What are the trust benefits of Mattermost compared to third-party SaaS systems that let customers manage their own encryption keys?
Encryption doesn’t mean a third-party SaaS vendor can’t read your data. A third-party vendor who provides encryption keys to the database that stores a customer’s data at rest may still be able to read a customer’s data while its in transit.
For example, performing a search on message histories requires access to unencrypted messages in order to match the search term to words in your unencrypted message history.
As another example, a customer’s data encryption key is unlikely to be deployed to the mobile devices of end users; therefore, when a third-party system sends a push notification to an end user’s mobile device, the unencrypted text is available to the third party.
In contrast, Mattermost is hosted by the customer. Not only can data be encrypted at rest and in-transit with keys generated by the customer (which no vendors ever touch), unencrypted data for search and mobile notifications is handled by systems under your IT team’s control.
If it’s unclear from the vendor’s documentation whether or not your data can be read, ask them directly.
Moreover, high trust enterprises need more than encryption - they need privacy, total data ownership, auditability, and control of their infrastructure.
Privacy means a third-party service cannot monitor the identity, IP address, location, or access patterns of your employees, nor their activity on your system, nor provide that information either intentionally through a court order (which you may never be informed about) or unintentionally through a data breach.
Total data ownership means a third party cannot prevent you from accessing your data at any time. It means no third party can read your data, analyze it or monetize it. It means that should you end your commercial relationship, you maintain your records with any backups. It also means you can delete your data at any time and verify that no additional copies remain.
Audibility means being able to fully observe, monitor, and trace the operations of your systems.
Control of infrastructure means being able to operate and customize your system to the specific needs of your business, including the ability to run on public and private networks, as well as on-prem, and interoperate with critical legacy systems with full observability and transparency down to reading the source code.
As an open source self-hosted system, Mattermost provides privacy, total data ownership, and control of infrastructure required by high trust teams.
The key risk of allowing confidential data to enter a Massively Multi-Tenant Applications (MMTA) is having the system breached, never knowing your data has been compromised, and having stolen data used to breach your other systems.
Marketers from MMTA vendors pay highly credentialed security professionals to offer “Death Star Logic” to gain a customer’s trust: “MMTA’s SaaS offering is the most secure system in the galaxy because it outspends its customers on security investments, therefore the MMTA is more secure than a customer’s self-hosted infrastructure.”
The problem with Death Star Logic is that it omits the fact that hosting confidential data from thousands of enterprise customers makes it the prime target for cyber attacks, which increases risk to customers for four key reasons:
1) Over time, MMTA vendors become Nation State Targets
The effort behind a cyber attack is proportional to the value of breaching the system. As the value of the data held by an MMTA vendor increases, so does the scale of its cyber threats.
Vendors become “Nation State Targets” when the value of the breaching their system is so high it attracts the attention of the cyberwarfare branches of hostile nations. From there, even the smallest errors in system security can result in a significant breach.
2) MMTA systems can’t protect customers from unknown vulnerabilities
A single bug in an MMTA system can put all customers at risk. For example, Slack reported a bug that exposed message histories and files for nearly four million users (2017), and a bug left 400 million Microsoft accounts exposed to account takeover (2018).
For multi-tenant systems, bugs in infrastructure can present vulnerabilities as well. For example, in 2018 researchers discovered that chip-level exploits like Meltdown and Spectre, which had been around for decades, could make it possible for malicious code run by one tenant to affect the operations of another tenant that shared the same CPU.
Keeping MMTA systems secure depends on the ability of internal and external security researches to continually stay ahead of cyber-attackers.
3) Customers don’t know when breaches occur
When an MMTA is breached, it is most likely from an unknown bug or an unknown vulnerability. Because of this, it may not be clear that a system has been breached, and customers may not be notified. Moreover, following a breach, there’s often no way for the customer’s security team to audit the MMTA vendor and understand how their confidential data may have been accessed or stolen.
The end result is confidential information passing through an MMTA may be used to exploit other systems the customer operates, with no way to trace the root of the breach to mitigate it in future.
As an example, when OneLogin reported a security breach that allowed the attacker to decrypt encrypted data impacting 2000 customers and 70 SaaS apps (2017), details were vague and there was little customers could do to analyze their risk or reduce risk in future.
In contrast, an open source, self-hosted collaboration solution remains within the layers of physical security and network security enterprises use to protect their most valuable assets, with full access to logging and system histories to know when, where and how an attack might have occurred.
Moreover, as a single-tenant solution, the strength of cyberattacks is typically limited to the breach value of just your confidential data and not the aggregate breach value of all customer data held by an MMTA. Plus, the sum of security investments your company makes to protect systems in its private networks accrues to your collaboration system - and for banks, this could be hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
4) MMTA systems risk cross-bleeding your data
MMTA also runs the risk of bugs or misconfigurations in a vendor’s multi-tenant system bleeding your data into another customer’s space, or vice versa. Bleeds can occur via logging systems, in application logic, middleware, and data layer errors. In 2019, Facebook admitted to accidentally storing hundreds of millions of user passwords in clear text for years due to a configuration oversight.