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

Integrating Least Privilege and Password Management to Solve Account Security Challenges

Integrating Least Privilege and Password Management to Solve Account Security Challenges

Posted July 24, 2014    Morey Haber

There is a reason all BeyondTrust Privileged Account Management (PAM) solutions share the PowerBroker name: They all inherently enable you to reduce user-based risk and can be integrated under a centralized IT risk management platform. Here’s one common use case that demonstrates how this integration changes the playing field. Consider the challenge of privileged access:…

Tags:
, , , , ,
PowerBroker Password Safe Password Age Report

Reshaping Privileged Password Management with Password Safe 5.2

Posted July 21, 2014    Martin Cannard

Today, we’re pleased to unveil the latest edition of our privileged password management solution, PowerBroker Password Safe. I’ll start with a brief intro of what’s new and then tell you a little about the driving factors behind Password Safe development. New features for mitigating password risk and ensuring accountability enterprise-wide Here’s the 10,000-foot overview of…

Tags:
, , ,
PowerBroker for Windows tamper protection

PowerBroker for Windows 6.6 Tamper Protection

Posted July 18, 2014    Morey Haber

I have a bone to pick: Stopping an administrator from performing an action on a system is futile endeavor. As an administrator, there is always a way to circumvent a solution’s from tampered protection. Really! By default, Windows administrators have unrestricted access to the system – and even though an application, hardened configuration, or group policy…

Tags:
, ,