Real-time intrusion detection systems play an instrumental role in monitoring and assessing the level of safety and security in enterprise data. These systems combine with antivirus software to provide up-to-date detection of various risks and vulnerabilities of organizational data. Two terms often confuse people regarding the compromise assessment; intrusion detection and the threat. Intrusion detection deals with a suite of actively dedicated analytical resources.
While the evaluation is an ongoing process, there’s sufficient time and a broader scope of authority to do an in-depth analysis than other regular periods of real-time monitoring.
Furthermore, the timely evaluation exposes the techniques and tools reserved for use when there’s a need for incident response. As it often happens, it’s these tools and techniques that work best to detect post-compromise activities and scenarios. Compromise analysis are considered the best form of defense given that it offers in-depth analysis of the organization’s capability to thwart threats and foil attacks.
Organizations in the thin margin industries are still grappling with the issue of defining a level of security that’s sufficient in terms of the evaluation and protection it offers. At the same time, the same alternative must prove to be a viable and affordable option.
Due to their limiting financial status, most of these organizations will try as much as possible to meet the bare minimums of the required legal compliance regulations. They’ll then accept whatever other risk or liability that remains. Where there’s room, such organizations will shift the remaining risks to an insurance policy.
Consequently, organizations in the lower margin industry need regular evaluation as part of their risk mitigation strategies. It’s an affordable alternative that will shield them against complex cyberattacks which cannot be detected and intercepted by their existing technology infrastructure.
Furthermore, many firms find it problematic trying to justify the need for extra security measures when there’s a particular case study they can site. In other words, it’s for these organizations to implement compromise analysis when their system has already been compromised. Such organizations fail to understand that its compromise analysis works well as a preventive tool instead of a reactive tool.
In some cases and industries, continuous monitoring might become so expensive that the organizations cannot sustain it. Such organizations can consider compromise evaluation to be the safest and most viable option to manage the risks associated with their operations.
Objectives of a viable compromise assessment
In the past, compromise analysis was a phenomenon that existed in limited varieties in services that incident response firms dominantly rendered. However, the practice is now quickly sprouting into varied shapes and industries that no one would have thought possible. Such rapid growth arises from the need for advanced systems that can counter the ever-increasing security threats that many organizations face.
The information available in public domains reveals the extent of the loss that many of these firms experience due to data and security breaches. It’s estimated that in 2020 alone, enterprise security faults led to a loss of $42 billion in revenue. With such alarming intrusion rates and risks, firms are constantly looking for avenues to seal off any loopholes in their network security systems.
Due to these incidences, it’s clear that this evaluation process is rapidly turning into many enterprises’ go-to solution. However, despite its effectiveness, one shortcoming with this remedy is the lack of a unified standard. Compromise analysis exists in various forms regarding the approaches, methodologies, and effectiveness of each solution.
When it comes to the standardization of security practice, the best to start is the definition of compromise evaluation. The process must also clearly define the goals and objectives during the initial phase of the process. If this is done correctly, it forms the basis for understanding the standardization process’s minimum requirements. A process that adheres to this first step stands a higher chance of being practical than bypassing it.
By definition, compromise evaluation is defined as the deliberate and targeted survey of a network system and all the adjoining devices to expose unknown malware, security breaches, and any other sign of authorized access. The process aims to reveal the attackers that might still be active in the environment, or their activities’ footprint can still be traced.
The following are some of the components of a successful compromise evaluation:
- Affordable – even organizations in the lower margin industries should find it easy to conduct it without financial strain.
- Effective – must be capable of detecting all the potential risks and threats in the environment in question.
- Independent – must be self-reliant, i.e., no use of external security tools.
- Fast – has to access and assess even the largest networks in only a matter of hours or few days.
As evident from the above features, an ideal compromise analysis is both efficient and affordable. Furthermore, it must be robust to provide the guarantee needed by small, medium, and extensive networks to handle the risks associated with their operations.