HPE Aruba weaves new fabric for analytics-driven IoT security

HPE Aruba weaves new fabric for analytics-driven IoT security

HPE Aruba executives say the company has aligned its latest software layers to be more specifically engineered to address security concerns in the IoT.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) networking and communications products company Aruba has updated its stack with a product labelled as the 360 Secure Fabric.

This ‘fabric’ (or security software framework architecture plus associated and connected application services and functions) is supposed to provide analytics-driven attack detection and response.

Where many security software layers have (until now) been focused on user behavior analysis, the IoT necessitates that admins also analyze the behavior and status of devices. In response, the company says it is innovating in user and entity behavioral analytics (‘UEBA’) and expanding its IntroSpect product family to reflect new needs.

According to Aruba spokespeople, the 360 Secure Fabric offers security teams an integrated way to detect and respond to advanced cyberattacks from pre-authorisation to post-authorisation across multi-vendor infrastructures.

The product uses machine-learning to spot attacks before they do damage, in tandem with raising the alarm for IT to further secure the network across all mobile, cloud and IoT-related devices.

Read more: IoT is heading for mass adoption by 2019, says Aruba

Partner power

The technology combines the resources and endpoint technology engineering expertise of over 100 partners (including Palo Alto Networks, McAfee and MobileIron) to create an interoperable platform for any network deployment use case.

“As traditional security perimeters dissolve rapidly with the adoption of mobile, cloud and IoT, delivering secure endpoint protection regardless of a user’s location and device is paramount in the fight against cybercrime,” said D.J. Long, head of the McAfee Security Innovation Alliance.

“We are very happy to see the integrated platform of Aruba 360 Secure Fabric working jointly with the McAfee portfolio of security products, sharing threat intelligence and workflow policies, increasing the efficiency and efficacy of security protection for mutual customers.”

Read more: Aruba releases new IoT products for large campus deployments

The sum of its parts

Components of the 360 Secure Fabric include the following:

  • Aruba IntroSpect UEBA solution: A network-agnostic family of continuous monitoring and attack detection software that includes a new entry-level edition and uses machine learning to detect changes in user and device behavior that can indicate attacks. Machine-learning algorithms generate a risk score based on the severity of an attack to speed up incident investigations for security teams.
  • Aruba ClearPass: A network access control (NAC) and policy management security product that can profile BYOD and IoT users and devices, enabling automated attack response – this technology is now integrated with Aruba IntroSpect.
  • Aruba Secure Core: Security capabilities embedded in the foundation across all of Aruba’s Wi-Fi access points, wireless controllers and switches, including the new Aruba 8400 campus core and aggregation switch.

Read more: Confusion around IoT hampers adoption in EMEA, says Aruba

Aruba strategy appears connected

The company’s efforts have been steering in this direction for some time now. Even before its acquisition by HPE back in 2015, we saw it start to extend new layers of AI and wider device-centric engineering into its product line. A big brand in its own right (and one that has kept its own name post-acquisition), Aruba is now benefiting from its own ‘internal acquisition’ of HP’s pre-existing network business.

This fact was confirmed by now-retired president and CEO Dominic Orr, who oversaw what has been a largely harmonious acquisition and transition. As UEBA machine learning security now becomes part of the wider fabric of the way we build the IoT, we will need attack detection technologies capable of correlating information across a broader array of data sources for threat-hunting, search and forensics – and this is indeed what Aruba has created.

My wife’s gone to the Caribbean on holiday this year. Jamaica? No Aruba… and yes, she went of her own accord.

Coming soon: Our IoT Build events, taking place in London in November 2017 and San Francisco in March 2018 are a great opportunity for attendees to explore the platforms, architectures, applications and connectivity that comprise the IoT ecosystem.

The post HPE Aruba weaves new fabric for analytics-driven IoT security appeared first on Internet of Business.

Internet of Business

Balance Efficiency With Transparency in Analytics-Driven Business

We have disturbingly little idea how many of the algorithms that affect our lives actually work. We consume their output, knowing little about the ingredients and recipe. And as analytics affects more and more of our lives and organizations, we need more transparency. But this transparency may be a bitter pill for businesses to swallow.

In 1906, Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle described the oppressed life of immigrant workers, specifically those in the meatpacking industry in Chicago. Sinclair’s intent in portraying the working conditions of a powerless class may have been to inspire political change. However, the graphic depictions of unsanitary food preparation helped bring transparency to manufacturing processes through the story’s nauseating clarity. The book heavily influenced the creation of regulatory oversight through organizations that eventually became the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

We might be similarly horrified if we knew what evils lurked in the hearts of business algorithms in use today.

Some examples are lesser evils. Google search is widely used, but details about the order (and inclusion) of pages in its results aren’t public. Credit scores directly affect our finances, but the specific algorithms used to calculate them are secret. And the use of analytics to create algorithms is spreading rapidly to judicial processes, advertising, hiring, and many other daily decisions.

But these are the oxymoronic obvious unknowns. There may be greater evils lurking beneath the surface. The internal operations of businesses have always been a bit murky to consumers. There are algorithms in use within organizations that we as consumers don’t know that we don’t know about — preferential treatments, pricing differences, service prioritization, routing sequences, internal ratings, and so on. There is little opportunity even to know these algorithms exist, much less the analytical results on which they are based.

It actually makes sense that we lack good ways to see how analytical results are produced. Companies want to protect their intellectual property — this is their secret sauce. Whatever advantage companies get from data does not come without effort. Given the considerable investment underlying that effort, companies would certainly be reluctant to give away their hard-earned insights embedded in algorithms. Why would they even consider it?

The difficulty, as in The Jungle, is that others consume what is produced.

With food, we likely would be quite reluctant to want to go back a century to the time of The Jungle — the era before food labeling and inspection processes were required. The bane of every school cafeteria is the dreaded “mystery meat.” We don’t like mystery in what we consume.

With analytics, we are in a Jungle scenario. Businesses create analytical results that affect our lives, but we don’t know much about the ingredients or recipe. What data is used? From where? How are the models created? What affects the resulting decision?

Some aspects of the mystery of what we are consuming falls squarely on our own plate; a lack of knowledge can stem from a lack of effort to understand analytics. While democratization of data is appealing, the new data republic is a meritocracy. Other aspects of the mystery of what we are consuming, however, are currently unknowable. Businesses have little incentive or motivation to share information about the algorithms they use. And, as a result, they will not provide details without a change in incentives or awareness.

I’m certainly not advocating for new agencies to regulate and inspect all algorithms. Institutionalization brings with it outside influence, power struggles, and lobbying. There are risks in both over- and under-regulation. The point is that we’ve been in similar situations before and can learn from them. When it came to food and medicine, significant regulation — and the FDA — came about as a result of the lack of self-regulation by the companies producing either product. For algorithms, better self-regulation and transparency may preempt the same sort of government regulation that evolved in the food industry. At a minimum, from a perspective of self-interest, the long memory associated with cheap data storage indicates that business secrets won’t last forever anyway.

This is especially true with the rise of deep learning and artificial intelligence techniques that can be opaque even to their developers. A system that passes a Turing test, by definition, hides the details of how it works from those it interacts with. The lack of information about the analytical results is getting worse, not better.

Considerable effort goes into improving data quality. “Garbage in; garbage out” is frequently repeated. But while data may be dirty, algorithms are dirtier. With more transparency into the algorithms in use, we can have informed discussions about what may or may not be fair. We can collectively improve them. We can avoid the ones we are allergic to and patronize the businesses that are transparent about what their algorithms do and how they work.

A side effect of the insight into food processes was the collapse of the market for lemons; consumers wouldn’t purchase suspect ingredients or elixirs with dubious claims. Similarly, we’ll likely find that some businesses are covered-wagon sideshows selling snake oil, and we can knowledgeably avoid the results of their unfair or sneaky algorithms.

MIT Sloan Management Review