We’re pretty deep into our series on Implementing DLP, so it’s time to put together an index to tie together all the posts. I will keep this up to date as new content goes up, and in the end it will be the master list for all eternity. Or until someone hacks our site and deletes everything. Whichever comes first.
With priorities fully defined, it is now time to start the actual integration.
The first stop is deploying the DLP tool itself. This tends to come in one of a few flavors – and keep in mind that you often need to license different major features separately, even if they all deploy on the same box. This is the heart of your DLP deployment and needs to be in place before you do any additional integration.
It might be obvious by now, but the following charts show which DLP components, integrated with which existing infrastructure, you need based on your priorities. I have broken this out into three different images to make them more readable. Why images? Because I have to dump all this into a white paper later, and building them in a spreadsheet and taking screenshots is a lot easier than mucking with HTML-formatted charts
As I stated in the intro, Database Security Platform (DSP, to save us writing time and piss off the anti-acronym crowd) differs from DAM in a couple ways. Let’s jump right in with a definition of DSP, and then highlight the critical differences between DAM and DSP.
Since Rich is vacationing working hard at a security conference in Mexico, I figure I would write this week’s Friday Summary. I am pretty jazzed about some upcoming white papers I’ll be writing on securing data and applications at scale, understanding and selecting masking technologies, and why log management is not dead! And I am having a good time researching and writing the DAM 2.0 DSP series as well. I originally intended to write about our research agenda but changed my mind. Frankly, I…
We started the Bridging the Mobile Security Gap series by accepting that we can’t control the devices that show up on our networks any more. We followed up with a diatribe on the need for context to build and enforce policies which ensure that (only) the right users get to the right stuff at the right times.
It’s unbelievable how different growing up today is. When I was in elementary school in the late 70s, Pong was state of the art and a handheld Coleco football game would keep a little kid occupied for hours. When they came up with the Head to Head innovation, two kids would be occupied for hours. That was definitely a different type of Occupy movement. We also didn’t have 300 channels on the boob tube. We had 5 channels, and the highlight of the year was Monster Week. At least for me.
One of the coolest things about how we work at Securosis is our Totally Transparent Research approach. We always post our work to the blog first and let you folks have at it. In many cases it gets poked and prodded, ridiculed, and broken down. It’s certainly tough on the ego, but in the end makes the work better.
At this point all planning should be complete. You have determined your incident handling process, started (or finished) cleaning up directory servers, defined your initial data protection priorities, figured out which high-level implementation process to start with, mapped our the environment so you know where to integrate, and performed initial testing and perhaps a proof of concept.
As we discussed in the first post of this series, consumerization and mobility will remain macro drivers of security for the foreseeable future, and force us to stare down network anarchy. We can certainly go back into the security playbook and deal with an onslaught of unwieldy devices by implementing some kind of agentry on the devices to provide a measure of control. But results of this device-centric approach have been mixed. And that’s being kind.