There is a bit of a name fight going on with a new class of security software. Traditionally, this has been called UBA, for User Based Analysis or Analytics. However, recently newer firms are coming to market arguing that the name should have more to do with the benefit the technology provides and reflect that the breadth of analysis goes well beyond users. Thus, you have ABD, or Active Breach Detection, and this could as easily be DBD, or Dynamic Breach Detection, or even SJIASSFYCAWCTYWTAAWTAS or Some Jerk Is Already Stealing Stuff From Your Company And We Can Tell You Who They Are And What They Are Stealing.
Let's talk about the technology and even more about why you never want to volunteer to name a product. I named one product in my life ADSM and now run screaming anytime someone suggests I name another.
UBA to ABD
I spoke a bit about UBA recently in my piece "How to Stop the Security Breach Tsunami" and I believe deeply in the concept and the core problem, which is that perimeter security isn't working anymore. Not that you should eliminate it, but that it is simply letting too many people in who aren't being caught. I remain amazed that the government looks at events like the Snowden leak as if they are unique in the theft, not unique in the disclosure.
I mean if your vault had a big hole in the back and someone sent you an email saying they took out a bundle of money might you not assume there could be at least a few others who did the same thing and didn't feel the need to get arrested and go to jail for it?
How many spies go on the Internet to brag about what they have stolen? But when you say user-based there is a sense that it is only users who are causing the problem or that by simply tracking users you can find all of the activity. It could be a hostile system, it could be a programming bug placed intentionally or accidentally in servers or networking gear, it could be back door or as portrayed in the new show Mr. Robot (which is fascinating, by the way) or a nasty Root Kit.
It is not any of the above, it is potentially all of the above and that is why so many of the firms doing internal security analysis are now expanding to look at packets, traffic, weird data events and a variety of other things that are put through some form of analytics engine so that the security analyst isn't overwhelmed with the resulting noise. This the reason to shift from a name focused on users to one focused on benefits has merit.
Sign up for Computerworld eNewsletters.