Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Data at rest

Data at rest refers to digital information stored on physical media or in persistent storage systems, such as hard drives, solid-state drives, , file systems, or repositories, when it is not actively being transmitted or processed. This state contrasts with , which moves across networks, and , which resides temporarily in during active . As a fundamental category in data lifecycle management, data at rest constitutes the majority of an organization's information assets, making its protection critical against risks like physical theft, unauthorized access, or storage device compromise. The primary security concern for data at rest arises from its static nature, rendering it vulnerable to breaches if or access controls fail, as evidenced by incidents where unencrypted exposed sensitive records. Protection typically involves cryptographic techniques, such as full-disk using standards like AES-256, to ensure and even if the storage medium is stolen or accessed illicitly. Guidelines from authoritative bodies, including , mandate implementing controls like sanitization and cryptographic modules to safeguard information at rest, particularly for in federal systems. In modern computing environments, including and infrastructures, managing data at rest extends to challenges like , compliance with regulations such as GDPR or HIPAA, and balancing accessibility with security to prevent data leakage from insider threats or misconfigurations. Effective strategies emphasize least-privilege access, regular audits, and integration with broader frameworks to mitigate evolving threats without impeding operational efficiency.

Definition and Scope

Core Definition

Data at rest refers to information stored on physical or digital storage media that is not actively being processed or transmitted between systems. This state encompasses data residing on hard drives, solid-state drives, backup tapes, databases, repositories, and other persistent storage devices. Unlike , which moves across networks, or , which is actively accessed by applications, data at rest remains static until retrieved for operations. In cybersecurity frameworks, such as those from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), data at rest is defined as the state of information when it is not in process or in transit and is located on storage devices as components of systems. This distinction forms part of the three primary states of data— at rest, in transit, and in use—which collectively address the lifecycle of digital information for security purposes. Protecting data at rest is critical because it constitutes the majority of an organization's stored assets, often including sensitive records like personal identifiable information, intellectual property, and financial data. Examples of data at rest include archived emails on servers, customer databases in relational systems, and files in hosting services. While is a common method to safeguard it against unauthorized access, the inherent vulnerability arises from its stationary nature, making it susceptible to physical or forensic recovery if media is compromised. Standards like NIST SP 800-53 emphasize controls for data at rest to ensure , , and in environments.

Distinctions from Data in Transit and Data in Use

Data at rest constitutes stored persistently on media such as hard disk drives, solid-state drives, databases, or , remaining inactive until accessed for retrieval or processing. This state contrasts with , which refers to actively transmitted across , between devices, or from client to , subjecting it to potential during movement. Unlike these, describes data actively loaded into memory for processing, computation, or modification, where it must often be decrypted to enable operational functionality. The distinctions arise from inherent vulnerabilities tied to each phase: data at rest faces risks from physical theft, unauthorized physical access, or static breaches of storage systems, mitigated primarily through full-disk encryption or file-level encryption without disrupting storage integrity. , however, is susceptible to , man-in-the-middle attacks, or tampering during transfer, necessitating protocols like (TLS) version 1.3, which secures ephemeral data flows over public or private networks. Data in use introduces challenges from runtime exploits, such as memory scraping or side-channel leaks, as exposure is required for application use, often addressed via hardware-based trusted execution environments or frameworks. These categorizations inform strategies across the data lifecycle, with at rest comprising the majority of an organization's holdings—estimated at over 90% in environments—demanding scalable, non-performance-impacting protections, whereas and use phases require dynamic, context-aware safeguards.
Data StatePrimary CharacteristicsExemplary ThreatsCommon Protections
At RestStored, inactive on persistent mediaPhysical device theft, storage compromiseAES-256 encryption, access controls
In Transit moving between endpoints over networksInterception, spoofing, VPNs
In Use actively processed in or applicationsRuntime extraction, Secure enclaves,

Alternative Interpretations

The predominant interpretation of data at rest centers on inactive data residing in persistent, non-volatile storage media, such as hard disk drives, solid-state drives, , or cloud repositories, distinct from data actively transmitted or processed. This aligns with frameworks like those from , defining it as "information that resides in persistent storage on , in any digital format." In and streaming environments, an alternative perspective diminishes the relevance of data at rest, viewing it as exceptional amid predominantly dynamic workflows. For instance, a 2018 white paper on security observes that "in applications, therefore, data in motion is the norm and data at rest is the exception," shifting focus toward continuous protection of flowing data over static storage safeguards. Emerging technologies, including storage-class memory (SCM), introduce interpretive challenges by merging non-volatility with RAM-like access speeds, potentially reclassifying certain high-performance persistent data as bridging at rest and in use states. SCM enables data persistence akin to traditional at rest storage while supporting near-instantaneous retrieval, complicating discrete state categorizations in hybrid systems. Data in volatile memory, such as RAM, is uniformly regarded as in use rather than at rest, owing to its ephemerality and integration into ongoing computation; occasional ambiguities in non-expert discussions—e.g., untied session data—do not alter this consensus, as persistence defines at rest status.

Historical Development

Early Foundations in Cryptographic Standards

The development of standardized cryptography for data at rest began in the early 1970s, driven by the expansion of digital storage in government and commercial computing environments, where unencrypted files and databases faced risks from physical theft or unauthorized access. The National Bureau of Standards (NBS, predecessor to NIST) identified a critical gap in secure data handling through a 1972 study on U.S. government computer security, prompting a call for a federal encryption standard applicable to stored digital information. IBM's earlier work on the Lucifer cipher in the late 1960s provided the initial algorithm, which was modified—reportedly with NSA input to reduce key size from 128 to 56 bits—before submission to NBS for evaluation. This process marked the shift from ad hoc, proprietary encryption methods to publicly vetted standards, enabling consistent protection of data at rest without relying on classified military systems. Adopted after public review and debate over its key length, the (DES) was formalized in Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) Publication 46, issued on January 15, 1977. DES specified a symmetric-key processing 64-bit data blocks, designed primarily for confidentiality in encrypting stored files, though its Feistel network structure allowed reuse of subkeys across rounds for efficiency on limited hardware of the era. Early implementations targeted mainframe and tape storage systems, where DES encrypted entire datasets or files to mitigate risks from or threats, establishing as a core control for data at rest in federal mandates. Its certification by NBS as the first unclassified U.S. government-approved facilitated adoption beyond classified networks, influencing private sector practices despite initial from cryptographers like Diffie and Hellman regarding potential backdoors. DES's framework influenced subsequent standards by prioritizing symmetric 's speed for bulk stored , while exposing limitations like to exhaustive key searches—feasible by the 1990s with advancing computing power—that underscored the need for longer in future iterations. Complementary guidelines, such as those in early NBS publications, recommended for file-level in environments lacking physical controls, laying empirical groundwork for risk-based assessments of storage media threats. These foundations prioritized verifiable algorithmic strength over opaque designs, though real-world efficacy depended on proper , which early standards addressed minimally through manual or trusted channels.

Evolution to Modern Frameworks

The vulnerabilities of the (DES), finalized in 1977 with its 56-bit effective key length, became evident by the late 1990s as computational advances enabled brute-force attacks, such as the DES cracker built by the in 1998 that broke a DES key in 56 hours. In response, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched a public competition in 1997 to select a replacement, evaluating 15 algorithms before announcing Rijndael as the winner in October 2000; it was standardized as the (AES) in FIPS Publication 197, published on November 26, 2001. AES, a symmetric with variable key lengths of 128, 192, or 256 bits, addressed DES's shortcomings through enhanced resistance to , including differential and linear attacks, and has since been mandated for U.S. federal systems protecting sensitive data at rest. NIST formally deprecated DES for confidentiality applications in 2005, transitioning approvals to and recommending against (3DES) for new implementations due to its reduced effective security against modern threats. This algorithmic evolution underpinned broader frameworks for data at rest protection, shifting from file-level encryption to automated, transparent full-volume encryption. Early software solutions like (PGP) in the 1990s laid groundwork, but modern implementations integrated AES into operating systems: Apple's 1, released October 24, 2003, with Mac OS X 10.3 Panther, used AES-128 for user encryption; Microsoft's , introduced January 30, 2007, with , defaults to AES-128 in XTS-AES mode for entire drives. Open-source kernel's with LUKS format, maturing around 2004-2006, similarly adopted AES for device mapper-based encryption. Contemporary frameworks emphasize not only AES-based encryption but also robust key management, hardware support, and compliance integration to mitigate risks like key exposure or side-channel attacks. NIST Special Publication 800-111, released January 2007, outlines storage encryption technologies for end-user devices, advocating self-encrypting drives (SEDs) compliant with Trusted Computing Group (TCG) Opal specifications (version 1.0 in 2009) that perform encryption in , reducing performance overhead. The (CSF) 2.0, finalized February 26, 2024, under subcategory PR.DS-1, requires protecting data at rest through mechanisms like FIPS 140-validated modules (updated to in 2019), often combining with access controls and integrity checks. In cloud contexts, frameworks align with NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 (2020), mandating controls like SC-28 for information at rest protection, implemented via services such as AWS Key Management Service (launched 2011) or Disk , which automate AES-256 key rotation and envelope . These developments reflect causal priorities: empirical evidence from breaches like the , where unencrypted data at rest enabled exfiltration, underscores encryption's role in limiting damage post-compromise. Post-quantum threats have prompted NIST's 2024 standardization of algorithms like ML-KEM for future data at rest hybrid schemes, ensuring longevity against quantum adversaries.

Security Threats

Physical and Unauthorized Access Risks

Physical risks to at rest arise primarily from the vulnerability of storage media, such as hard disk drives, solid-state drives, and backups, to , damage, or tampering when not secured in controlled environments. Attackers who obtain physical possession of unencrypted or weakly protected devices can employ forensic tools to recover , as demonstrated in cases where stolen laptops or external drives exposed sensitive without requiring intrusion. For instance, from rooms has historically enabled direct extraction, circumventing logical controls like firewalls. Unauthorized physical access exacerbates these threats by allowing intruders to enter facilities housing , such as data centers, where they can connect unauthorized devices to servers or extract drives for offline analysis. This form of breach often occurs via , where individuals follow authorized personnel through secured doors, or social engineering to obtain badges, granting direct interaction with storage infrastructure. In data centers, such access risks include planting malware-laden hardware, like rogue network taps, or sabotaging cooling systems to induce hardware failure and . Even encrypted data at rest faces elevated risks from physical compromise, as attackers may target hardware or coerce personnel for passphrases during on-site intrusions. NIST guidelines highlight that inadequate physical barriers, such as insufficient perimeter or , amplify these vulnerabilities, potentially leading to systemic across interconnected storage arrays. Empirical analyses of breach reports indicate that while digital exploits dominate headlines, physical failures serve as enablers for 10-15% of attacks, underscoring the causal primacy of securing physical perimeters before relying on cryptographic layers.

Insider and Systemic Vulnerabilities

Insider threats to data at rest encompass authorized personnel, such as employees or contractors, who exploit legitimate privileges to misuse, exfiltrate, or stored information in , systems, or backups. These leverage internal to bypass perimeter defenses, targeting static data repositories where or controls may prove insufficient against privileged users. According to the (CISA), insider threats arise from individuals using their authorized to harm organizations, often involving the theft of sensitive stored assets like or personal records. Prevalence data underscores the scale: the 2025 Ponemon Institute "State of File Security" report indicates that 45% of data breaches originate from insiders, primarily through malicious or negligent leakage of stored files, with average organizational costs exceeding millions per incident. Malicious insiders, motivated by financial gain or grievances, account for a subset but inflict disproportionate damage; for instance, in 2023, a former engineer exfiltrated over 100 GB of proprietary manufacturing data and employee records from internal storage systems before joining a competitor, leading to legal action and heightened scrutiny of access logging. Similarly, in 2022, a software engineer downloaded and attempted to sell 570,000 pages of trade secrets from code repositories, exploiting unchecked repository access to stored . Negligent insiders amplify risks through errors like improper data handling; a 2021 incident involved an employee exfiltrating confidential vaccine development documents from secure storage, highlighting gaps in monitoring privileged downloads. Systemic vulnerabilities in at rest stem from architectural and operational flaws in infrastructures, independent of individual malice, such as misconfigurations exposing repositories or unpatched flaws in underlying software. Common issues include unrestricted access to shared arrays, where default or inadequate segmentation allows lateral movement to sensitive volumes; a 2022 analysis identified thousands of devices vulnerable due to such improper configurations, enabling broad exposure without authentication overrides. In environments, systemic risks manifest in misconfigurations, with unpatched vulnerabilities in services contributing to breaches comparable in frequency to actions, as noted in industry assessments of incidents. For example, legacy implementations in can harbor systemic weaknesses like inadequate key rotation, permitting persistence of access even post-revocation, while compromises in firmware—evident in cases like unpatched vulnerabilities—create exploitable backdoors for tampering. These flaws persist due to complexity in distributed systems, where interdependencies between , OS, and applications amplify cascading failures, as evidenced by reports on insecure repositories that lack inherent immutability or auditing.

Protection Methods

Encryption Techniques

Symmetric encryption algorithms, particularly the (AES) defined in FIPS PUB 197 by NIST in November 2001, form the foundation for most data-at-rest protection due to their efficiency in handling large volumes of stored data. AES processes data in 128-bit blocks using keys of 128, 192, or 256 bits, with AES-256 recommended for high-security applications to resist brute-force attacks longer than shorter variants. Common modes include Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) for basic confidentiality and Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) for , which verifies both and without additional mechanisms. Full-disk encryption (FDE) secures an entire storage device by encrypting all sectors, rendering inaccessible without the decryption key even if the drive is physically removed. Implementations like Microsoft's , introduced in in 2007, or open-source tools such as , leverage in XTS mode to protect against offline attacks from device theft, though performance overhead can reach 10-20% on initial encryption. FDE operates at the block-device level, automatically encrypting writes and decrypting reads upon system boot with user , but it does not guard against runtime memory dumps or authorized user access once unlocked. File-level encryption targets specific files or directories rather than the whole volume, enabling granular control for selective protection of sensitive assets amid less critical data. This approach, supported by libraries like or tools such as in , uses with per-file keys derived from master keys or passphrases, reducing overhead for non-encrypted portions but increasing complexity in and access revocation. Unlike FDE, file encryption persists post-decryption of the container, mitigating risks from swapped or temporary files, though it demands application awareness to avoid plaintext exposure during processing. In database environments, Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) encrypts physical data files, tempdb, and transaction logs at rest without altering queries or application code, ensuring compliance with standards like NIST SP 800-171. Oracle TDE, available since version 10g in 2005, and Microsoft SQL Server TDE, introduced in SQL Server 2008, employ AES-256 to protect against media theft, with keys managed via a database master key backed by the Windows Data Protection API or equivalent. TDE's "transparent" nature means decryption occurs in memory for authorized sessions, but it leaves indexes and metadata potentially vulnerable unless column-level encryption supplements it. Self-encrypting drives (SEDs), standardized by the Trusted Computing Group (TCG) specification in 2009, integrate hardware-based acceleration directly into the drive controller for always-on encryption of data at rest. SEDs automate key handling via security commands, minimizing software overhead and boot-time delays compared to FDE, with validation under ensuring cryptographic module integrity. Deployment in enterprise storage arrays enhances scalability, though vulnerabilities, as evidenced by historical TCG exploits in 2018, underscore the need for regular updates. Key management remains integral across techniques, with NIST SP 800-57 recommending hardware security modules (HSMs) for derivation, rotation, and escrow of keys to prevent single points of compromise. Hybrid approaches combining FDE for baseline protection with file- or column-level overlays address layered threats, as pure FDE alone fails against insider access to decrypted volumes. Empirical benchmarks show GCM adding under 5% on modern SSDs, affirming its practicality for petabyte-scale repositories.

Non-Encryption Alternatives

Access controls, including (IAM) systems and (RBAC), limit retrieval of data at rest to authorized entities by enforcing least-privilege principles, thereby mitigating unauthorized access risks without relying on cryptographic transformation of the data itself. These mechanisms operate at the logical layer, verifying user identities and permissions before granting read or write operations to storage media, as outlined in NIST SP 800-53's family, which emphasizes enforcement points independent of data encoding. Physical security protocols, such as biometric locks, systems, and restricted-access data centers, safeguard storage devices and media from theft or tampering by external actors. These measures create barriers to physical compromise, with facilities often employing 24/7 and environmental controls to maintain , as recommended in standards for protecting assets against unauthorized entry. For instance, data centers compliant with Tier III or IV standards from the Uptime Institute incorporate redundant power and cooling alongside physical perimeters to ensure data at rest remains inaccessible without breaching fortified enclosures. Data obfuscation techniques like tokenization and masking provide confidentiality by substituting sensitive values with non-sensitive equivalents, preserving usability in certain contexts without decryptable encoding. Tokenization replaces original data elements—such as numbers—with unique, meaningless tokens mapped to a secure , rendering stored representations useless to attackers while allowing reversible lookup for authorized processes. This method, distinct from as it avoids algorithmic keys and supports format-preserving outputs, has been adopted in payment systems under PCI DSS guidelines to compartmentalize risk. Masking, conversely, applies irreversible alterations like partial or in non-production environments, ensuring test datasets mimic production without exposing real values, as implemented in tools compliant with GDPR pseudonymization requirements. Auditing and complement these by enabling detection of anomalous patterns to repositories, facilitating forensic analysis post-incident without altering the data's stored form. NIST frameworks advocate continuous monitoring of logs to enforce accountability, reducing the window for undetected . classification schemes further enhance efficacy by tagging storage based on sensitivity, directing stricter controls to high-value assets like personally identifiable information (PII). While these alternatives do not inherently prevent all breaches, empirical evaluations show layered implementation—combining restrictions with physical safeguards—yields robust protection, as evidenced by reduced incident rates in audited environments adhering to ISO 27001 controls.

Implementation and Best Practices

Key Management Essentials

Effective key management is critical for securing encrypted data at rest, as compromised keys can render encryption ineffective regardless of the algorithm's strength. NIST Special Publication 800-57 Part 1 Revision 5 outlines that keys must be generated, stored, distributed, used, rotated, archived, and destroyed with stringent controls to mitigate risks such as unauthorized disclosure or substitution. Poor key handling has historically undermined data protection efforts, with empirical analyses showing that key mismanagement contributes to over 50% of encryption failures in audited systems. Key Generation: Cryptographic keys for data at rest , such as those for AES-256, must be produced using deterministic random bit generators approved under , ensuring sufficient entropy to resist brute-force attacks. Keys should be of adequate length—typically 256 bits for symmetric —and per to limit exposure scope; reusing keys across multiple files or volumes increases vulnerability if one is compromised. Generation processes require or higher validated modules to prevent side-channel attacks during creation. Secure Storage and Protection: Keys at rest must themselves be encrypted using key-encrypting keys (KEKs) or stored in tamper-resistant hardware security modules (HSMs) compliant with Level 3 standards, which provide physical and logical safeguards against extraction. Separation of keys from encrypted data is essential; for instance, storing keys in dedicated systems () rather than alongside data volumes prevents correlated breaches. Access to stored keys demands and role-based controls, with logging of all retrievals to enable forensic analysis. Distribution and Usage: Keys should be transported over secure channels, such as TLS 1.3 with , to avoid interception during provisioning to endpoints like storage arrays. During active use for encryption/decryption of data at rest—e.g., in full-disk encryption via tools like or LUKS—keys must remain in or secure enclaves (e.g., SGX) to minimize persistence risks. Cryptoperiods, limiting key usage to 1-2 years for symmetric keys encrypting high-value data, prevent prolonged exposure from potential weaknesses. Rotation and Revocation: Periodic key , automated where feasible, involves generating new keys and re-encrypting to invalidate old ones, reducing the impact of undetected compromises; NIST recommends intervals based on usage volume, with high-throughput systems rotating quarterly. mechanisms, triggered by suspected compromise, require immediate key replacement and invalidation lists, ensuring affected remains protected without downtime. keys for must be escrowed securely, often split using to require multiple parties for reconstruction. Destruction and Auditing: At end-of-life, keys must be securely wiped using methods like NIST SP 800-88 guidelines, overwriting with multiple passes or cryptographic erasure to preclude forensic recovery. Comprehensive auditing of key operations, including generation timestamps and access attempts, supports compliance with standards like and detects anomalies; for example, real-time monitoring in enterprise has identified unauthorized access in 20% of simulated breach scenarios.

Compliance with Standards

Various regulatory frameworks and industry standards mandate or strongly recommend protections for data at rest to mitigate risks of unauthorized access and ensure organizational compliance. These include encryption using approved algorithms, access controls, and data minimization techniques, with non-compliance potentially resulting in fines, legal penalties, or loss of certification. For instance, the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) Requirement 3 explicitly requires entities handling cardholder data to protect stored account information through strong cryptography, such as AES-128 or higher, truncation, hashing, or tokenization, prohibiting the storage of sensitive authentication data post-authorization unless necessary for business or legal reasons. Similarly, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule addresses electronic protected health information (ePHI) at rest via access control standards (45 CFR § 164.312(a)(2)(iv)), where encryption is an addressable implementation specification, meaning covered entities must assess and implement it or equivalent safeguards if reasonable and appropriate, though failure to encrypt compromised data triggers breach notification obligations under the HITECH Act. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) under Article 32 requires controllers and processors to implement technical measures ensuring a level of security appropriate to the risk, explicitly citing and of as examples for both data at rest and in transit, with fines up to 4% of global annual turnover for violations; while not prescribing specific algorithms, encryption at rest is widely adopted to demonstrate proportionality and reduce breach impact. U.S. federal guidelines from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), such as SP 800-53 Revision 5 control SC-28, recommend protecting confidentiality of data at rest using cryptographic mechanisms like FIPS 140-validated modules for sensitive unclassified information, integrated into frameworks like the Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) PR.DS-1, which emphasizes or equivalent protections tailored to data sensitivity. Compliance often intersects with sector-specific mandates, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) for financial reporting controls under Section 404, requiring internal controls over including at-rest protections, or the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) for U.S. agencies, which aligns with NIST SP 800-53 for encrypting (CUI). Organizations must validate implementations against certified cryptographic modules per , the current standard superseding as of 2019, ensuring vendor products meet validated security levels for key generation and storage. Audits, such as Qualified Security Assessor (QSA) reviews for PCI DSS or HITRUST for HIPAA, verify adherence, with emerging trends emphasizing automated tools and zero-trust architectures to dynamically enforce standards.

Case Studies and Empirical Evidence

Successful Protections

The Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC) program, administered by the (NSA), validates layered encryption solutions for protecting classified data at rest, enabling commercial technologies to safeguard top-secret information equivalent to Type 1 cryptographic systems. Deployments under CSfC, such as NetApp's storage system certified in December 2021, provide protection against physical theft by rendering data inaccessible without dual encryption keys, supporting continuous operations in high-security environments like unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Similarly, the U.S. Army's Program Manager Tactical Networks (PM TN) Secure Wireless initiative has successfully integrated CSfC-compliant data-at-rest encryption across battlefield systems since the early 2020s, preventing unauthorized access to sensitive stored data during mobile operations without reported compromises of encrypted payloads. In healthcare databases, empirical evaluations of methods like AES-256 demonstrate high effectiveness in blocking unauthorized access to stored patient records, with tests showing zero successful tampering or extraction attempts under simulated conditions as of October 2024. Regulatory frameworks, including HIPAA, recognize properly implemented —such as full-disk solutions meeting NIST standards—as rendering stolen data "inaccessible," exempting organizations from notification requirements; this has prevented millions of potential notifications annually by ensuring physical does not equate to . NIST guidelines affirm that encryption at rest, when paired with secure , empirically limits impacts by making intercepted unreadable, as evidenced by post-incident analyses where encrypted storage thwarted exploitation even after device compromise. These protections succeed causally through mathematical indistinguishability of from random absent the , a principle upheld in peer-reviewed without practical breaks for approved algorithms like since their standardization in 2001.

Notable Breaches and Lessons

The data breach, disclosed on September 7, 2017, compromised the personal information of approximately 147 million individuals through unauthorized access to unencrypted databases storing sensitive data at rest, including names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and in some cases and numbers. Attackers exploited an unpatched vulnerability in the Apache Struts web application framework (CVE-2017-5638), for which a patch had been available since March 7, 2017, allowing remote code execution on Equifax's and subsequent lateral movement to internal databases. Former CEO Richard Smith confirmed during congressional testimony that the stolen data lacked , amplifying the breach's impact by enabling immediate usability of the exfiltrated records without additional decryption efforts. In the 2011 Sony PlayStation Network (PSN) intrusion, discovered on April 19, 2011, hackers accessed servers containing unencrypted of over 77 million users, encompassing numbers, expiration dates, addresses, and login credentials stored at rest. The breach resulted from inadequate network intrusion detection, insufficient segmentation between public-facing and internal systems, and failure to encrypt stored payment information, permitting attackers to extract and potentially monetize the data directly. Sony's outage lasted 23 days, costing an estimated $171 million in direct losses, while highlighting how unencrypted at-rest data in high-volume user databases exacerbates risks from even moderately sophisticated intrusions. The 2015 breach, announced on February 4, 2015, exposed up to 78.8 million current and former policyholders' records via an attack that granted access to unencrypted personally identifiable information (PII) and () in relational databases held at rest. Attackers, believed to be state-sponsored, used stolen administrative credentials to query and export data without triggering immediate alerts, underscoring lapses in query monitoring and enforcement for sensitive fields within structured storage systems. These incidents demonstrate that while perimeter defenses and patching are foundational, the absence of encryption renders data at rest vulnerable to full compromise once access is gained, as unencrypted storage allows attackers to bypass key controls by directly reading files or querying databases. Key lessons include mandating field-level or full-volume encryption for high-risk data (e.g., using AES-256 standards) to ensure usability requires separate key access, coupled with robust key management isolated from application layers. Implementing database activity monitoring, enforcing least-privilege principles with role-based access controls, and conducting regular penetration testing and encryption audits mitigate insider and external threats by limiting blast radius and enabling rapid anomaly detection. Organizations must also prioritize timely patching of web-facing components, as delays—evident in Equifax's six-month lapse—create persistent entry points to at-rest repositories. Empirical post-breach analyses consistently show that encrypted data reduces effective breach severity by 50-90% in terms of exploitable records, emphasizing encryption as a core defense-in-depth layer rather than an optional measure.

Limitations and Criticisms

Practical Challenges

Protecting data at rest through introduces significant complexities, including secure generation, storage, distribution, rotation, and revocation of cryptographic s, where failures can result in unauthorized access, compliance violations, or permanent . Centralized systems aim to mitigate these issues by providing oversight, but they still rely on robust access controls to prevent insider compromise of keys, which undermines the encryption's protective value. Poor practices, such as reusing keys or inadequate rotation, exacerbate risks, as evidenced by common pitfalls in deployments where key exposure leads to decrypted breaches. Performance degradation represents another practical hurdle, with full disk encryption imposing computational overhead on read/write operations due to decryption and processes. Benchmarks on modern hardware, such as those conducted on with LUKS , demonstrate measurable slowdowns in disk I/O-intensive tasks, though the impact is often minimal—typically under 10% for sequential operations on SSDs—due to like AES-NI instructions. However, in high-throughput environments or on resource-constrained systems, this overhead can accumulate, affecting application and requiring optimizations like kernel-level improvements to reduce it by up to twofold in environments. Compatibility challenges arise particularly with legacy systems, which frequently lack support for contemporary standards, leading to difficulties such as incompatible APIs, outdated protocols, or hardware limitations that prevent seamless adoption of modern algorithms like AES-256. encryption into proprietary or obsolete architectures often necessitates custom or , increasing deployment costs and error risks, while ensuring across heterogeneous environments demands rigorous testing to avoid or access failures. Insider threats persist as a core limitation, since at rest primarily safeguards against external physical or unauthorized digital access but offers no protection once are legitimately accessible to privileged users, who may intentionally or negligently expose decrypted . This vulnerability is amplified in the central implicit model common to many implementations, where administrators or employees with key privileges can bypass safeguards, highlighting the need for layered controls like role-based access and auditing, yet empirical incidents reveal that such threats account for a substantial portion of breaches involving stored .

Debates on Effectiveness and Overreliance

Critics of data at rest argue that it often conveys a false sense of , primarily due to reliance on centralized systems that expose keys to through trusted intermediaries like database administrators or providers. Such models fail to differentiate between authorized and unauthorized access, rendering ineffective against advanced persistent threats or attacks targeting privileged accounts. While it safeguards against physical of storage media, digital breaches frequently bypass it when attackers obtain decryption keys alongside data access. Empirical evidence underscores these limitations; in the 2018 Marriott International breach, AES-128 encrypted guest data affecting 500 million records was exposed after attackers stole decryption components, demonstrating how key exposure undermines protections. Similarly, studies indicate that does not fully prevent insider threats, where personnel with legitimate key access can exfiltrate data, contributing to 78% of surveyed organizations experiencing breaches from negligent or malicious insiders. Debates on overreliance highlight how prioritizing data at rest diverts resources from higher-risk states like or use, where dynamic access amplifies vulnerabilities from or real-time attacks. at rest, while a compliance staple, introduces performance overhead and complexities—such as rotation and secure storage—that, if mishandled, exacerbate risks without addressing broader access controls or persistence. Proponents counter that it remains a vital last line of defense, rendering stolen data unusable if keys are isolated, but acknowledge that holistic strategies integrating runtime monitoring are essential to avoid complacency.

Quantum-Resistant Advancements

(PQC) addresses vulnerabilities in traditional encryption schemes for data at rest, where stored information encrypted with algorithms like or (ECC) could be retroactively decrypted by quantum computers using . These threats include "" attacks, targeting long-lived data such as backups and archives that remain encrypted for decades. Quantum-resistant algorithms, primarily lattice-based, hash-based, and code-based, provide key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs) and digital signatures resistant to both classical and quantum attacks, enabling secure symmetric key derivation for encrypting data at rest. In August 2024, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) finalized its initial three PQC standards: ML-KEM (based on CRYSTALS-Kyber) for general , ML-DSA (CRYSTALS-Dilithium) for signatures, and SLH-DSA (SPHINCS+) for stateless hash-based signatures, all designed to protect confidentiality and integrity against quantum adversaries. These standards facilitate re-encryption of at rest in storage systems, where ML-KEM can encapsulate symmetric keys for or similar ciphers, ensuring long-term security without relying on vulnerable public-key infrastructure. By March 2025, NIST selected Hamming Quasi-Cyclic (HQC), a code-based algorithm, as a KEM to diversify against potential weaknesses, further bolstering options for stored protection. Implementation advancements include schemes combining classical and PQC algorithms during , as recommended for data at rest to maintain while phasing out quantum-vulnerable methods; for instance, AWS outlined a 2024-2025 integrating PQC into its services for in encrypted volumes. vendors like have incorporated NIST-approved PQC into their platforms by mid-2025, allowing inline re-encryption of file systems and object stores to safeguard against future quantum decryption. The U.S. (CISA) supports these efforts through its PQC Initiative, emphasizing prioritization of high-value stored data for quantum-safe upgrades. Challenges persist in performance overhead—PQC keys and signatures are larger, increasing needs by up to 10-20 times for some algorithms—but optimizations in hardware accelerators are mitigating this for enterprise deployments.

Integration with Cloud and Zero-Trust Models

In environments, protection of data at rest is typically achieved through mechanisms integrated into storage services, with major providers offering default or configurable options using algorithms like AES-256. For instance, (AWS) enables at rest across services via AWS Service (KMS), allowing customers to manage keys independently or use service-managed keys, which has been standard since the service's inception in 2011 and supports compliance with standards like FIPS 140-2. Similarly, implements at rest for storage accounts and databases, with features like Azure Disk leveraging for virtual machines and customer-managed keys stored in Azure Key Vault, updated as of 2023 to include automated rotation policies. Google Cloud applies server-side by default for persistent disks and , using Google-managed or customer-supplied keys via Cloud Service (KMS), ensuring data remains protected even if physical storage is compromised. Integration with zero-trust architectures extends these cloud-native capabilities by emphasizing continuous verification, data classification, and least-privilege to encrypted resources, rather than perimeter-based trust. The U.S. Department of Defense's Zero Trust Reference Architecture, outlined in 2020 and refined in subsequent guidance, mandates of data at rest alongside cataloging and labeling to enforce policy-based controls, preventing unauthorized decryption even within trusted networks. NIST Special Publication 800-207, published in 2020, defines zero trust as a resource-protection model that requires explicit verification for all requests, including to encrypted data at rest, integrating with key management to revoke access dynamically based on and context signals. In practice, this involves combining with zero-trust tools like data loss prevention (DLP) and micro-segmentation; for example, the (CISA) Zero Trust Version 2.0, released in 2021, recommends inventorying and labeling data assets in environments before applying , with mechanisms to detect exfiltration attempts on decrypted data. Challenges in this integration arise from key management complexity and multi-cloud heterogeneity, where customer-managed keys enhance control but require robust rotation—AWS reports that keys rotated every 90 days reduce exposure windows—while zero-trust enforcement demands integration with identity providers like or Azure Active Directory for just-in-time decryption. Federal guidance from the , updated in October 2024, stresses using modules (HSMs) for keys in high-security deployments to align with zero-trust principles, avoiding reliance on provider-managed keys that may introduce implicit . Empirical evidence from breaches, such as the 2023 incident affecting -hosted data, underscores the need for these layered controls, where unverified internal access to at-rest data amplified damage despite encryption. Overall, effective integration prioritizes explicit policy enforcement over assumed security, enabling scalable protection in distributed -zero-trust ecosystems.

References

  1. [1]
    What is data at rest? | Cloudflare
    Data at rest is data when it is stored, rather than moving from one place to another (in transit) or in use by software. Learn about securing data at rest.
  2. [2]
    What is Data at Rest | Security & Encryption Explained - Imperva
    Data at rest refers to computer data in digital form, such as cloud storage, file hosting services, databases, or data warehouses.The Importance of Protecting... · Data at Rest vs. Data in Transit...
  3. [3]
    Data Encryption - Data at Rest vs In Transit vs In Use - Mimecast
    Dec 18, 2024 · What Is Data at Rest? Data at rest refers to inactive data, meaning it's not moving between devices or networks. Because this information ...
  4. [4]
    Securing Data at Rest, in Motion, and in Use Explained
    Data at rest is defined as information held on physical devices such as hard drives, servers, backup tapes, or cloud storage platforms, as well as on external ...
  5. [5]
    What is Data at Rest? - Thales
    Data at rest is data collected in one place, such as databases, file systems, big data lakes, the cloud, and storage infrastructure.
  6. [6]
    Protecting data at rest - Security Pillar - AWS Documentation
    Data at rest represents any data that you persist in non-volatile storage for any duration in your workload. This includes block storage, object storage, ...
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Security Guidelines for Storage Infrastructure
    If this data is not properly encrypted at rest, and the storage infrastructure is compromised, a hacker can gain access to a multitude of user credentials. 3.1.<|separator|>
  8. [8]
    SC-28: Protection Of Information At Rest - CSF Tools
    This control addresses the confidentiality and integrity of information at rest and covers user information and system information.
  9. [9]
    PR.DS-1: Data-at-rest is protected - CSF Tools
    Encrypt all sensitive information at rest using a tool that requires a secondary authentication mechanism not integrated into the operating system.NIST SP 800-171 Revision 3.0 · Critical Security Controls...
  10. [10]
    What is Data at Rest? - Utimaco
    Data at rest is data stored on a computer in any digital form, not actively moving or being accessed, including files on hard drives and in the cloud.
  11. [11]
    Data Protection: Data In transit vs. Data At Rest - Digital Guardian
    May 6, 2023 · Data at rest is data that is not actively moving from device to device or network to network such as data stored on a hard drive, laptop, flash ...
  12. [12]
    Data-at-Rest - Glossary | CSRC
    NIST interagency/internal reports (NISTIRs) · ITL Bulletins · White Papers ... See the identified Source document to understand each term-definition pair in its ...
  13. [13]
    Azure encryption overview | Microsoft Learn
    Sep 23, 2025 · Data at rest includes information that resides in persistent storage on physical media, in any digital format. The media can include files on ...
  14. [14]
    Data-at-Rest, in-Transit & in-Use - eperi
    Oct 7, 2025 · Definition: Data-at-rest includes all data stored in a static state – on hard drives, databases, or cloud storage. · Objective: Prevent ...
  15. [15]
    Translation: Big Data Security White Paper 2018 - DigiChina
    Jul 31, 2018 · In big data applications, therefore, data in motion is the norm and data at rest is the exception. At the same time, it can be foreseen that ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  16. [16]
    [PDF] THREE USE CASES FOR STORAGE CLASS MEMORY (SCM)
    SCM technology seeks to take the best from both worlds by being a non-volatile persistent storage that is faster than SSD but slower than DRAM, and costs more ...
  17. [17]
    What's a practical example of encryption "in use" or "in process"?
    Mar 27, 2018 · "Encryption in-use" is a mechanism by which we can protect compute data (RAM, processes or anything which is by definition not considered data at-rest nor in- ...
  18. [18]
    Data Encryption Standard: What Is DES and How Does It Work?
    May 13, 2025 · Historical background of DES​​ In the early 1970s, IBM researchers developed a cipher known as Lucifer, which became the foundation for what we ...
  19. [19]
    The History of Cryptography | IBM
    1975: Researchers working on block ciphers at IBM developed the Data Encryption Standard (DES)—the first cryptosystem certified by the National Institute ...Missing: rest | Show results with:rest
  20. [20]
    Cryptographic Standards and a 50-Year Evolution - NCCoE
    May 26, 2022 · A 64-bit block cipher with 56-bit key, DES was the first public encryption created by the U.S. government. An exhaustive search attack for a DES ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Encryption Standards for Data-at-rest
    The DES standard was the first published US Government encryption ... means that the additional stages add less cryptographic strength than the first.
  22. [22]
    A brief history of FileVault - The Eclectic Light Company
    Oct 19, 2024 · Apple released the first version of FileVault, now normally referred to as FileVault 1 or Legacy FileVault, in Mac OS X 10.3 Panther in 2003.
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Guide to Storage Encryption Technologies for End User Devices
    It only discusses the encryption of data at rest (storage), and does not address the encryption of data in motion (transmission). 1.3 Audience. This document ...Missing: distinctions | Show results with:distinctions
  24. [24]
    NIST Releases First 3 Finalized Post-Quantum Encryption Standards
    Aug 13, 2024 · The new standards are designed for two essential tasks for which encryption is typically used: general encryption, used to protect information ...
  25. [25]
    5 ways physical security breaches can threaten your network
    Sep 22, 2016 · 1. Server room access · 2. Damaged equipment · 3. Hardware theft · 4. Greater access to passwords · 5. Business reputation.
  26. [26]
    Data Security: Physical Security Breaches | Secoda
    Physical security breaches include unauthorized entry, theft, vandalism, sabotage, tailgating, social engineering, and insider theft.
  27. [27]
    5 Physical Data Center Security Threats That Are Easy to Miss
    Aug 3, 2023 · Controlling physical access to data centers helps prevent malicious actors from planting malware on servers, networking equipment, or other ...
  28. [28]
    Preventing Unauthorized Access: Best Practices for Data Center ...
    Mar 18, 2025 · Unauthorized access can lead to hardware tampering and corporate espionage. Attackers can steal physical hard drives, SSDs, or network devices ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  29. [29]
    [PDF] NIST SP 800-122, Guide to Protecting the Confidentiality of ...
    ITL's responsibilities include the development of technical, physical, administrative, and management standards and guidelines for the cost-effective security ...
  30. [30]
    NIST SP 800-12: Chapter 15 - Physical and Environmental Security
    This chapter first discusses the benefits of physical security measures, and then presents an overview of common physical and environmental security controls.
  31. [31]
    12 Types of Data Breaches to Look Out For in 2025 - Teramind
    Jan 1, 2025 · 1. Access Control Breaches · 2. Phishing & Social Engineering · 3. Insider Threats · 4. Business Email Compromise (BEC) · 5. Physical Security ...
  32. [32]
    Data Storage Security: Challenges, Risks, and Best Practices
    Jun 21, 2024 · Storage security risks are caused by threats to the information handled by storage systems and infrastructure, vulnerabilities (such as those ...
  33. [33]
    Defining Insider Threats - CISA
    Insider threat is the potential for an insider to use their authorized access or understanding of an organization to harm that organization.
  34. [34]
    New Study Reveals Insider Threats and AI Complexities Are Driving ...
    Oct 7, 2025 · Insiders pose the greatest threat to file security. The most serious risk is caused by malicious and negligent insiders who leak data (45 ...
  35. [35]
    10 Insider Threat Examples: Real Corporate Case Studies
    Aug 18, 2025 · Real-world insider threat examples by impact · 1. Tesla (2023): 100 GB of employee data leaked · 2. Yahoo (2022): 570,000 pages of trade secrets ...
  36. [36]
    Top 8 Most Common Storage Misconfigurations And Vulnerabilities
    Jul 26, 2022 · A large number of devices were affected by improper configuration, including unrestricted access to shared storage, unrecommended zoning and ...
  37. [37]
    What is Cloud Storage Security? Risks & Best Practices to Combat
    Jul 16, 2024 · Known, unpatched vulnerabilities are responsible for about as many data breaches as malicious insiders and accidental data losses. Shared ...
  38. [38]
    Data storage security isn't working: Here are 5 ways to improve
    Jan 17, 2023 · Data storage and backup systems are far more insecure than other IT systems, research says. Here are five ways to improve their security.Missing: systemic | Show results with:systemic
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Encryption Basics - National Institute of Standards and Technology
    The guidance discusses encryption as a mechanism to protect data in transit and data at rest. Implementing and managing an encryption solution can certainly ...
  40. [40]
    Encrypt Data at Rest - Essential Guide to Election Security
    Oct 3, 2022 · Enable encryption for laptops, desktops, servers, and mobile devices, known as full-disk encryption (Level 1 maturity) · Encrypt backups (Level 1 ...Actions · Level 1 Maturity · Level 2 And Level 3...
  41. [41]
    Disk vs File Encryption: Which Is Best for You? | eSecurity Planet
    Nov 6, 2020 · Ideally you'd use both full-disk and file encryption to protect data at rest and data in motion. The good news is some vendors offer both.
  42. [42]
    File-based encryption vs full-disk encryption - Hexnode UEM
    Jan 24, 2022 · Full-disk encryption is useful for protecting data that is at rest. This means that FDE can protect data that is stored in a device but cannot ...What is Full-disk encryption or... · What is file-based encryption...
  43. [43]
    Showdown: Full disk encryption vs. file-based encryption | Hyland
    Jul 26, 2022 · Full disk encryption is important and a good start, but file encryption is a way to build on that to make the system even more secure.
  44. [44]
    Disk, File and Database Encryption - SpringerLink
    Apr 27, 2023 · Full disk encryption encrypts all data on a disk except the part containing the code to unlock the rest of the disk, which is usually not ...<|separator|>
  45. [45]
    Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) - SQL Server - Microsoft Learn
    Sep 7, 2025 · TDE encrypts SQL Server, Azure SQL Database, and Azure Synapse Analytics data files. This encryption is known as encrypting data at rest.
  46. [46]
    Introduction to Transparent Data Encryption - Oracle Help Center
    TDE helps protect data stored on media (also called data at rest) in the event that the storage media or data file is stolen. Oracle AI Database uses ...
  47. [47]
    What is Transparent Data Encryption (TDE)? The Ultimate Guide
    TDE protects data at rest by encrypting the database's data files and log files on the disk, meaning that if someone were to gain physical access to the storage ...
  48. [48]
    Selecting the Right Encryption Approach - Thales
    Full-disk encryption (FDE) and self-encrypting drives (SED) encrypt data as it is written to the disk and decrypt data as it is read off the disk. FDE/SED ...
  49. [49]
    [PDF] Protection of Data at Rest - NIST Computer Security Resource Center
    Protection of Data at Rest. Version: 6.6. 2018-02-20. HGST Ultrastar SSD800/1000/1600 TCG Enterprise SSDs. FIPS 140-2 Cryptographic Module. Non-Proprietary ...
  50. [50]
    Disk Encryption vs. File Encryption: What's the Difference?
    Dec 17, 2024 · Full-disk encryption (FDE) turns all of a drive's data into a code ... Disk encryption offers end-to-end security by safeguarding data at rest.
  51. [51]
    Cryptographic Storage - OWASP Cheat Sheet Series
    This article provides a simple model to follow when implementing solutions to protect data at rest. Passwords should not be stored using reversible encryption.
  52. [52]
    Top 12 Data Security Best Practices - Palo Alto Networks
    Top data security best practices include classifying by sensitivity, enforcing least privilege, securing data at rest/in transit, and detecting misuse.
  53. [53]
    SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Security and Privacy Controls for Information ...
    This publication provides a catalog of security and privacy controls for information systems and organizations to protect organizational operations and assets.800-53A · CPRT Catalog · SP 800-53B · CSRC MENU
  54. [54]
    What is Data at Rest? - PrivacyEngine
    Rating 9.3/10 (47) Data at rest refers to all data in computer storage, excluding data traversing a network or temporarily residing in computer memory to be read or updated.
  55. [55]
    Data Security Policies: Why They Matter and What They Contain
    Physical Access Controls: Locks, card access systems, and biometric systems to prevent unauthorized access to facilities or data centers.Data Security Policies... · Technical Controls... · Data Security Policy Faqs
  56. [56]
    Principle 2: Asset protection and resilience - NCSC.GOV.UK
    Your data should be adequately protected from unauthorised access by parties with physical access to infrastructure, when considered alongside data at rest ...Cloud Security Guidance · Pages · Encryption Of All Physical...<|separator|>
  57. [57]
    2 Physically Protecting Sensitive Data
    In all cases, relaxing restrictions increases risk with respect to physical security (safe settings) but can be mitigated by measures in the other safes of ...
  58. [58]
    Data Masking vs. Tokenization: What's the Difference? - Immuta
    Jun 29, 2022 · The primary distinction between tokenization and masking is that tokenization generally protects extremely sensitive data at rest, while data masking is ...What is data masking? · What's the difference between... · When should I use...
  59. [59]
    Data Tokenization vs Data Masking vs Data Encryption - Bluemetrix
    Mar 27, 2024 · It involves altering sensitive data at rest, typically in a non-production environment, to permanently ensure privacy and data protection ...
  60. [60]
    What is Data Masking? Importance & Techniques - Salesforce
    Data masking is a data security process that transforms information to hide its original content, making it unreadable to unauthorized users.<|control11|><|separator|>
  61. [61]
    What is Data at Rest and How to Secure It | Teradata
    Oct 21, 2024 · Monitoring data at rest in real time and dynamically adjusting policies, encryption keys, access permissions, and other security tools or ...Missing: milestones | Show results with:milestones
  62. [62]
    [PDF] Recommendation for Key Management: Part 1 - General
    May 5, 2020 · This document provides general guidance and best practices for managing cryptographic keying material, including security services, algorithms, ...
  63. [63]
    SP 800-57 Part 1 Rev. 5, Recommendation for Key Management
    May 4, 2020 · This Recommendation provides cryptographic key-management guidance. It consists of three parts. Part 1 provides general guidance and best practices.
  64. [64]
    NIST 800-57 Key Management Requirements Analysis - White Paper
    Encryption key management involves administering the full lifecycle of cryptographic keys and protecting them from loss or misuse. Keys have a life cycle: They' ...<|separator|>
  65. [65]
    Key Management Best Practices: A Practical Guide - SSL.com
    May 3, 2024 · Encrypt software keys while at rest using other keys or passphrases. Store encrypted keys separately from encrypted data. Use access controls, ...
  66. [66]
    Key Management - OWASP Cheat Sheet Series
    This Key Management Cheat Sheet provides developers with guidance for implementation of cryptographic key management within an application in a secure manner.
  67. [67]
    Key Management and NIST Recommendations | Cryptographic Keys
    NIST recommends using unique keys for each use, separate keys for authentication and decryption, and setting cryptoperiods for key usage.
  68. [68]
    [PDF] PCI DSS v3.2.1 Quick Reference Guide
    PCI Security Standards are technical and operational requirements set by the PCI Security Standards. Council (PCI SSC) to protect cardholder data. The standards ...
  69. [69]
    Payment Card Data Security Standards (PCI DSS)
    PCI Security Standards are developed and maintained by the PCI Security Standards Council to protect payment data throughout the payment lifecycle.More information & resources · Card Production and... · Contactless Payments on...
  70. [70]
    HIPAA Encryption Requirements - 2025 Update
    Apr 9, 2025 · The HIPAA data at rest encryption requirements (in the “access controls” standard) refer to any ePHI maintained on a server, in a desktop file, ...
  71. [71]
    Art. 32 GDPR – Security of processing - General Data Protection ...
    Rating 4.6 (9,719) The controller and the processor shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk.
  72. [72]
    Encryption - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
    Rating 4.6 (9,719) Encryption is the best way to protect data during transfer and one way to secure stored personal data. It also reduces the risk of abuse within a company.
  73. [73]
    Cybersecurity Framework | NIST
    Cybersecurity Framework helping organizations to better understand and improve their management of cybersecurity risk.CSF 1.1 Archive · Updates Archive · CSF 2.0 Quick Start Guides · CSF 2.0 Profiles
  74. [74]
    NetApp ONTAP: Store top-secret Data with CSfC validation
    Dec 8, 2021 · Data-at-rest encryption provides protection from physical theft of data storage devices by using encryption. However, a key aspect of a CSfC ...Share This Page · What Is Csfc? · Csfc Validation Is Important...<|separator|>
  75. [75]
    Protecting Data At Rest With Nsa Csfc Approved Encryption
    The UAV's data-at-rest (DAR) architecture needed to meet stringent requirements from the National Security Agency (NSA) for Top Secret-level protection. The ...
  76. [76]
    Commercial Based, Two-Layer Encryption Improves Battlefield ...
    The US Army PM TN Secure Wireless program has had great success rolling out CSfC ... CSfC approval for use in classified data-at-rest encryption. Curtiss ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  77. [77]
    (PDF) Evaluating the Effectiveness of Data Encryption Methods in ...
    Oct 24, 2024 · Results show significant variations in encryption methods' effectiveness against unauthorized access, data tampering, and performance metrics.
  78. [78]
    [PDF] Identifying and Protecting Assets Against Data Breaches
    And in the event a data breach occurs, it is essential ... Even if the data is stolen and released, encryption prevents the data from being used or read.
  79. [79]
    Equifax ex-CEO: Hacked data wasn't encrypted - CBS News
    Oct 3, 2017 · Customer data that was compromised during a massive breach of Equifax's ... failed technology and human error. On March 8, he said, the ...
  80. [80]
    [PDF] The Equifax Data Breach
    On October 3,. Richard Smith testified before Congress blaming human error and a failure to communicate the need to apply a patch as underlying reasons for the ...
  81. [81]
    The 39 Most Notorious Hacks History | Indusface Blog
    Apr 18, 2025 · The data compromised in the breach included names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, and medical information of patients and ...Missing: lessons | Show results with:lessons
  82. [82]
    Real-Life Examples: Lessons Learned from Major Cyber Breaches
    Sep 23, 2024 · Sony's PlayStation Network breach in 2011 compromised the personal data of over 77 million users. Hackers exploited Sony's lack of encryption ...<|separator|>
  83. [83]
    Lessons Learned from Anthem Data Breach - SHRM
    Feb 10, 2015 · Lessons Learned from Anthem Data Breach. Experts say HR should be vigilant about protecting HR data, especially at rest. February 10, 2015 | ...
  84. [84]
    Two Cybersecurity Takeaways from the Equifax Data Breach
    Sep 12, 2017 · Encrypted data in transit and at rest. Always. No ... And with each data breach, organizations are failing to make good on that trust.
  85. [85]
    Data Breaches Start with Unencrypted Data: Here's How to Stop Them
    Apr 8, 2025 · This article sheds light on the hidden dangers of unencrypted data and outlines how encryption can protect your business from costly incidents and compliance ...<|separator|>
  86. [86]
    What Are the Challenges of Key Management (with Solutions)
    Jul 22, 2025 · Poor management of your keys can lead to unauthorized data access, compliance violations, or complete data loss.
  87. [87]
    Data At Rest: Challenges and Best Practices - SearchInform
    Data at rest refers to information stored in databases, file systems, or any other storage medium when not actively being used or transferred. It encompasses a ...<|separator|>
  88. [88]
  89. [89]
    Benchmarking The Performance Cost To Full Disk Encryption For ...
    Oct 25, 2023 · Here are some benchmarks looking at the performance cost to enabling full disk encryption versus not utilizing any disk encryption while running Fedora ...
  90. [90]
    Speeding up Linux disk encryption - The Cloudflare Blog
    Mar 25, 2020 · In this post, we will investigate the performance of disk encryption on Linux and explain how we made it at least two times faster for ourselves and our ...<|separator|>
  91. [91]
    Challenges and Considerations in Implementing Encryption in Data ...
    Jul 24, 2024 · Key Challenges in Implementing Encryption in Data Protection · 1. Complexity and Performance Impact: · 2. Key Management: · 3. Compatibility and ...2. Key Management · 3. Compatibility And... · 5. Data Lifecycle Management<|separator|>
  92. [92]
    Overcoming Encryption Challenges in Legacy IT Systems - StudyAML
    May 3, 2024 · Compatibility Issues: Legacy systems often use outdated software and hardware that may not support modern encryption protocols or algorithms.<|separator|>
  93. [93]
    Pitfalls to Avoid with Data at Rest Encryption | - NetLib Security
    Modern standards like AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) provide robust protection and are widely recognized as the gold standard for encrypting data at rest.
  94. [94]
    Data at Rest Encryption: A False Sense of Security - Ubiq
    Oct 25, 2022 · Data at rest encryption is often ineffective because it uses the flawed Central Implicit Trust Model, where trusted entities can still access ...
  95. [95]
  96. [96]
    [PDF] The Human Factor in Data Protection - Ponemon Institute
    To manage the human factor risk, organizations are turning to such enabling technologies as access governance, endpoint security management, SIEM and security ...<|separator|>
  97. [97]
    Encryption of Data at Rest: The Cybersecurity Last Line of Defense
    Aug 27, 2024 · Encryption of data at rest converts data into an unreadable format, making it useless to attackers even if they breach other defenses.
  98. [98]
    Post-Quantum Cryptography | CSRC
    Background. NIST initiated a process to solicit, evaluate, and standardize one or more quantum-resistant public-key cryptographic algorithms.
  99. [99]
    Why you need post quantum cryptography at the storage layer
    Apr 14, 2025 · For data at rest, it means reencrypting with quantum-resistant keys, ensuring that backups and archives stay safe long term. For data in flight, ...
  100. [100]
    NIST Selects HQC as Fifth Algorithm for Post-Quantum Encryption
    Mar 11, 2025 · The new algorithm will serve as a backup for the general encryption needed to protect data from quantum computers developed in the future.
  101. [101]
    AWS post-quantum cryptography migration plan | AWS Security Blog
    Dec 5, 2024 · This post summarizes where AWS is today in the journey of migrating to PQC and outlines our path forward.
  102. [102]
    [PDF] Safeguarding your data in a quantum future with NetApp
    Integrate NIST-approved PQC algorithms to secure data at rest, enabling long-term integrity and confidentiality. SAFEGUARDING YOUR DATA. IN A QUANTUM FUTURE.Missing: implementation | Show results with:implementation
  103. [103]
    Post-Quantum Cryptography Initiative | CISA
    CISA's Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Initiative will unify and drive efforts with interagency and industry partners to address threats posed by quantum.Post-Quantum Considerations... · CISA Announces Post...Missing: 2025 | Show results with:2025
  104. [104]
    Prioritizing data for post-quantum cryptography (PQC) - HashiCorp
    Jun 11, 2025 · A smart first step in preparing for post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is to identify and prioritize your most sensitive data.
  105. [105]
    Encrypting Data-at-Rest and Data-in-Transit - AWS Documentation
    All AWS services offer the ability to encrypt data at rest and in transit. AWS KMS integrates with the majority of services to let customers control the ...
  106. [106]
    Azure Data Encryption-at-Rest - Azure Security | Microsoft Learn
    Encryption at rest is a common security requirement. In Azure, organizations can encrypt data at rest without the risk or cost of a custom key management ...Missing: difficulties | Show results with:difficulties
  107. [107]
    Encryption For Cloud Security - Google Cloud
    Google Cloud encrypts data in transit between our facilities and at rest, which ensures the data can be accessed only by the authorized roles and services.
  108. [108]
    [PDF] Advancing Zero Trust Maturity Throughout the Data Pillar - DoD
    Apr 9, 2024 · breach could have been prevented, or at least lessened due to controls on data access ... Equifax Data Breach. 2024. https://archive.epic.org/ ...
  109. [109]
    [PDF] Zero Trust Architecture - NIST Technical Series Publications
    Zero trust is a cybersecurity paradigm focused on resource protection and the premise that trust is never granted implicitly but must be continually evaluated.
  110. [110]
    [PDF] Zero Trust Maturity Model Version 2.0 - CISA
    Agencies should inventory, categorize, and label data;33 protect data at rest and in transit; and deploy mechanisms to detect and stop data exfiltration.
  111. [111]
    Data-at-Rest Encryption in the Cloud: Explore Your Options
    Mar 2, 2023 · We break down different approaches IT pros can take to encrypt data at rest in the public cloud, including service-managed keys, customer-managed keys, bring- ...
  112. [112]
    [PDF] Federal Zero Trust Data Security Guide - CIO Council
    Encryption: Use robust encryption methods to protect data at rest, in transit, and in use ... Source: Department of Defense Zero Trust Reference Architecture,.
  113. [113]
    Identify and protect sensitive business data with Zero Trust
    May 5, 2025 · A Zero Trust model involves identifying sensitive data and applying classification and protection, including data loss prevention (DLP). Zero ...