BeyondTrust

Security in Context: The BeyondTrust Blog

Welcome to Security in Context

Bringing you news and commentary on solutions and strategies for protecting critical IT infrastructure in the context of your business.

Who is To Blame When An Insider Breach Occurs?

Posted February 6, 2012    Peter McCalister

As I’ve waded through the hundreds of published insider breaches from just the last two years, what was a clear recurring theme was that of the vagaries of human nature. Not meaning to wax poetic, but it was always an individual who misused their own, or some other insider’s, privileged access authorizations to IT systems to their own devices and/or gains.

That begs two questions:

What sets these people on their path to misuse of privilege?
Are they personally responsible or is the organization’s lack of controls partially responsible as well?

As I have pointed out many times—at the intersection of people, processes, and technology that make up the engine of modern business—it’s human nature that is the weakest link. And, all too often, it’s the tendency of almost the entire IT industry—vendors, analysts, and press—to ignore this.

Put another way, you can’t rely on everyone being a saint or competent all of the time. It’s not just malicious malcontents intent on destroying the system who can cause havoc, but also the negligent, misinformed, and down-right nosey who can compromise sensitive data. In all cases, it’s more often than not the case that such people have way too much privilege access— admin rights on the desktop, root password on the server—for the role they are required to play.

Indeed, when technology is to blame, it’s not always the technology company’s use; it’s the failure to recognize the importance of technology, such as privileged identity management (PIM) systems, which can restrain over-privileged users without hampering productivity, which is at fault. With increasing costs arising from data breaches, including cleanup costs, as well as customer churn due to diminished trust, it makes sense not to rely on trust alone when it comes to employee and third-party access to sensitive data.

Leave a Reply

Additional articles

ovum-research

New Analyst SWOT Assessment Identifies Key Strengths of PowerBroker

Posted November 24, 2014    Scott Lang

Following on the heels of the Gartner PAM market guide and Frost & Sullivan review of Password Safe comes a new analyst review of our BeyondInsight and PowerBroker platforms, a SWOT assessment of BeyondTrust written by Ovum. Ovum’s honest and thorough review of BeyondTrust indicates that we are delivering, “…an integrated, one-stop approach to PAM….

Tags:
, , ,

Patented Windows privilege management brings you unmatched benefits

Posted November 24, 2014    Scott Lang

We are pleased to announce that BeyondTrust has been granted a new U.S. Patent (No. 8,850,549) for privilege management, validating our approach to helping our customers achieve least privilege in Windows environments. The methods and systems that we employ for controlling access to resources and privileges per process are unique to BeyondTrust PowerBroker for Windows….

Tags:
6

A Quick Look at MS14-068

Posted November 20, 2014    BeyondTrust Research Team

Microsoft recently released an out of band patch for Kerberos.  Taking a look at the Microsoft security bulletin, it seems like there is some kind of issue with Kerberos signatures related to tickets. Further information is available in the Microsoft SRD Blogpost So it looks like there is an issue with PAC signatures.  But what…

Tags:
, , , ,