Adrian is a Security Strategist and brings over 22 years of industry experience to the Securosis team, much of it at the executive level. Adrian specializes in database security, data security, and software development. With experience at Ingres, Oracle, and Unisys, he has extensive experience in the vendor community, but brings a pragmatic perspective to selecting and deploying technologies having worked on “the other side” as CIO in the finance vertical. Prior to joining Securosis, Adrian served as the CTO/VP at companies such as IPLocks, Touchpoint, CPMi and Transactor/Brodia. He has been invited to present at dozens of security conferences, contributed articles to many major publications, and is easily recognizable by his “network hair” and propensity to wear loud colors. Once you get past his windy rants on data security and incessant coffee consumption, he is quite entertaining.
Adrian is a Computer Science graduate of the University of California at Berkeley with post-graduate work in operating systems at Stanford University. He can be reached at alane (at) securosis (dot) com.
As we begin our series on Multi-cloud logging, we start with reasons some traditional logging approaches don’t work. I don’t like to start with a negative tone, but we need to point out some challenges and pitfalls which often beset firms on first migration to cloud. That, and it helps frame our other recommendations later in this series. Let’s take a look at some common issues by category. Tooling Scale & Performance: Most log management and SIEM platforms were designed and first sold before anyone had heard of clouds, Kafka, or containers. They were architected for ‘hub-and-spoke’
I have concluded that nobody is using Database Activity Monitoring (DAM) in public Infrastructure or Platform as a Service. I never see it in any of the cloud migrations we assist with. Clients don’t ask about how to deploy it or if they need to close this gap. I do not hear stories, good or bad, about its usage. Not that DAM cannot be used in the cloud, but it is not. There are certainly some reasons firms invest security time and resources elsewhere. What comes to mind are the following: PaaS and use of Relational: There are a
I had been planning to post on the recent announcement of the planned merger between Hortonworks and Cloudera, as there are a number of trends I’ve been witnessing with the adoption of Hadoop clusters, and this merger reflects them in a nutshell. But catching up on my reading I ran across Mathew Lodge’s recent article in VentureBeat titled Cloudera and Hortonworks merger means Hadoop’s influence is declining. It’s a really good post. I can confirm we see the same lack of interest in deployment of Hadoop to the cloud, the same use of S3 as a
Logging and monitoring for cloud infrastructure has become the top topic we are asked about lately. Even general conversations about moving applications to the cloud always seem to end with clients asking how to ‘do’ logging and monitoring of cloud infrastructure. Logs are key to security and compliance, and moving into cloud services – where you do not actually control the infrastructure – makes logs even more important for operations, risk, and security teams. But these questions make perfect sense – logging in and across cloud infrastructure is complicated, offering technical challenges and huge potential cost overruns if implemented poorly. The road to
The explosive growth of containers is not surprising because the technology (most obviously Docker) alleviates several problems for deploying applications. Developers need simple packaging, rapid deployment, reduced environmental dependencies, support for micro-services, generalized management, and horizontal scalability – all of which containers help provide. When a single technology enables us to address several technical problems at once, it is very compelling. But this generic model of packaged services, where the environment is designed to treat each container as a “unit of service”, sharply reduces transparency and audit-ability (by design), and gives security pros nightmares. We run more code faster, but must
We close out this research paper with two key areas: Monitoring and Auditing. We want to draw attention to them because they are essential to security programs, but have received only sporadic coverage in security blogs and the press. When we go beyond network segregation and network policies for what we allow, the ability to detect misuse is extremely valuable, which is where monitoring and logging come in. Additionally, most Development and Security teams are not aware of the variety of monitoring options available, and we have seen a variety of misconceptions and outright fear of the volume of audit
After the focus on tools and processes in previous sections, we can now focus on containers in production systems. This includes which images are moved into production repositories, selecting and running containers, and the security of underlying host systems. Runtime Security The Control Plane: Our first order of business is ensuring the security of the control plane: tools for managing host operating systems, the scheduler, the container client, engine(s), the repository, and any additional deployment tools. As we advised for container build environment security, we recommend limiting access to specific administrative accounts: one with responsibility for operating and orchestrating
Testing the code and supplementary components which will execute within containers, and verifying that everything conforms to security and operational practices, is core to any container security effort. One of the major advances over the last year or so is the introduction of security features for the software supply chain, from container engine providers including Docker, Rocket, OpenShift and so on. We also see a number of third-party vendors helping to validate container content, both before and after deployment. Each solution focuses on slightly different threats to container construction – Docker, for example, offers tools to certify that a container has
Most people fail to consider the build environment when thinking about container security, but it is critical. The build environment is traditionally the domain of developers, who don’t share much detail with outsiders (meaning security teams). But with Continuous Integration (CI) or full Continuous Deployment (CD), we’re shooting new code into production… potentially several times a day. An easy way for an attacker to hack an application is get into its development or build environment – usually far less secure than production – and alter code or add new code to containers. The risk is aggravated by DevOps rapidly breaking
To better understand which container security areas you should focus on, and why we recommend particular controls, it helps to understand which threats need to be addressed and which areas containers affect most. Some threats and issues are well-known, some are purely lab proofs of concept, and others are threat vectors which attackers have yet to exploit – typically because there is so much low-hanging fruit elsewhere. So what are the primary threats to container environments? Threats to the Build Environment The first area which needs protection is the build environment. It’s not first on most people’s lists for