Security

Verizon 2009 DBIR Supplement

By David Mortman

Today Verizon released their Supplement to the 2009 Data Breach Investigations Report. As with previous reports, it is extremely well written, densely loaded with data, and an absolute must read. The bulk of the report gives significantly more information on the breakdown of attacks, by both how often attacks occurred, and how many records were lost as a result of each attack.

While the above is fascinating, where things got most interesting was in the appendix, which was all about comparing the Verizon data set from 2004 through 2008 to the DataLossDB archives from 2000-2009. One of the big outstanding questions from past Verizon reports was how biased is the Verizon dataset, and thus how well does it reflect the world at large? While there was some overlap with the DataLossDB, their dataset is significantly larger (2,300+ events). Verizon discovered a fairly high level of correlation between the two data sets. (Page 25, Table 4). This is huge, because it allows us to start extrapolating about the world at large and what attacks might look like to other organizations.

The great thing about having so much data is that we can now start to prioritize how we implement controls and processes. Case in point: Table 5 on page 26. We once again see that the vast vast majority (over 70%!) of incidents are from outsiders. This tells us that's where protection should be focused first. If you go back to the body of the supplement and start looking at the details, you can start to re-evaluate your current program and re-prioritize appropriately.

–David Mortman

In Violent Agreement

By David Mortman

My Friday post generated some great discussion in the comments. I encourage you to go back and read through them. Rocky in particular wrote an extended comment that should be a blog post in itself which reveals that he and I are, in fact, in violent agreement on the issues. Case in point, his first paragraph:

I think we're on the same page. As an industry we need to communicate more clearly. It wasn't my intent to fault any information professionals as much as I'm hoping that we all will push a bit harder for the right conversations in the future. We can't just let the business make poor decisions anymore, we need to learn their language and engage them in more meaningful dialogue. We're yelling in the wrong language. We just need to put that effort into learning their language and communicating more effectively. How is it that we can read HEX in real time but can't converse with a MBA at any time?

Read the last sentence again. It is that important. This is something I've been fighting for for a long time. It's not about bits and bytes and until we get that through our heads, the rest just doesn't matter because no one in command will listen to us.

Rocky closed out his comment with this though:

What would IT security look like if we spent as much time on those thoughts as we do on compliance tools, dashboards and monitoring?

I think it'd be much more business centric and hopefully significantly more respected in the C-suite. What do you think?

–David Mortman

Changing The Game?

By David Mortman

Rocky DeStefano had a great post today on FudSec, Liberate Yourself: Change The Game To Suit Your Needs, which you should read if you haven't already. It nicely highlights many of the issues going on in the industry today. However, I just can't agree with all of his assertions. In particular, he had two statements that really bothered me.

Information Security Leadership. We need to start pushing back at all levels here. It's my opinion that business's need to care much less about being compliant and more about being fundamentally secure - or if you prefer having better visibility into real risk. Risk to the mission, risk to the business not the risk to an asset. We continue to create irrelevant measurements - irrelevant because they are point in time, against a less-than secure model and on a playing field that is skewed towards the success of our adversary.

In a perfect, security and risk oriented world, I would agree with this 100%. The problem is, that from the business perspective, what they have in place is usually sufficient to do what they need to do safely. I'm a big fan of using risk, because it's the language that the business uses, but this isn't really a compliance versus security vs risk issue. What needs to be communicated more effectively is what compliance to the letter of the law does and doesn't get you. Where we have failed as practitioners is in making this distinction and allowing vendor and marketing BS to convince business folks that because they are compliant they are of course secure. I can't count the number of times I've had folks tell me that they thought being compliant with whatever regulation meant they were secure. Why? Because that's the bill of sale they were sold. And until we can change this basic perception the rest seems irrelevant. Don't blame the security practitioners; most of the ones I know clearly express the difference between compliance and security, but it often falls on deaf ears.

But what really got my goat was this next section:

As information security professionals how on earth did we let the primary financial driver for security spending be compliance initiatives? We sold our souls because we lacked the knowledge of the business and how to apply what we do in a meaningful way to the business. We let compliance initiatives that promised "measurable" results have their way because we thought we could tag along for the ride and implement best possible solutions given the situation. As I see it we are no better off for this and now our teams have either competing agendas or more work to drive us away from protecting our organizations. Sure we've created some "building codes" but do "point in time" snapshots matter anymore when the attacker can mold his approach on a whim?

I don't know who Rocky has been talking to, but I don't know a single security practitioner who thinks that compliance was the way to go. What I've seen are two general schools of thought. One is to rant and rave that everyone is doing it wrong and that compliance doesn't equal security, but then engages in the compliance efforts because they have no choice. The other school is to be pragmatic and to accept that compliance is here to stay, and do our best within the existing framework. It's not like we as an industry 'let' compliance happen. Even the small group of folks who have managed to communicate well with the business, be proactive, and build a mature program still have to deal with compliance. As for Rocky's "buildng codes" and "point in time" snapshots, for a huge segment of the business world, this is a massive step up from what they had before.

But to answer Rocky's question, the failure here is that we told the business, repeatedly, that if they installed this one silver bullet (firewalls, AV, IDS, and let's not forget PKI) they'd be secure. And you know what? They believed us, every single time, they shelled out the bucks and we came back for more, like Bullwinkle the Moose "This time for sure!" We told them the sky was going to fall and it didn't. We FUDed our way around the business, we were arrogant and we were wrong. This wasn't about selling our souls to compliance. It was about getting our asses handed to us because we were too busy promoting "the right way to do things" and telling the business no rather then trying to enable them to achieve their goals.

Want an example? Show me any reasonable evidence that changing all your users' passwords every 90 days reduces your risk of being exploited. No wonder they don't always listen to us.

–David Mortman

Five Ways Apple Can Improve Their Security Program

By Rich

This is an article I've been thinking about for a long time. Sure, we security folks seem to love to bash Apple, but I thought it would be interesting to take a more constructive approach.

From the TidBITS article:

With the impending release of the next versions of both Mac OS X and the iPhone operating system, it seems a good time to evaluate how Apple could improve their security program. Rather than focusing on narrow issues of specific vulnerabilities or incidents, or offering mere criticism, I humbly present a few suggestions on how Apple can become a leader in consumer computing security over the long haul.

The short version of the suggestions are:

• Appoint and empower a CSO
• Adopt a secure software development program
• Establish a security response team
• Manage vulnerabilities in included third party software
• Complete the implementation of anti-exploitation technologies

–Rich

Macworld Security Article Up- The Truth About Apple Security

By Rich

Right when the Macalope was sending along his take on the recent ComputerWorld editorial calling for the FTC to investigate Apple, Macworld asked me to write a more somber take. Here's an excerpt:

On May 26, Macworld republished a controversial Computerworld article by Ira Winkler suggesting that Apple is “grossly negligent” when it comes to security, and should be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission for false advertising. The author was motivated to write this piece based on Apple’s recent failure to patch a known Java security flaw that was fixed on other platforms nearly six months ago. While the article raises some legitimate issues, it’s filled with hyperbole, inaccurate interpretations, and reaches the wrong conclusions. Here’s what you really need to know about the Java situation, Mac security in general, and the important lesson on how we control Apple’s approach to security.

...

The real failure of this, and many other, calls for Mac security is that they fail to accurately identify those who are really responsible for Apple’s current security situation. It isn’t security researchers, malicious attackers, or even Apple itself, but Apple’s customers. Apple is an incredibly successful company because it produces products that people purchase. We still buy MacBooks despite the lack of a matte screen, for example. And until we tell Apple that security will affect our buying decisions, there’s little motivation for the company to change direction. Think of it from Apple’s perspective—Macs may be inherently less secure, but they are safer than the competition in the real world, and users aren’t reducing what they spend on Apple because of security problems. There is reasonable coverage of Mac security issues in the mainstream press (Mr. Winkler’s claim to the contrary), but without demonstrable losses it has yet to affect consumer behavior.

Don't worry- I rip into Apple for their totally irresponsible handling of the Java flaw, but there really isn't much motivation for Apple to make any major changes to how they handle things, as bad as they often are.

–Rich

Security Inevitabilities

By Rich

Despite my intensive research into cryonics, I have to accept that someday I will die. Permanently. I don't know when, where, or how, but someday I will cease to exist. Heck, even if I do manage to freeze myself (did you know one of the biggest cryonincs companies is only 20 minutes from my house?), get resurrected into a cloned 20-year-old version of myself, and eventually upload my consciousness into a supercomputer (so I can play Skynet, since I don't really like most people) I have to accept that someday Mother Entropy will bitch slap me with the end of the universe.

There are many inevitabilities in life, and it's often far easier to recognize these end results than the exact path that leads us to them. Denial is often closely tied to the obscurity of these journeys; when you can't see how to get from point A to point B (or from Alice to Bob, for you security geeks), it's all too easy to pretend that Bob Can't Ever Happen. Thus we find ourselves debating the minutiae, since the result is too far off to comprehend.

(Note that I'd like credit for not going deep into an analogy about Bob and Alice inevitably making Charlie after a few too many mojitos).

Security includes no shortage of inevitabilities. Below are just a few that have been circling my brain lately, in no particular order. It's not a comprehensive list, just a few things that come to mind (and please add your own in the comments). I may not know when they'll happen, or how, but they will happen:

• Everyone will use some form of NAC on their networks.
• Despite PCI, we will move off credit card numbers to a more secure transaction system. It may not be chip and PIN, but it definitely won't be magnetic strips.
• Everyone will use some form of DLP, we'll call it CMP, and it will only include tools with real content analysis.
• Log management and SIEM will converge into single products. Completely.
• UTM will rule the day on the perimeter, and we won't buy separate boxes for every function anymore.
• Virtualization and information-centric security will totally fuck up network security, especially internally.
• Any critical SCADA network will be pulled off the Internet.
• Database encryption will be performed inside the database with native functionality, with keys managed externally.
• The WAF vs. secure development debate will end as everyone buys/implements both.
• We'll stop pretending web application and database security are different problems.
• We will encrypt all laptops. It will be built into the hardware.
• Signature AV will die. Mostly.
• Chris Hoff will break the cloud.

–Rich

Friday Summary: April 10, 2009

By Rich

–Rich

Minor Online Banking FAIL?

By Rich

I was amused today when I logged into my business account bank (Wells Fargo) and they had me set up a new set of security questions. The variety wasn't bad and the questions were reasonably original. After setting them, I was asked to confirm my contact information.

A few minutes later, I received this email:

Thank you for taking the time to set up your security questions. If we ever need to confirm your identity, your ability to give the correct answers to these questions will help us verify it's you. If you did NOT set up security questions recently, please call Wells Fargo Online Customer Service immediately at 1-800-956-4442. Please do not reply to this email.

It went right to the email address I could have updated after setting up the security questions. Anyone else notice the problem?

Now there's a chance that had I changed the email address on that screen after the security questions, I would have received notification at the old address. As a test, I changed my email a couple of times using the regular interface- but no notifications yet.

UPDATE: Got the email, but at the wrong account (the one I changed to, not from).

Is this an exploitable security flaw? Nope, but it's amusing for us paranoid/cynical types.

(For the record, they've been a great bank for the business, no complaints at all.)

–Rich

Network vs. Application Security

By Adrian Lane

Should network and application security proceed along separate, independent tracks?

Should software security focus solely on the in-context business issues concerning security, and have network security focus on not allowing the software and infrastructure to be undermined?

This is one of those concepts that has been brewing in the back of my mind for some time how. Different data, different availability, and different contexts provide different value propositions and I am not sure they are effective surrogates for one another. A bunch of Hoff's posts add fire to this thought, and the whole Kaminsky debate shows the value of competition. We willfully merge network, sever and application security concepts as one and the same, and quite often use one to band-aid the other. It's not working very well.

If competition makes us stronger, maybe we should just stop cooperating and start pointing the finger of blame at one another. Maybe we need a good turf war to generate security competition between IT & Development groups. The network Hatfields vs. the application McCoys, each working harder to make sure they're not responsible for the next breach.

–Adrian Lane

A Question

By Rich

If you can tell, with absolute certainty, that systems are vulnerable to an exploit without needing to test the mechanism, what good is served by releasing weaponized attack code immediately after patches are released, but before most enterprises can patch?

Unless you're the bad guy, that is.

–Rich

Comments on Security Breach Statistics

By Adrian Lane

I still have not quite reached complete apathy regarding breach statistics, but I am really close. The Identity Theft Resource Center statistics made their way into the Washington Post last week, and were reposted on the front page of The Arizona Republic business section this morning. In a nutshell they are saying the number of breaches was up 69% for the first half of 2008 over the first half of 2007.

I am certain no one is surprised. As a security blogging community we have been talking about how the custodians of the information fail to address security, how security products are not all that effective, how the 'bad guys' are creative, opportunistic, and committed to finding new exploits, and my personal favorite, how the people who set up the (financial, banking, heath care, government, insert your favorite here) systems have a serious financial stake in things being quick and easy rather than secure. Ultimately, I would have been surprised if the number had gone down.

I used to do a presentation called "Dr. Strangelog or; How I stopped worrying and loved the breach". No, I was not advocating building subterranean caverns to wait this out; rather a mental adjustment in how to approach security. For the corporate IT audience, the premise is that you are never going to be 100% secure, so plan to do the best you can, and be prepared to react when a breach happens. And I try to point out some of the idiocy in certain policies that invite unnecessary risk ... like storing credit card numbers when it is unnecessary, not encrypting backup tapes, and allowing all your customer records to ever be on a laptop outside the company. While we have gone well beyond these basics, I still think that contrarian thinking is in order to find new solutions, or to redefine the problem itself as it seems impossible to stop the breaches at this point.

As an individual, as opposed to as a security practitioner, Is there anything meaningful in these numbers? Is there any value what so ever? Is it going to be easier to quantify the records that have not been breached? Are we getting close to having every personal record compromised at least once? The numbers are so large that they start to lose their meaning. Breaches are so common that they have spawned several secondary markets in areas such as tools and techniques for fraudulently gaining additional personal information, partial personal information useful for the same purpose, and of course various anti-fraud tools and services. I start to wonder if the corporations and public entities of the world have already effectively wiped out personal privacy.

–Adrian Lane

What’s My Motivation?

By Adrian Lane

'Or more appropriately, "Why are we talking about ADMP?" In his first post on the future of application and database security, Rich talked about Forces and Assumptions heading us down an evolutionary path towards ADMP. I want to offer a slightly different take on my motivation, or belief, in this strategy.

One of the beautiful things about mode application development is our ability to cobble together small, simple pieces of code into a larger whole in order to accomplish some task. Not only do I get to leverage existing code, but I get to bundle it together in such a way that I alter the behavior depending upon my needs. With simple additions, extensions and interfaces, I can make a body of code behave very differently depending upon how I organize and deploy the pieces. Further, I can bundle different application platforms together in a seamless manner to offer extraordinary services without a great deal of re-engineering.

A loose confederation of applications cooperating together to solve business problems is the typical implementation strategy today, and I think that the security challenge needs to account for the model rather than the specific components within the model. Today, we secure components. We need to be able to 'link up' security in the same way that we do the application platforms (I would normally go off on an Information Centric Security rant here, but that is pure evangelism, and a topic for another day).

I have spent the last four years with a security vendor that provided assessment, monitoring, and auditing of databases and databases specifically. Do enough research into security problems, customer needs, and general market trends; and you start to understand the limitations of securing just a single application in the chain of events. For example, I found that database security issues detected as part of an assessment scan may have specific relevance to the effectiveness of database monitoring. I believe Web Application security providers witness the same phenomenon with SQL Injection as they may lack some context for the attack, or at least the more subtle subversions of the system or exploitation of logic flaws in the database or database application. A specific configuration might be necessary for business continuity and processing, but could open an acknowledged security weakness that I would like to address with another tool, such as database monitoring.

That said, where I am going with this line of thought is not just the need for detective and preventative controls on a single application like a web server or database server, but rather the Inter-application benefit of a more unified security model. There were many cases where I wanted to share some aspect of the database setup with the application or access control system that could make for a more compelling security offering (or visa-versa, for that matter).

It is hard to understand context when looking at security from a single point outside an application, or from the perspective of a single application component. I have said many times that the information we have at any single processing node is limited. Yes, my bias towards application level data collection vs. network level data collection is well documented, but I am advocating collection of data from multiple sources. A combination of monitoring of multiple information sources, coupled with a broad security and compliance policy set, would be very advantageous. I do not believe this is simply a case of (monitoring) more is better, but of solving specific problems where it is most efficient to do so. There are certain attacks that are easier to address at the web application level, and others best dealt with in the database, while others should be intercepted at the network level. But the sharing of policies, policy enforcement, and suspect behaviors, can be both more effective and more efficient.

Application and Database Monitoring and Protection is a concept that I have been considering/researching/working towards for several years now. With my previous employer, this was a direction I wanted to take the product line, as well as some of the partner relationships to make this happen across multiple security products. When Rich branded the concept with the "ADMP" moniker it just clicked with me for the reasons stated above, and I am glad he posted more on the subject last week. But I wanted to put a little more focus on the motivation for what he is describing and why it is important. This is one of the topics we will both be writing about more often in the weeks and months ahead.

–Adrian Lane

The Future Of Application And Database Security: Part 2, Browser To WAF/Gateway

By Rich

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.

–Rich

Database Connections and Trust

By Adrian Lane

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.

–Adrian Lane

Code Development and Security

By Adrian Lane

How do we know our code is bug free? What makes us believe that our application is always going to work?

Ultimately, we don't. We test as best we can. Software vendors spend a significant percentage of their development budget on Quality Assurance. Over the years we have gotten better at it. We test more, we test earlier, and we test at module, component, and system levels. We write scripts, we buy tools, we help mentor our peers on better approaches. We do white box testing, we do black box testing. We have developers write some tests. We have QA write and run tests. We have 3^rd party testing assistance. We perform auto-builds and automated tests. We may even have partners, beta customers, and resellers test so that our code is as high quality as possible.

We have learned that the earlier in the process we find issues, the less money we spend fixing them (see Deming, Kaizen, Six Sigma, etc.). We have even altered the basic development processes from waterfall to things like extreme and agile methodologies to better assist with quality efforts. We have taken better advantage of object oriented programming to reuse trusted code, as well as distill and simplify code to ease maintenance issues. This did not happen overnight, but has been a gradual process every year I have been part of the industry. We continually strive to get a little better every release, and we have generally gotten better, and done so with fewer resources.

None of these strategies were typical 20 years ago when developers were still testing their own code. We have come a very long way.

So what, you say?

I say software security is no different. We are on the cusp of several large changes in the security industry and this is one of them. Security will come to the "common man" programmer.

I was discussing this with Andre Gironda from ts/sci at the SunSec gathering a couple of weeks ago, and how process has positively affected quality as well as how it is starting to positively affect security, along with some of the challenges in setting up suitable security test cases at the component and module levels. Andre put up a nice post on "What Web Application Security Really Is" the other day and he touches on several of these points. Better security needs to come from wholesale and systemic changes. Hackers spend most of their time thinking about how to abuse systems, and your programming team should too.

Do we do this well today? Obviously the answer is 'no'. Will we get better in 10 years, or even 2 years from now? I am certain we will. Mapping security issues into the QA processes, as a sub-component of quality if you will, would certainly help. The infrastructure and process is already present in the development organization to account for it. The set of reports and statistics that we gather to 'measure' software quality would be similar in type to those for security ... meaning they would both suck, but we'll use them anyway because we do not have anything better. We are seriously shy on education and training.

It has taken a long time for security problems, security education, and security awareness to even percolate into the developer community at large. This has been getting a lot of attention in the last couple of years with the mind-boggling number of data breaches that have been going on, and the huge amount of buzz lately with security practitioners with PCI 6.6 requiring code reviews. There is a spotlight on the problem and the net result will be a slow trend toward considering security in the software design and implementation phases. It will work its way into the process, the tools, the educational programs, and the minds of typical programmers. Not overnight. Like with quality in general, in slow evolutionary steps.

–Adrian Lane