Why Common Approaches for Mitigating Sensitive Data Sprawl Fail
Sensitive data sprawl refers to the widespread and often uncontrolled distribution of sensitive information across various platforms and locations within an organization's IT environment. The sprawl makes it challenging to track and secure this data, leading to increased risks of unauthorized access, data breaches, and non-compliance with data protection regulations.
The biggest driver of sensitive data sprawl is the skyrocketing number of non-production data environments. These non-production environments include development, testing, staging, and quality assurance (QA) environments, as well as many data stores used for analytics and AI model training. The number of non-production environments in corporate IT departments is increasing due to the ongoing evolution of IT towards more agile, flexible, and quality-focused practices.
Growing numbers of non-production environments in corporate IT departments, however, also results in sensitive data sprawl multiplying across organizations as a whole. The implications are vast and multifaceted— increased sensitive data sprawl amplifies the risk of data breaches and cyberattacks, complicates compliance with data privacy laws like GDPR, HIPAA, and CCPA, and it impedes effective data management and governance. For businesses, these challenges produce increased operational complexities, higher data management and security costs, and potential reputational damage due to data mishandling.
The accumulating challenges that sensitive data sprawl presents to IT departments and organizations as a whole makes it crucial for these organizations to address sensitive data sprawl. Organizations employ a variety of measures to mitigate the risk of sensitive data sprawl, but it’s just as important to recognize that some of these common approaches are inadequate in fully addressing the problem as a whole.
Common Mitigation Approaches
Mitigating the risks of sensitive data sprawl commonly involves a multifaceted approach, combining technological solutions with robust policies and employee awareness. Following are several common strategies, broken into two categories.
Governance Measures
Technical Measures
Recommended by LinkedIn
The Fatal Flaw: Scalability
Many of the aforementioned approaches to sensitive data risk mitigation fail for one simple reason: they must be scaled to handle the amount of sensitive data. Indeed, most measures mitigate the risks created by sprawl but do little to prevent it in the first place. Therefore, the level of security investments must increase with the proliferation of sensitive data.
To illustrate, consider a few examples:
Since security budgets and skilled resources are in tight supply, any risk mitigation approach that does not scale isn’t a sustainable solution for sensitive data sprawl. Businesses must find another way that cost-effectively addresses the risks of sprawl.
In an upcoming post, I’ll detail an alternative approach to the methods above: the compliant data layer. The compliant data layer combines data masking and database virtualization to both stop the sprawl of sensitive data and make it easier for your developers and other innovators to do their jobs. I’ll also highlight testimonials from technology leaders in various industries who are using the compliant data layer approach within their respective organizations.
Todd Tucker
Mar 28, 2024