Most networks today use TCP/IP. With TCP/IP, networks are “default-open” - any device that is connected to the network can connect to any other device on the network, and two (or more) networks can easily be connected with each other. There is little need for management or control.
The virtue of TCP/IP networks is that they give users access to the information they need, when they need it, and where they need it. But these features also make it easy for hackers, worms and viruses to invade the network.
The rise of abuse has shown that default-open, while ideal, is simply not practical. In response, vendors have developed a variety of network security solutions. For the most part, these solutions address discrete points of network vulnerability.
For example:
This approach to network security is known as point-product because it applies a product to a point of vulnerability on the network. Point-product solutions have significant disadvantages in that they:
It is also difficult for network owners to know which solutions are the “best of breed” and it takes considerable time to evaluate the various solutions available.
Finally, because of the proliferation of point-product solutions and the conflicting demands of network users, even small networks require either an in-house or third party security administrator to make the solutions effective.
It is understandable that the point-product approach has driven the network security market. Networks have grown as quickly as network abusers have discovered new ways to undermine them. It made sense to stamp out the fires.
But the age of the point-product approach is coming to an end. Network owners are increasingly concerned about its complexity and “stovepipe” design, and that it requires ever-increasing investments for staff education, system integration, and operation.
At the same time, businesses are making demands on their security teams to contribute to initiatives like regulatory compliance or service level management. Product-point solutions are islands unto themselves, and are increasingly technically ineffective and too complex and expensive to own and operate.
Cisco Systems summarizes the problem this way: “The point-product solution model has become inadequate for managing today’s network security risk, compliance and audit requirements.”
Permissions-Based Network Security
Networks are made up devices – routers, switches, computers, etc. This is the underlying perspective of the point-product approach.
A permissions-based approach to network security takes a different view. It sees that networks are also made up of users – users who download programs they should not download, open email that contains worms and viruses, or hack servers to which they should not have access.
Under a permissions-based approach, it does not matter who the user is. It also does not matter what the user’s motivations are. Permissions-based network security assumes that any user or device (desktop, laptop, PDA, etc.) is a potential abuser, whether by intent, accident, or oversight.
Permissions are, of course, based on the organization’s policies regarding network access, both in general and as those policies apply to individual users. Permissions-based network security addresses such questions as the following:
Under the permissions-based approach, permissions are stored as secure digital certificates in the AppiaSecure gateway, which administers those permissions on a real-time basis.
Permissions are set for both devices and user activities. AppiaSecure can be used to set permissions for such activities as:
What are the advantages of the permissions-based approach over the familiar point-product-approach?
It will, of course, take time for the permissions-based approach to replace the traditional point-product solutions. However, its lower cost, ease of administration, and flexibility are powerful arguments for adoption.