CAG 15 — data loss prevention and examine the many ways logs help in preventing data leakage.
October 05, 2009
Log Management in virtualized environments Back in the early/mid-90s I was in charge of the global network for a software company. We had a single connection to the Internet and had set up an old Sun box as the gatekeeper between our internal network and the ‘net. My “log management” process consisted of keeping a terminal window open on my desktop where I streamed the Sun’s system logs (or “tailed the syslog”) in real time.
See EventTracker in action!
Join our next live demo December 4th at 2:00 p.m. EST.