HIPAA Compliant BYOD: After the MDM Honeymoon
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•274 views
In this webinar, learn about the drawbacks of MDM and how next-generation data-centric security solutions can help secure BYOD in the healthcare industry.
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (19)
Similar to HIPAA Compliant BYOD: After the MDM Honeymoon
Similar to HIPAA Compliant BYOD: After the MDM Honeymoon (20)
More from Bitglass
More from Bitglass (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
HIPAA Compliant BYOD: After the MDM Honeymoon
- 2. STORYBOAR managed blackberry era iPhone launch a brief history of byod + byod security: a landscape littered with failed tech exchange on iOS iPad launch the rise of mdm unmitigated data leakage pre-2007 2007 2008 2010 2011-13 2016
- 3. STORYBOAR 100% compliance! 20% of devices deployed with EMM the honeymoon (based on a true story)
- 4. STORYBOAR other issues: ● incompatible app upgrades ● emails dropped ● missed calendar invitations 20% refused to install EMM profiles/agents after the honeymoon (based on the same true story)
- 5. byod security isn’t working: end users are unhappy
- 6. STORYBOAR 57% of employees refuse MDM/MAM for BYOD 38% of IT professionals don’t participate in their own BYOD programs employees are resisting “big brother” Bitglass BYOD Security Survey 2015
- 7. STORYBOAR approach: ■ Airwatch MDM results: ■ Devices enrolled: <1k ■ Device not enrolled: >3k ■ No direct Activesync ■ Most have no mobile access EMM case study 100% compliant (no access) 10k employee health system
- 8. STORYBOAR 36% of companies use MDM 9% of companies use MAM existing security tech is inadequate 28% of orgs are doing nothing to secure byod Bitglass BYOD Security Survey 2015
- 9. “By 2018, more than half of all bring your own device (BYOD) users that currently have an MDM agent will be managed by an agentless solution” Rob Smith, John Girard, and Dionisio Zumerle, “How to Live With Unmanaged Devices,” August 2015.
- 10. STORYBOAR 67% of employees the state of byod security can improve would participate in BYOD if employers had no access to personal data 64% of IT pros believe agentless mobile security would make BYOD programs more successful Bitglass BYOD Security Survey 2015
- 11. STORYBOAR ■ Impedes user privacy ■ Complex solution deployment and management ■ Lack of data visibility or protection ■ User privacy issues ■ Prevents use of native apps (mail/calendar) ■ 3rd party / cloud apps non-functional ■ Challenging deployments manage the device wrap the app secure the data the evolution of mobile security: data-centric protection is the future ■ Protection of user privacy and experience ■ Any device, any app ■ Full data control and visibility for IT ■ Deploys in minutes, no mdm mam bitglass
- 12. STORYBOAR needs: ■ HIPAA compliant BYOD ■ Solve multiple affiliations ■ Employee privacy after MI, Toggle failed deployments key features: ■ HIPAA compliant on every device ■ Migration path to Office 365 ■ Easy, agentless deployment US hospital system ■ 2500+ employees ■ 160 locations ■ northeastern US ■ 7000 employees ■ southeastern US
- 13. STORYBOAR needs: ■ ensure security of PHI in Google Apps and on BYOD ■ maintain HIPAA compliance key features: ■ DLP ■ visibility / audit ■ identity management ■ mobile data protection bay cove human services ■ 2500+ employees ■ 160 locations ■ northeastern US
- 14. STORYBOAR bitglass agentless byod security ■ control data at access and on the device ■ no certs / agents ■ securely enable native apps & cloud apps ■ easy deployment ■ set and enforce device security policies
- 15. resources: more info about byod ■ healthcare breach report ■ case study: bay cove human services ■ case study: fortune 100 healthcare firm secure o365
- 16. download the full BYOD report the bitglass research team surveyed over 2000 enterprise employees that own smartphones and tablets to uncover trends in BYOD download the report
Editor's Notes
- BYOD has changed a great deal in the last decade. Before the launch of the iPhone and other modern smartphones in 2007, managed Blackberry devices were the norm. Employees would receive both a managed Windows PC and a managed mobile phone. With the launch of iPhone in 2007, executives quickly came to want their personal mobile devices as their primary work devices. There was a gradual shift toward BYOD as demand for corporate mail, calendar, and contacts on these smartphones grew and IT administrators came under pressure to support iOS and Android. In 2008, iPhone came to support Exchange. This made it possible to access corporate data on iOS, not possible before. Unfortunately, this brought with it the challenge of securing data on these devices. Many organizations refused to allow BYOD in their organizations because they couldn’t ensure that data would remain secure or within the company firewall if they enabled mail, contacts, corporate calendar, and corporate file access on these devices. The release of iPad in 2010 spurred demand for BYOD as many employees pushed to have their personal tablets replace antiquated Windows machines in their organization. MDM became the go-to solution for organizations looking to secure BYOD. Unfortunately, there were a number of drawbacks to this solution, namely issues with privacy, user experience, adoption within organizations, and more. Today, organizations that have MDM or MAM deployed still have issues with data leakage, particularly where employees refuse MDM or MAM on their personal devices but still look to access corporate data on those unmanaged devices.
- Users are actively pushing against invasive tools that give employers control of their personal data on personal devices. In fact, these stats show that many employees simply refuse to adopt MDM and MAM. Even IT professionals, those who purchase these solutions with the knowledge they will be deployed in the organization and have a deep familiarity with the functions and capabilities of these tools, refuse to participate.
- Users are actively pushing against invasive tools that give employers control of their personal data on personal devices. In fact, these stats show that many employees simply refuse to adopt MDM and MAM. Even IT professionals, those who purchase these solutions with the knowledge they will be deployed in the organization and have a deep familiarity with the functions and capabilities of these tools, refuse to participate.
- Google Play store reviews indicate users aren’t happy with MDM solutions like Airwatch and MobileIron. The user experience issues here are a hindrance to adoption and we see employees either choose not to install these apps on their devices and not access corporate data at all, or more frequently, employees that refuse MDM but still access corporate data in an unsecured manner. Why aren’t these MDM and MAM tools adopted by employees in most organizations? The concern is generally user experience. Not only do these tools require that invasive agents be installed, but also, the apps that enable access to corp mail, calendar, and contacts are poorly built, often cause a hit to battery life, and the app makers themselves have little reason to fix these issues because the end-users have to use their tools regardless.
- Users are actively pushing against invasive tools that give employers control of their personal data on personal devices. In fact, these stats show that many employees simply refuse to adopt MDM and MAM. Even IT professionals, those who purchase these solutions with the knowledge they will be deployed in the organization and have a deep familiarity with the functions and capabilities of these tools, refuse to participate.
- 2500 employees
- Looking at adoption rates of byod security solutions across enterprises, we get the sense that existing tech is inadequate...
- But...
- 2500 employees
- 2500 employees
- Only the Bitglass protects data in the cloud, at access, and on any device. Reverse proxy mode protects traffic from any device, anywhere, without browser configuration, device profiles or VPN. cloud data-at-rest is scanned via API connectors, uncovering compliance violations and external sharing.