As the first analyst to ever cover Data Loss Prevention, I’ve had a bit of a tumultuous relationship with endpoint DLP. Early on I tended to exclude endpoint only solutions because they were more limited in functionality, and couldn’t help at all with protecting data loss from unmanaged systems. But even then I always said that, eventually, endpoint DLP would be a critical component of any DLP solution. When we’re looking at a problem like data loss, no individual point solution will give us everything we need.

Over the next few posts we’re going to dig into endpoint DLP. I’ll start by discussing how I define it, and why I don’t generally recommend stand-alone endpoint DLP. I’ll talk about key features to look for, then focus on best practices for implementation.

It won’t come as any surprise that these posts are building up into another one of my whitepapers. This is about as transparent a research process as I can think of. And speaking of transparency, like most of my other papers this one is sponsored, but the content is completely objective (sponsors can suggest a topic, if it’s objective, but they don’t have input on the content).

Definition

As always, we need to start with our definition for DLP/CMP:

“Products that, based on central policies, identify, monitor, and protect data at rest, in motion, and in use through deep content analysis”.

Endpoint DLP helps manage all three parts of this problem. The first is protecting data at rest when it’s on the endpoint; or what we call content discovery (and I wrote up in great detail). Our primary goal is keeping track of sensitive data as it proliferates out to laptops, desktops, and even portable media. The second part, and the most difficult problem in DLP, is protecting data in use. This is a catch all term we use to describe DLP monitoring and protection of content as it’s used on a desktop- cut and paste, moving data in and out of applications, and even tying in with encryption and enterprise Document Rights Management (DRM). Finally, endpoint DLP provides data in motion protection for systems outside the purview of network DLP- such as a laptop out in the field.

Endpoint DLP is a little difficult to discuss since it’s one of the fastest changing areas in a rapidly evolving space. I don’t believe any single product has every little piece of functionality I’m going to talk about, so (at least where functionality is concerned) this series will lay out all the recommended options which you can then prioritize to meet your own needs.

Endpoint DLP Drivers

In the beginning of the DLP market we nearly always recommended organizations start with network DLP. A network tool allows you to protect both managed and unmanaged systems (like contractor laptops), and is typically easier to deploy in an enterprise (since you don’t have to muck with every desktop and server). It also has advantages in terms of the number and types of content protection policies you can deploy, how it integrates with email for workflow, and the scope of channels covered. During the DLP market’s the first few years, it was hard to even find a content-aware endpoint agent.

But customer demand for endpoint DLP quickly grew thanks to two major needs- content discovery on the endpoint, and the ability to prevent loss through USB storage devices. We continue to see basic USB blocking tools with absolutely no content awareness brand themselves as DLP. The first batches of endpoint DLP tools focused on exactly these problems- discovery and content-aware portable media/USB device control.

The next major driver for endpoint DLP is supporting network policies when a system is outside the corporate gateway. We all live in an increasingly mobile workforce where we need to support consistent policies no matter where someone is physically located, nor how they connect to the Internet.

Finally, we see some demand for deeper integration of DLP with how a user interacts with their system. In part, this is to support more intensive policies to reduce malicious loss of data. You might, for example, disallow certain content from moving into certain applications, like encryption. Some of these same kinds of hooks are used to limit cut/paste, print screen, and fax, or to enable more advanced security like automatic encryption or application of DRM rights.

The Full Suite Advantage

As we’ve already hinted, there are some limitations to endpoint only DLP solutions. The first is that they only protect managed systems where you can deploy an agent. If you’re worried about contractors on your network or you want protection in case someone tries to use a server to send data outside the walls, you’re out of luck. Also, because some content analysis policies are processor and memory intensive, it is problematic to get them running on resource-constrained endpoints. Finally, there are many discovery situations where you don’t want to deploy a local endpoint agent for your content analysis- e.g. when performing discovery on a major SAN.

Thus my bias towards full-suite solutions. Network DLP reduces losses on the enterprise network from both managed and unmanaged systems, and servers and workstations. Content discovery finds and protects stored data throughout the enterprise, while endpoint DLP protects systems that leave the network, and reduces risks across vectors that circumvent the network. It’s the combination of all these layers that provides the best overall risk reduction. All of this is managed through a single policy, workflow, and administration server; rather than forcing you to create different policies; for different channels and products, with different capabilities, workflow, and management.

In our next post we’ll discuss the technology and major features to look for, followed by posts on best practices for implementation.

Since Friday is usually “trash” day (when you dump articles you don’t expect anyone to read) I don’t usually post anything major. But thanks to some unexpected work that hit yesterday, I wasn’t able to get part 2 of this series out when I wanted to. If you can tear yourself away from those LOLCatz long enough, we’re going to talk about web browsers, WAFs, and web application gateways. These are the first two components of Application and Database Monitoring and Protection (ADMP), which I define as:

Products that monitor all activity in a business application and database, identify and audit users and content, and, based on central policies, protect data based on content, context, and/or activity.

Browser Troubles

As we discussed in part 1, one of the biggest problems in web application security is that the very model of the web browsers and the World Wide Web is not conducive to current security needs. Browsers are the ultimate mashup tool- designed to take different bits from different places and seamlessly render them into a coherent whole. The first time I started serious web application programming (around 1995/96) this blew my mind. I was able to embed disparate systems in ways never before possible. And not only can we embed content within a browser, we can embed browsers within other content/applications. The main reason, as a developer, I converted from Netscape to IE was that Microsoft allowed IE to be embedded in other programs, which allowed us to drop it into our thick VR application. Netscape was stand alone only; seriously limiting its deployment potential.

This also makes life a royal pain on the security front where we often need some level of isolation. Sure, we have the same-origin policy, but browsers and web programming have bloated well beyond what little security that provides. Same-origin isn’t worthless, and is still an important tool, but there are just too many ways around it. Especially now that we all use tabbed browsers with a dozen windows open all the time. Browsers are also stateless by nature, no matter what AJAX trickery we use. XSS and CSRF, never mind some more sophisticated attacks, take full advantage of the weak browser/server trust models that result from these fundamental design issues.

In short, we can’t trust the browser, the browser can’t trust the server, and individual windows/tabs/sessions in the browser can’t trust each other. Fun stuff!

WAF Troubles

I’ve talked about WAFs before, and their very model is also fundamentally flawed. At least how we use WAFs today. The goal of a WAF is, like a firewall, to drop known bad traffic or only allow known good traffic. We’re trying to shield our web applications from known vulnerabilities, just like we use a regular firewall to block ports, protocols, sources, and destinations. Actually, a WAF is closer to IPS than it is to a stateful packet inspection firewall.

But web apps are complex beasts; every single one a custom application, with custom vulnerabilities. There’s no way a WAF can know all the ins and outs of the application behind it, even after it’s well tuned. WAFs also only protect against certain categories of attacks- mostly some XSS and SQL injection. They don’t handle logic flaws, CSRF, or even all XSS. I was talking with a reference yesterday of one of the major WAFs, and he had no trouble slicing through it during their eval phase using some standard techniques.

To combat this, we’re seeing some new approaches. F5 and WhiteHat have partnered to feed the WAF specific vulnerability information from the application vulnerability assessment. Imperva just announced a similar approach, with a bunch of different partners.

These advances are great to see, but I think WAFs will also need to evolve in some different ways. I just don’t think the model of managing all this from the outside will work effectively enough.

Enter ADMP

The idea of ADMP is that we build a stack of interconnected security controls from the browser to the database. At all levels we both monitor activity and include enforcement controls. The goal is to start with browser session virtualization connected to a web application gateway/WAF. Then traffic hits the web server and web application server, both with internal instrumentation and anti-exploitation. Finally, transactions drop to the database, where they are again monitored and protected.

All of the components for this model exist today, so it’s not science fiction. We have browser session virtualization, WAFs, SSL-VPNs (that will make sense in a minute), application security services and application activity monitoring, and database activity monitoring. In addition to the pure defensive elements, we’ll also tie in to the applications at the design and code level through security services for adaptive authentication, transaction authentication, and other shared services (happy Dre? :) ). The key is that this will all be managed through a central console via consistent policies.

In my mind, this is the only thing that makes sense. We need to understand the applications and the databases that back them. We have to do something at the browser level since even proper parameterization and server side validation can’t meet all our needs. We have to start looking at transactions, business context, and content, rather than just packets and individual requests.

Point solutions at any particular layer have limited effectiveness. But if we stop looking at our web applications as pieces, and rather design security that addresses them as a whole, we’ll be in much better shape. Not that anything is perfect, but we’re looking at risk reduction, not risk elimination. A web application isn’t just a web server, just some J2EE code, or just a DB- it’s a collection of many elements working together to perform business transactions, and that’s how we need to look at them for effective security.

The Browser and Web Application Gateway

A little while back I wrote about the concept of browser session virtualization. To plagiarize myself and save a little writing time so I can get my behind to happy hour:

What we ideally need is a way to completely isolate our content in the browser. One way to do this is session virtualization, pioneered by GreenBorder, who was later acquired by Google (the GreenBorder site is just in support mode now). When a user connects to our site, we push down some code to create a virtual environment in the browser that we strictly control. We wall off that session, which could just be an isolated iFrame in a page, so that it only accesses content we send it. Basically, we break the normal browser model and hijack what we need. This would, for example, help stop CSRF since other browser elements won’t be able to trigger a connection to our application. Done right, it limits man in the middle attacks, even if the user authorizes a bad digital certificate.

To work properly, this needs to be tied to a gateway that controls the session. While we could do it from the web/app server itself, I suspect we’ll see this as a web application firewall feature, just as we see similar features from SSL-VPNs. I think isolated WAFs have a very limited lifespan, but this is exactly the kind of feature that will extend their value. Better yet, we can tie this in to our Application and Database Monitoring and Protection to build a browser-to-database protected path. We can completely track a transaction or piece of content from the database server to the browser and back.

We could even use this to isolate out potentially “bad” content in an in-browser sandbox. For example, it could be a way to enable all those social networking widgets in a more controlled way but locking in potentially bad content instead of known good.

Will this protect us from keystroke sniffers or a completely compromised host? Nope, but it will definitely help with a large number of our current browser security issues. If we combine it with full ADMP and additional methods like transaction authentication, I think we can regain a bit of control of the web application security mess.

Thus we see one migration path for a WAF. A user goes to connect to the application and hits the WAF, which is now more of a Web Application Gateway. The gateway, like an SSL-VPN, sends the session virtualization code down to the browser. We do this outside of the web application for performance reasons. The secure virtual session is established and the gateway then allows communications with the application behind it.

For things like retail and financial sites that include only limited third party content if any, we can monitor activity from the browser through to the application and work within the isolated session. It both improves our ability to control what’s being sent to the browser, and gives us a higher degree of confidence that what’s coming from the browser is safe. We still validate everything, but since we’re tied to the application itself we can validate in the browser and at the gateway before we even hit the app (and further validate there). Since in a controlled environment we know what transactions should be allowed (or not), we have more ability to detect and block “bad” transactions like SQL injection from the user.

In less controlled environments- thing MySpace or Gmail and everything in between- the gateway also becomes a filter for third party content. Like Checkpoint’s new ForceField. The gateway filters out, to the best of its ability, harmful third party content coming from third party sites. Basically, it becomes an SSL-VPN for secure browsing.

This is obviously not viable for all sites due to bandwidth considerations, and in those circumstances we’ll drop this part and stick to the rest of the ADMP stack, or only virtualize our pieces of content knowing the user is at risk for the third party stuff we’re still linking them to.

Future of the WAF, Option 2

I’ve just described a scenario where the WAF extends into a Secure Web Application Gateway that adds virtualization, encryption, and content filtering. That doesn’t mean WAFs won’t also still exist in non-virtualized situations, since that will still be a massive volume of sites out there.

For these sites the WAF continues to progress with deeper application integration and application understanding, and works with the elements I’ll describe later that will be embedded into the applications and databases. Rather than hanging around outside the application with barely any idea what’s going on behind it, the WAF will take its cues from the app, help manage sessions, and monitor activity outside the app to block the few things we know we can pick up at that layer.

Why use the WAF at all? To give us a choke point and offload some of the monitoring and processing that could hurt application performance. Let’s be honest- maybe WAFs will eventually go away, but performance problems alone will probably keep next-gen WAFs viable for a while. There are also plenty of things we can now block before they ever hit the application controls, which, by nature of being integrated at the app level, will be more complex and delicate.

But again, by tightly integrating with our other layers, instead of naievely assuming that an external black box will magically solve our problems, we get a much higher level of functionality. Feeding in vulnerability data as we’re just starting to do is a good beginning, but once we plug in deeper to the application and database servers we’ll get entirely new levels of functionality.

Part 2 Conclusions

What I’ve described today is how we can build a (more) trusted path from the browser to the face of the application. WAFs will add gateway capabilities, both protecting the applications behind them and the browsers in front of them. Since this won’t be the right approach in all circumstances, WAFs will also evolve with tighter integration to the application and other ADMP stack components.

Again, this might sound like little more than the usual analyst fiction, but all the components are here today. Also, I don’t expect my predictions to be totally accurate. I’m roughly guessing I’m at 85% or so.

Next week I’ll start digging into the application and database. We’ll talk about application instrumentation, anti-exploitation, DAM, trusted transaction paths, and shared security services.

Last week Jeremiah “Purple Belt” Grossman posted the following question:

“You’re hired on at a new company placed in charge of securing their online business (websites). You know next to nothing about the technical details of the infrastructure other than they have no existing web/software security program and a significant portion of the organizations revenues are generated through their websites.

What is the very first thing do on day 1?”

Day one is going to be a long day, that’s for certain. Like several commentators on the original post, I’d start with talking with the people who own the application both at a business and technology level. Basically, this is a prime opportunity to not only understand what the goals of the business are but also get everyone’s perceptions of their needs, and equally important their perceptions of the cost of their systems being unavailable. The next few weeks would be used to determine where reality diverged from perception. But day one is when I get to make my first impression and if I can successfully convince people that I really am on their side, it will make the rest of my tenure much easier. I’ve found that I can do so by demonstrating that my prime concern is enabling the business to accomplish its goals with a minimum of hassle from me. One of the key ways of doing this is spending my time listening, and limiting my talking to asking questions that lead my interviewee to the necessary logical conclusions rather than being a dictator….

…not that I don’t reserve the right to hit things with a hammer later to protect the business, but day 1 sets the tone for the future, and that’s far more important than putting in X fix or blocking Y vulnerability.

Just a quick note- if you used chmod to change the permissions of ARDAgent to block the privilege escalation vulnerability being used by the new trojans you should still go compress or remove it. Repairing permissions restores ARDAgent and opens the vulnerability again.

I suppose you could also make sure you don’t repair permissions, but it’s easiest to just remove it.

I removed the chmod recommendation from the TidBITS article.

This week, Martin and I are joined by Adam Shostack, bandleader of the Emergent Chaos Jazz Combo of the Blogosphere and co-author of The New School of Information Security. (And he sorta works for a big software company, but that’s not important right now).

You can get the show notes and episode over at netsecpodcast.com.

We spend a lot of time talking about statistics and the New School concepts. I’m a big fan of the book, and Adam and I share a lot of positions on where we are as an industry, and where we need to go.

I’ve been spending the past few weeks wandering around the country for various shows, speaking to some of the best and brightest in the world of application and database security. Heck, I even hired one of them. During some of my presentations I laid out my vision for where I believe application (especially web application) and database security are headed. I’ve hinted at it here on the blog, discussing the concepts of ADMP, the information-centric security lifecycle, and DAM, but it’s long past time I detailed the big picture.

I’m not going to mess around and write these posts so they are accessible to the non-geeks out there. If you don’t know what secure SDLC, DAM, SSL-VPN, WAF, and connection pooling mean, this isn’t the series for you. That’s not an insult, it’s just that this would drag out to 20+ pages if I didn’t assume a technical audience.

Will all of this play out exactly as I describe? No way in hell. If everything I predict is 100% correct I’m just predicting common knowledge. I’m shooting for a base level of 80% accuracy, with hopes I’m closer to 90%. But rather than issuing some proclamation from the mount, I’ll detail why I think things are going where they are. You can make your own decisions as to my assumptions and the accuracy of the predictions that stem from them.

Also, apologies to Dre’s friends and family. I know this will make his head explode, but that’s a cost I’m willing to pay. Special thanks to Chris Hoff and the work we’ve been doing on disruptive innovation, since that model drives most of what I’m about to describe. Finally, this is just my personal opinion as to where things will go. Adrian is also doing some research on the concept of ADMP, and may not agree with everything I say. Yes, we’re both Securosis, but when you’re predicting uncertain futures no one can speak with absolute authority. (And, as Hoff says, no one can tell you you’re wrong today).

Forces and Assumptions

Based on the work I’ve been doing with Hoff, I’ve started to model future predictions by analyzing current trends and disruptive innovations. Those innovations that force change, rather than ones that merely nudge us to steer slightly around some new curves. In the security world, these forces (disruptions) come from three angles- business innovation, threat innovation, and efficiency innovation. The businesses we support are innovating for competitive advantage, as are the bad guys. For both of them, it’s all about increasing the top line. The last category is more internal- efficiency innovation to increase the bottom line. Here’s how I see the forces we’re dealing with today, in no particular order:

1. Web browsers are inherently insecure. The very model of the world wide web is to pull different bits from different places, and render them all in a single view through the browser. Images from over here, text from over here, and, using iframes, entire sites from yet someplace else. It’s a powerful tool, and I’m not criticizing this model; it just is what it is. From a security standpoint, this makes our life more than a little difficult. Even with a strictly enforced same origin policy, it’s impossible to completely prevent cross-site issues, especially when people keep multiple sessions to multiple sites open all at the same time. That’s why we have XSS, CSRF, and related attacks. We are trying to build a trust model where one end can never be fully trusted.
2. We have a massive repository of insecure code that grows daily. I’m not placing the blame on bad programmers; many of the current vulnerabilities weren’t well understood when much of this code was written. Even today, some of these issues are complex and not always easy to remediate. We are also discovering new vulnerability classes on a regular basis, requiring review and remediation on any existing code. We’re talking millions of applications, never mind many millions of lines of code. Even the coding frameworks and tools themselves have vulnerabilities, as we just saw with the latest Ruby issues.
3. The volume of sensitive data that’s accessible online grows daily. The Internet and web applications are powerful business tools. It only makes sense that we connect more of our business operations online, and thus more of our sensitive data and business operations are Internet accessible.
4. The bad guys know technology. Just as it took time for us to learn and adopt new technologies, the bad guys had to get up to speed. That window is closed, and we have knowledgeable attackers.
5. The bad guys have an economic infrastructure. Not only can they steal things, but they have a market to convert the bits to bucks. Pure economics give them viable business models that depend on generating losses for us.
6. Bad guys attack us to steal or assets (information) or hijack them to use against others (e.g., to launch a big XSS attack). They also sometimes attack us just to destroy our assets, but not often (less economic incentive, even for DoS blackmail).
7. Current security tools are not oriented to the right attack vectors. Even WAFs offer limited effectiveness since they are more tied to our network security models than our data/information-centric models.
8. We do not have the resources to clean up all existing code, and we can’t guarantee future code, even using a secure SDLC, won’t be vulnerable. This is probably my most contentious assumption, but most of the clients I work with just don’t have the resources to completely clean what they do have, and even the best programmers will still make mistakes that slip through to production.
9. Code scanning tools and vulnerability analysis tools can’t catch everything, and can’t eliminate all false positives. They’ll never catch logic flaws, and even if we had a perfect tool, the second a new vulnerability appeared we’d have to go back and fix everything we’d built up to that point.
10. We’re relying on more and more code and web services developed by others. From machine-generated web applications, to frameworks and off-the-shelf web apps we customize, to mashups where we directly pass content generated by someone else to our users.
11. “Web applications” is a misnomer- we mean the entire stack: web servers, web application servers, the databases behind them, and all the various interconnected n tiers. Many of these are internally accessible, creating an additional vector for attack.

To rephrase these a bit:

1. Bad guys are focused on our web applications, and are intelligent and motivated.
2. We have a lot of insecure code, keep generating more, and can’t rely on secure development to fix it all.
3. WAFs and code scanning help, but aren’t enough.
4. We need to protect a big, complex stack including content and services outside our control.

Following these forces, I’m drawing some assumptions about what any solution needs to look like:

1. We need to include browser elements, but can’t trust the browser.
2. We need to monitor and enforce at the transaction level, both for audibility and for logic flaws and other security issues.
3. Such monitoring and enforcement needs to run from the browser to the database.
4. Any solution needs to understand the application and database, not just layer over it.
5. We need to filter anything we pass on to the user.
6. We need to focus on protecting the information.

I’m not totally thrilled with how I’ve laid this out, but I think it’s reasonably understandable. Tomorrow I’ll walk through how I think the technology will develop, and where today’s tools fit in. I suspect Adrian will start chiming in, once he gets off the road, with his own interpretations.

There’s been a bunch of news on the Mac security front in the past couple of weeks. From the Safari carpet bombing attack, to a couple trojans popping up. Over the weekend I submitted an email response to a press interview where I outlined my recommended improvements to OS X to keep Macs safer than Windows. On the technical side they included elements like completing implementation of library randomization (ASLR), adding more stack protection to applications, enhancing and extending sandboxing to most major OS X applications, running fewer processes as root/system, and more extensive use of DEP. I’m not bothering to lay this out in any more depth, because Dino Dai Zovi did a much better job of describing them over on his blog. Dino’s one of the top Mac security researchers out there, so I highly suggest you read his post if you’re interested in OS X security.

There are a few additional things I’d like to see, outside of the OS level changes:

1. A more-deeply staffed Apple Security Response Center, with public facing side to better communicate security issues and engage the research community. Apple absolutely sucks at working with researchers and communicating on security issues. Improvements here will go a way to increase confidence, manage security issues, and avoid many of the kinds of flareups we’ve seen in the past few years.
2. Better policies on updating open source software included with OS X. In some cases, we’ve seen vulnerabilities in OS X due to included open source software, like Samba and Apache, that are unpatched for MONTHS after they are publicly known. These are fully exploitable on Macs and other Apple products until Apple issues an update. I realize this is a very tough issue, because Apple needs to run through extensive evaluation and testing before releasing updates, but they can mitigate this timeline by engaging deeply with those various open source teams to reduce the windows where users are exposed to the vulnerabilities.
3. An Apple CSO- someone who is both the internal leader and external face of Apple security. They need an evangelist with credibility in the security world (no, I’m not trolling for a job; I don’t want to move to California, even for that).
4. A secure development lifecycle for Apple products. The programmers there are amazing, but even great programmers need to follow secure coding practices that are enforced with tools and process.

I have suspicions we might see some of these technical issues fixed in Snow Leopard, but the process issues are just as important for building and maintaining a sustainable, secure platform.

I’m still in New York for the FISD conference, listening to Team Cymru talk about the state of cybercrime as I wait for my turn at the podium (to talk about information-centric security and DLP). One problem with travel is keeping up with the news, so I pretty much missed the Applescript vulnerability and now have to write it up for TidBITS on the plane before Monday.

I was reading Thomas Ptacek’s post on the vulnerability, and I think it’s time I joined Tom and came out of the closet.

I run as admin on my Mac. All the time. And I’m not ashamed. Why? As Ptacek said, even without root/admin there’s a ton of nasty things you can do on my system. In fact, you can pretty much get anything I really worry about. I even once wrote some very basic Applescript malware that ran on boot (after jailbreaking an improperly configured virtual machine). It didn’t need admin to work.

There. I feel better now. Glad to get that out there.

(If you’re going to criticize this, go read Tom’s post and talk to him first. He’s smarter than me, and not on an airplane.)

I’ve been absolutely flattered by some of the positive comments on our posts this week, especially the database posts. But as much as I enjoy the credit for someone else’s work, I’d like to remind everyone that I’m not the only blogger here at Securosis anymore.

Adrian Lane, our new Senior Security Strategist, has been putting up all the meat this week. Once I get back from this conference I’ll increase the font size on the writer tagline for the blog so it’s more obvious.

We also occasionally have contributions from David Mortman and Chris Pepper, both of whom wrote posts I got the credit for. These are all brilliant guys, and I’m honored they contribute here.

They’re probably smarter than I am…

… oh. Never mind. I write it all.

Your Web application connects to a database. You supply the user name and password, establish the connection, and run your query. A very simple, easy to use, and essential component to web applications.

The database itself has very little awareness of where the application that made the connection is located. It does not necessarily know the purpose of the application. It may or may not know the real user who is using that connection. It’s not that it cannot, it is just typically not programmed to do so. It is at the beck and call of the application and will do whatever the application asks it to do.

One of the great reasons to use Database Activity Monitoring is to de-mystify that connection. These monitoring tools pay close attention to where the connection is coming from, what application is making the connection, what time of day it is, how much data is being moved, what queries are being run, what fails to execute, and on and on. This provides a very real benefit in detecting attacks and other types of misuse. There is a strong market for this type of tool because application developers rarely develop this capability within the context of the service they are providing.

Can this be done from within the database? Yep. Do people do this? Rarely to never. Should it be done? I contend that to some degree it should always be there. Much in the same way we provide range checking on database values, we should also have some degree of business consistency checking. But we don’t because it is typically not part of the scope of the application project to program the database to perform additional checking and verifications. Usually it is only scoped out to store data and provide some reports, just a basic repository for storage of data and application state. We have gotten to the point where we use Hibernate <http://www.hibernate.org/> to abstract the concept of a database altogether and further remove any native database visibility.

Give the database user name and password and it will give you everything you have permissions to do … and then some. It is set up to trust you. And why not, you gave it the right credentials! And the converse of that is the application developer views the database as some abstract object. Security of that object is someone else’s problem. The loss of visibility does not mean that the functionality is not there, or that it is not important, or that the application developer can ignore it.

What I am trying to say is the database is set up to trust the application connection and it should not be.

Whatever you gave the user who connects permission to do, it will do, whenever asked. But should you be accepting local connections? Remote connections? Ad-hoc queries? What stored procedure execution is appropriate? If the database is used in an SOA environment, or the omnipresent ‘hub-and-spoke’ model, how do those rules change per application connection? And unless you instruct the database to do more, to question the authenticity of the connection over and above access rights, it will not provide you any additional value in terms of security, data consistency, or data privacy. Why is it that application security, and quite specifically web application security, is so often viewed soley as a web application security problem? The application has a strong relationship with the database but typically does not have bi-directional trust enforcement or security.

For example, in production database environments we had a requirement that there would be no ad-hoc access under normal usage of the system. We would implement login triggers similar to NoToad.sql to prohibit this access via an ad-hoc administration tool. We had stored procedures built into our packages that recorded an audit event whenever a user was selecting more than some predetermined number of customer rows. But I think this was atypical, and these types of security constraints are not systemic, meaning they are often left out of the back end design.

The application is designed to serve a business function and we buy security products to monitor, assess and audit the business function externally.

Do you see where I am going with this? We can build security in systemically if we choose, and reduce the dependency on external security. We can and should do more to verify that the application that is connecting to the database not only has appropriate credentials, but appropriate usage. A database is an application platform, and an application in and of itself. This becomes even more important in a virtualized environment where some of the underlying network assumptions are thrown out the window. Hackers spend a lot of time determining how best to access and utilize the database not only because it typically contains the information they are after, but also it is an extraordinarily complex, feature rich platform. That means a fertile field of opportunity for misused trust relationships and insecure functions … unless you program the database to perform these verifications.