shadow IT Giacomo Lanzi

Shadow IT: an overview

The practice of shadow IT is the use of computer systems, devices, software, applications and services without the explicit approval of the IT department. In recent years, it has grown exponentially with the adoption of cloud-based applications and services.

While shadow IT could improve employee productivity and drive innovation, it can also introduce serious security risks to the organization due to data breaches, potential compliance breaches and more.

Why users practice shadow IT

One of the main reasons employees apply shadow IT is simply to work more efficiently. A 2012 RSA study reported that 35% of employees believe they need to bypass their company’s security policies just to get their job done right. For example, an employee may discover a better file sharing application than is officially allowed. Once you start using it, the use may spread to other members of your department.

The rapid growth of cloud-based consumer applications has also increased the adoption of shadow IT practices. The days of packaged software are long gone; Common applications such as Slack and Dropbox are available with a simple click, and corporate data is easily copied beyond work applications to employee personal devices, such as smartphones or laptops, especially in BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) working conditions .

Shadow IT: Security Risks and Challenges

The point is that if the IT department is not aware of the use of an application, they cannot support or guarantee that it is secure. Industry analyst firm Gartner predicted, in 2018, that by 2020, one-third of successful attacks businesses experience focus on their shadow IT assets.

While it is clear that the practice will not go away, organizations can minimize risks by educating end users and taking preventative measures to monitor and manage unauthorized applications.

Not all shadow IT is inherently dangerous, but some features like file sharing and storage and collaboration (for example, Google Docs) can cause sensitive data leaks. This risk goes beyond applications alone: the RSA study also reports that 63% of employees send work documents to their personal email to work from home, exposing data to networks that cannot be monitored.

In times like the one we are experiencing, in which teleworking is encouraged and, in some cases, the only possible solution, it is essential to have an eye for the applications in use on employees’ computers.

shadow IT

Benefits of Shadow IT

Despite the risks, shadow IT has its advantages. Getting IT approval can take time that employees can’t afford to waste.For many employees, approval is a productivity bottleneck, especially when they can get a fix in minutes.

Having IT behaving like an Orwellian “Big Brother” doesn’t always help productivity. Discerning cases of positive shadow IT can be the best compromise. Finding a middle ground can allow end users to research solutions that work best for them. This gives IT time to control user data and permissions for applications. If end users do not need to request new solutions, the IT department has been given time to focus on more critical tasks.

Proactive defense

Whatever the reason why shadow IT occurs, if the IT department is unaware of it, the risk of breach is high. What the corporate cyber security departments should do is implement automated traffic and behavior control systems.

The solution offered by a SOC as a Service is the most complete in this respect. It allows you to keep an eye on all the devices in the system and also monitor user behavior.

Thanks to the Nextgen SIEM and UEBA systems, in fact, the collection of usage data is easy and manageable in real time. The data collected is enriched and aggregated to give analysts the most complete view possible and allow rapid intervention. Meanwhile, the UEBA system checks that there are no anomalous behavior by users or suspicious outgoing data traffic.

Shadow IT, while not usually a malicious attack, is a practice that should be discouraged and, as it is risky, stopped in the bud.

Useful links:

Share


RSS

More Articles…

Categories …

Tags

RSS Unknown Feed

RSS Full Disclosure

  • Multiple sandbox escapes in asteval python sandboxing module March 11, 2025
    Posted by areca-palm via Fulldisclosure on Mar 11[CVE pending] Sandboxing Python is notoriously difficult, the Python module "asteval" is no exception. Add to this the fact that a large set of numpy functions are exposed within the sandbox by default. Versions
  • SEC Consult SA-20250226-0 :: Multiple vulnerabilities in Siemens A8000 CP-8050 & CP-8031 PLC February 27, 2025
    Posted by SEC Consult Vulnerability Lab via Fulldisclosure on Feb 27SEC Consult Vulnerability Lab Security Advisory < 20250226-0 > ======================================================================= title: Multiple Vulnerabilities product: Siemens A8000 CP-8050 PLC Siemens A8000 CP-8031 PLC vulnerable version:
  • Re: MitM attack against OpenSSH's VerifyHostKeyDNS-enabled client February 27, 2025
    Posted by Jordy Zomer on Feb 27Hey all, First of all, cool findings! I&apos;ve been working on the CodeQL query and have a revised version that I think improves accuracy and might offer some performance gains (though I haven&apos;t done rigorous benchmarking). The key change is the use of `StackVariableReachability` and making sure that there&apos;s […]
  • MitM attack against OpenSSH's VerifyHostKeyDNS-enabled client February 21, 2025
    Posted by Qualys Security Advisory via Fulldisclosure on Feb 20Qualys Security Advisory CVE-2025-26465: MitM attack against OpenSSH&apos;s VerifyHostKeyDNS-enabled client CVE-2025-26466: DoS attack against OpenSSH&apos;s client and server ======================================================================== Contents ======================================================================== Summary Background Experiments Results MitM attack against OpenSSH&apos;s VerifyHostKeyDNS-enabled client DoS...
  • Self Stored XSS - acp2sev7.2.2 February 21, 2025
    Posted by Andrey Stoykov on Feb 20# Exploit Title: Self Stored XSS - acp2sev7.2.2 # Date: 02/2025 # Exploit Author: Andrey Stoykov # Version: 7.2.2 # Tested on: Ubuntu 22.04 # Blog: https://msecureltd.blogspot.com/2025/02/friday-fun-pentest-series-19-self.html Self Stored XSS #1: Steps to Reproduce: 1. Visit "http://192.168.58.168/acp2se/mul/muladmin.php" and login with "admin" / "adminpass" 2. In the field "Put the […]
  • Python's official documentation contains textbook example of insecure code (XSS) February 21, 2025
    Posted by Georgi Guninski on Feb 20Python&apos;s official documentation contains textbook example of insecure code (XSS) Date: 2025-02-18 Author: Georgi Guninski === form = cgi.FieldStorage() if "name" not in form or "addr" not in form: print("Error") print("Please fill in the name and addr fields.") return print("name:", form["name"].value) print("addr:",...
  • Re: Netgear Router Administrative Web Interface Lacks Transport Encryption By Default February 18, 2025
    Posted by Gynvael Coldwind on Feb 17Hi, This isn&apos;t really a problem a vendor can solve in firmware (apart from offering configuration via cloud, which has its own issues). Even if they would enable TLS/SSL by default, it would just give one a false sense of security, since: - the certificates would be invalid (public […]
  • Monero 18.3.4 zero-day DoS vulnerability has been dropped publicly on social network. February 16, 2025
    Posted by upper.underflow via Fulldisclosure on Feb 16Hello, About an hour ago, a group appearing to be named WyRCV2 posted a note on the nostr social network, which can be found at the following link: https://primal.net/e/note1vzh0mj9rcxax9cgcdapupyxeehjprd68gd9kk9wrv939m8knulrs4780x7 Save, share, use. The paste link includes a list of nodes that the attacker has instructed to target, along […]
  • Netgear Router Administrative Web Interface Lacks Transport Encryption By Default February 16, 2025
    Posted by Ryan Delaney via Fulldisclosure on Feb 16
  • [CVE-2024-54756] GZDoom <= 4.13.1 Arbitrary Code Execution via Malicious ZScript February 16, 2025
    Posted by Gabriel Valachi via Fulldisclosure on Feb 15In GZDoom 4.13.1 and below, there is a vulnerability involving array sizes in ZScript, the game engine&apos;s primary scripting language. It is possible to dynamically allocate an array of 1073741823 dwords, permitting access to the rest of the heap from the start of the array and causing […]

Customers

Newsletter

{subscription_form_1}