Tech Center Report: Using E-Mail Security Service Providers to Round Out Protection

Hosted-e-mail security firms are leading the SaaS market thanks to ease of implementation and other benefits. Still, these services are not without risks. In this Dark Reading report, we discuss how to determine what mix of in-house and hosted mail makes sense for your organization.

Dark ReadingFor those looking to test the outsourcing waters, moving your initial line of defense for e-mail security has a lot of benefits with few drawbacks, as we discuss in our Dark Reading Tech Center report, "Using Service Providers To Boost Protection." You can download the report at here.

As they stand today, the architectures of SMTP and other e-mail protocols are sorely lacking, mainly because of a dearth of baked-in security. Unlike Web sites, where vendors use SSL certificates and domains to authenticate themselves, there exists no universally deployed standard for doing the same thing with e-mail. It's still the Wild West out there.


More Security Insights

Webcasts

More >>

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

One way those loose protocols work to our advantage, however, is the ease with which e-mail security services can be deployed. Simply change a DNS MX record, and all your mail will flow through a cloud-based service before being relayed to your server. Damage from outages is mitigated by the underlying protocols, which will automatically queue messages and retry missed connections, and the MX records themselves support multiple layers of redundancy to keep the mail flowing.

Current investments in security software and mail servers need not be tossed out the window, either. Rather, their life spans are extended significantly. A recent Trend Micro customer survey showed that 15% to 20% of its customers had experienced network outages or other problems caused by malicious payloads or the sheer volume of inbound e-mail. Using a hosted service means the vast majority of damaging and wasteful content is filtered before it even hits your network, letting you keep your existing hardware longer--sure to go over well in this economy. Finally, some vendors offer feature parity between their locally deployed security software and their cloud-based services, so there's no reason to lower your expectations on the level of control you have over your e-mail security.

Read our full Dark Reading e-mail security services Tech Center report
Today, e-mail security threats generally fall into one of two categories: Either bad stuff is coming in, or good stuff is leaking out.

On the inbound side, not only has the volume of bad stuff increased dramatically over the past decade, but so has the variety. The Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group estimated that 72% of e-mail was spam in the fourth quarter of 2005. By 2008, spam was consistently above 90%. We've heard estimates from vendors placing the volume today at above 95%.

As for what's being thrown at us, it's not just run-of-the-mill commercial spam--yes, "buy our pills" still remains a lucrative business for those willing to incur the wrath of the Internet and, increasingly, law enforcement. We're also dealing with malicious attachments; random noise as spammers attempt to devalue and disrupt learning-based protection systems; direct mail connections from botnet-controlled endpoints; and URL-based attacks leveraging browser exploits or promiscuous users to execute malicious code without ever e-mailing a file. There's seemingly no end to the badness.

InformationWeek: January 18, 2010 Issue To read the rest of the article, download a free PDF of InformationWeek magazine
(registration required)


Related Reading




Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
Subscribe to RSS

Resource Links