Vulnerability Assessment Report

Author: Dariusz Piasecki
Project Type: Risk Assessment & Security Analysis
Framework: NIST SP 800-30 Rev. 1
Date: December 1, 2024

---

📋 Executive Summary

This vulnerability assessment evaluates the security posture of a publicly accessible PostgreSQL database server used by an e-commerce company. The assessment identified critical security vulnerabilities stemming from unrestricted public access, inadequate authentication mechanisms, and lack of encryption protocols.

Key Findings:

• Risk Score: 16/16 (Critical) for data exfiltration by malicious actors
• Impact: Potential exposure of customer data, transaction histories, and product information
• Recommendations: Immediate implementation of access controls, encryption, and IP whitelisting

Outcome: Delivered actionable remediation strategies aligned with NIST SP 800-30 to reduce risk exposure by 75%.

---

🏢 Scenario Background

Business Context

An e-commerce company operates a cloud-based PostgreSQL database that has been publicly accessible since launch (3 years). The database serves remote employees worldwide who query customer data for business operations.

The Problem

As a newly hired cybersecurity analyst, I identified that public database exposure represents a critical security vulnerability that threatens:

• Customer data confidentiality
• Business continuity
• Regulatory compliance (GDPR, PCI DSS)
• Company reputation

---

🎯 Assessment Objectives

1. Identify vulnerabilities in the current database server configuration
2. Evaluate risks using the NIST SP 800-30 Rev. 1 framework
3. Quantify threat likelihood and severity through risk scoring
4. Provide actionable remediation strategies for decision-makers
5. Establish security baseline for ongoing monitoring

---

🖥️ System Description

Infrastructure Overview

Component	Details
Database Type	PostgreSQL (cloud-based)
Operating System	Linux
Memory	64 GB
Accessibility	Public (internet-facing)
User Base	Remote employees (global)
Current Security	Basic firewall rules only

Data Stored

• Customer personal information (PII)
• Transaction histories
• Product catalogs
• Employee query logs

---

🔍 Scope

Assessment Period: October 2024 - December 2024
Framework: NIST SP 800-30 Rev. 1 (Guide for Conducting Risk Assessments)
Focus Areas:

• Network exposure and access controls
• Authentication and authorization mechanisms
• Data encryption (in transit and at rest)
• Configuration management
• Monitoring and logging capabilities

---

📊 Risk Assessment

Threat Analysis

Threat Source	Threat Event	Likelihood	Severity	Risk Score	Priority
Malicious Actor	Data exfiltration	4	4	16	🔴 Critical
Insider Threat	Unauthorized access to sensitive information	3	4	12	🟡 High
Cybercriminal	Service disruption through DDoS attacks	3	3	9	🟡 Medium
Poor Security Practices	Data loss due to improper configuration	2	4	8	🟡 Medium

Risk Scoring Methodology:

• Likelihood: 1 (Low) to 4 (Very High)
• Severity: 1 (Negligible) to 4 (Catastrophic)
• Risk Score: Likelihood × Severity (max 16)

---

Risk Matrix Visualization

Severity →
   4 │  8  │ 12  │ 16  │ 16  │ ← Critical (Insider, Data Exfiltration)
   3 │  6  │  9  │ 12  │ 12  │ ← Medium (DDoS)
   2 │  4  │  8  │  8  │  8  │ ← Medium (Poor Config)
   1 │  2  │  3  │  4  │  4  │
     └─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┘
       1     2     3     4   ← Likelihood

---

🛡️ Detailed Risk Analysis

1. Data Exfiltration (Risk: 16 - Critical)

Threat: Malicious actors exploit public database access to steal customer data.

Vulnerability: No access restrictions; database is internet-facing.

Impact:

• Breach of customer PII (GDPR violations - fines up to €20M)
• Loss of customer trust and brand reputation
• Legal liabilities and regulatory penalties

Current Controls: None
Recommended Controls: IP whitelisting, MFA, encryption

---

2. Unauthorized Access (Risk: 12 - High)

Threat: Insider threats (employees, contractors) access data beyond their authorization.

Vulnerability: Lack of role-based access control (RBAC).

Impact:

• Data tampering or deletion
• Competitive intelligence leakage
• Privilege escalation attacks

Current Controls: Basic firewall
Recommended Controls: RBAC, audit logging, least privilege

---

3. DDoS Attacks (Risk: 9 - Medium)

Threat: Distributed denial-of-service attacks disrupt database availability.

Vulnerability: No rate limiting or DDoS protection.

Impact:

• Business downtime (lost revenue)
• Customer service degradation
• Reputational damage

Current Controls: None
Recommended Controls: CDN/DDoS mitigation, rate limiting

---

4. Configuration Errors (Risk: 8 - Medium)

Threat: Misconfiguration leads to data loss or exposure.

Vulnerability: Manual configuration without change management.

Impact:

• Accidental data deletion
• Service outages
• Security policy violations

Current Controls: None
Recommended Controls: Configuration management, backups, version control

---

🔧 Remediation Strategy

Priority 1: Immediate (0-30 Days)

Action	Objective	Implementation
Implement IP Whitelisting	Restrict access to known corporate IPs	Configure firewall rules to allow only authorized IP ranges
Enable Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)	Prevent unauthorized logins	Deploy MFA for all database accounts using Google Authenticator or Duo
Encrypt Data in Transit	Protect data during transmission	Enable TLS 1.3 for all database connections

Expected Outcome: Reduce risk score from 16 → 6 (62.5% reduction)

---

Priority 2: Short-Term (30-60 Days)

Action	Objective	Implementation
Deploy Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)	Limit user privileges	Implement least-privilege model with role separation
Enable Database Encryption at Rest	Protect stored data	Configure PostgreSQL Transparent Data Encryption (TDE)
Establish Audit Logging	Track all database access	Enable PostgreSQL audit extension (pgAudit)
Strengthen Password Policy	Enforce secure credentials	Require 16+ char passwords with complexity requirements

Expected Outcome: Reduce insider threat risk from 12 → 4 (66% reduction)

---

Priority 3: Long-Term (60-90 Days)

Action	Objective	Implementation
Deploy DDoS Protection	Ensure service availability	Integrate Cloudflare or AWS Shield
Implement Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)	Real-time threat detection	Deploy Splunk or ELK stack for log analysis
Conduct Penetration Testing	Validate security controls	Hire external security firm for assessment
Establish Incident Response Plan	Prepare for security events	Document IR procedures and runbooks

Expected Outcome: Comprehensive security posture with ongoing monitoring

---

📈 Expected Impact

Before Implementation

Metric	Value
Overall Risk Score	16 (Critical)
Public Exposure	100% (internet-facing)
Encryption	0% (none)
Access Controls	0% (public)
Audit Capability	0% (no logging)

After Implementation

Metric	Value	Improvement
Overall Risk Score	4 (Low)	-75%
Public Exposure	0% (IP whitelisted)	-100%
Encryption	100% (TLS + at-rest)	+100%
Access Controls	100% (RBAC + MFA)	+100%
Audit Capability	100% (full logging)	+100%

---

🛠️ Tools & Frameworks

Category	Tool/Standard	Purpose
Framework	NIST SP 800-30 Rev. 1	Risk assessment methodology
Database	PostgreSQL	Target system
Encryption	TLS 1.3, AES-256	Data protection
Authentication	MFA (Duo, Google Authenticator)	Identity verification
Monitoring	SIEM (Splunk, ELK)	Threat detection
Compliance	GDPR, PCI DSS	Regulatory requirements

---

🎯 Skills Demonstrated

Skill Category	Specific Skills
Risk Assessment	NIST SP 800-30 application, threat modeling, risk quantification
Vulnerability Analysis	Attack surface analysis, security gap identification
Technical Writing	Executive communication, actionable recommendations
Security Architecture	Defense-in-depth, access control design, encryption implementation
Compliance	GDPR, PCI DSS requirements analysis

---

📝 Lessons Learned

Key Takeaways

1. Public database exposure is a critical vulnerability — even with "basic firewalls," sensitive data remains at risk
2. Risk quantification drives decision-making — using NIST SP 800-30 provides objective metrics for prioritization
3. Layered security is essential — no single control (firewall, encryption, MFA) is sufficient alone
4. Compliance requirements are non-negotiable — GDPR fines can reach €20M for data breaches
5. Remediation must be phased — immediate actions (IP whitelisting) provide quick wins while long-term solutions (SIEM) mature

Challenges Addressed

• Remote workforce — Solution: IP whitelisting + VPN requirement
• Legacy public access — Solution: Gradual transition to secure access model
• Budget constraints — Solution: Prioritized remediation by risk score
• Global operations — Solution: Regional IP ranges + multi-region MFA

---

📧 Contact

Dariusz Piasecki
📧 Email: dariusz.piasecki.sec@gmail.com
🔗 LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/dariusz-piasecki
🐙 GitHub: github.com/Dariusz-Piasecki

---

This vulnerability assessment demonstrates practical application of the NIST SP 800-30 framework to identify, quantify, and remediate security risks in a real-world e-commerce environment.