I’ve made it a point over the past 6 months to ask clients if they are combining their endpoint protection platform contracts across desktops, laptops and servers. In most cases (about 75%), the answer is yes – contracts are being combined in order to reduce complexity and costs.
Is protecting a desktop different than a laptop? Yes.
Is protecting a server different than a desktop or laptop? Yes
However, does this mean that we need a different vendor, product and console for each of these? Or, is it better to use a consistent set (palette) of controls to pick and choose from and just choose a different mix to protect different types of endpoints based on their needs? For example:
- All desktops and laptops need AV. Some servers need AV (general purpose file servers) and most organizations require AV on all Windows servers by policy.
- Application Control is more easily applied to servers which tend to be more static. However, some fixed desktop scenarios are well-suited to application control (e.g. call centers) and leading application control vendors are innovating in how they manage trusted change in desktop scenarios.
- Host firewalling is important to both, but tends to be more valued on laptops that move out from behind perimeter protection. Servers in the data center behind fixed firewalls may not need this at all.
- Deep packet inspection based host-based intrusion prevention (HIPS) is of value to both desktops and servers, but the ‘virtual patching’ capabilities of this style of protection tends to be more valued on servers that can’t be patched as frequently.
- Rules-based HIPS tends to be used more on servers where rules about normal application behavior are more easily defined
- Behavioral HIPS tends to be used more on laptops and desktops to augment traditional signature-based AV and protect from zero-day attacks because these devices routinely deal with arbitrary code. This isn’t as important on servers as they don’t routinely deal with arbitrary code and organizations don’t want to risk an occasional false positive.
- Servers are great candidates for file integrity monitoring. Few desktops will use file integrity monitoring, but I’ve had clients with desktops that fell in scope of PCI where they used file integrity monitoring on their desktops.
- Laptops are great candidates for full drive encryption, but some fixed desktop and server scenarios make sense for full drive encryption as well.
The set (palette) of controls is the same – AV, firewall, HIPS, FIM, application control, encryption, etc etc working together as a system. You pick and choose which controls are used and which policies are enforced based on the endpoint (desktop, laptop, server and increasingly mobile devices) and its usage scenarios. Think of the information security professional as an artist with a palette of colors/controls.
Do we need a different product/vendor/console for server security versus desktop security? Or a single product/vendor/console with the ability to pick and choose the appropriate controls and policies?
How does your organization handle this?
Read Complimentary Relevant Research
Predicts 2017: Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence is changing the way in which organizations innovate and communicate their processes, products and services. Practical...
View Relevant Webinars
How to Live Without Mobile Device Management
This webinar addresses the growing trend of users refusing to have enterprise management of their mobile devices due to privacy concerns....
Category: beyond-anti-virus endpoint-protection-platform next-generation-security-infrastructure
Tags: adaptive-security-infrastucture beyond-anti-virus defense-in-depth endpoint-protection-platform lockdown next-generation-security-infrastructure reducing-complexity reducing-cost windows
Comments or opinions expressed on this blog are those of the individual contributors only, and do not necessarily represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management. Readers may copy and redistribute blog postings on other blogs, or otherwise for private, non-commercial or journalistic purposes, with attribution to Gartner. This content may not be used for any other purposes in any other formats or media. The content on this blog is provided on an "as-is" basis. Gartner shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of the content or use of this blog.