A Layered Approach is Must for Cybersecurity

March 14, 2020

Cybercrime is an ever-present risk confronting companies all things considered. So as to shield themselves against a successful data breach, IT teams must remain a stride in front of cybercriminals by protecting against a torrent of progressively refined attacks at high volumes.

What confuses this challenge further is that the techniques and attack vectors that cybercriminals depend on are continually advancing. It’s the classic problem of security teams covering each possibility, while cybercriminals just need to slip past barriers once. Along these lines, IT teams should persistently update their defenses dependent on current risk trends. Today, IoT, mobile malware, cryptojacking, and botnets are top concentrations for cybercriminals

The criminals target end-users to bring in cash, and as cybersecurity providers, they have to shield buyers and organizations from these targeted attacks. To effectively upset attacks, a multi-layered way to deal with security is ideal.

Layered security, defense-in-depth security, is a way to deal with cybersecurity that doesn’t depend on a “silver shot” solution for counter cyberthreats. Despite the fact that there are a few reasons why a layered security approach is a significant and powerful cybersecurity best practice.

Many think about a layered approach to deal with cybersecurity regarding technology and tools. This implies having different security controls set up to ensure separate gateways. For instance, deploying a web application firewall, endpoint protections and secure email doors, as opposed to depending just on traditional perimeter defenses. While these solutions are all part of a layered security approach, it really works out in a good way beyond deploying layers of various security tools. For cybersecurity to be compelling, companies should likewise consider how they influence individuals and procedures. At the point when consolidated into a single, integrated framework, a covering methodology dependent on security tools, individuals, and procedures will yield the best resistances.

From a macro level point of view, the layers of security are policy, technology, and training. You need clear and solid policies to direct what security controls ought to be set up. For instance, you could have an approach that says, “Be careful when opening email attachments or clicking on links from individuals you don’t have a clue.”

That policy would then be able to be upheld by a technology layer, which would comprise of technical components or sub-layers, such as designing firewall entrance and exit filtering rules, setting up a NAT or reverse proxy, opening only specific ports, and so on.

The last layer guarantees that end-users, which are quite often the most fragile connection in a security program, are appropriately instructed about the outcomes of failing to hold fast to security policies as well as how to maintain those approaches. It doesn’t make a difference in how well-thought-out your policies and how state-of-the-art your technologies are if your end users are not instructed enough, your security controls can be in danger of being bypassed.

Keeping this in mind, it’s basic that companies conduct regular training sessions during the year to keep employees aware of potential tricks and the manners in which they can make their organization vulnerable. Training programs like these will make a solid culture of cybersecurity that can go a far way toward limiting threats.

Another way IT teams can improve cybersecurity at the worker level is access management policies, for example, the rule of least benefit, which furnishes an individual with access to data in particular if it is important to carry out their responsibility, in this manner lessening the exposure and outcomes of a break.

As talked about already, there are a host of technologies that security teams can execute so as to layer their defenses. That being stated, it’s significant that IT teams don’t execute segregated point solutions as they layer their barriers, yet rather, select those tools dependent on their ability to be integrated and automated to create a Security Fabric that can encourage the quick detection and mitigation of threats.

Deception technologies level even the odds automating the creation of dynamic decoys that are scattered all through the IT environment, making it harder for the adversary to figure out which resources are fake and which are genuine. At the point when fake assets can’t make this distinction, cybercriminals are compelled to sit around idly on counterfeit resources and exercise alert as they search for tripwires installed in these fake environments. This may expect them to change their strategies, subsequently increasing their odds of being detected by security teams.

If you establish layered security, you really acquire flexibility in keeping up a worthy degree of security. To expound on that, if you have just a single security solution that requires fixing (for example to prevent a recently known exploit) and that fix by one way or another can’t be applied to specific frameworks, you’re left with no other alternative.

However, if you can fix most of your frameworks, segregate the ones you can’t fix, and afterwards apply specific monitoring on those unpatched systems, you, despite everything, should have the option to detect an attack that takes advantage of the known exploit. That is another advantage of layered security. In the present threat landscape, where cyberattacks are typically multi-pronged, multi-organized, and multi-faceted, a layered methodology is, sensibly, the only way you can genuinely protect your digital resources.