FireStarter: No User Left Behind

Not to bring politics into a security blog, but I think it’s time we sit down and discuss the state of education in this country… I mean industry. Lance over at HoneyTech went off on the economics/metrics paper from Microsoft we recently discussed. Basically, the debate is over the value of security awareness training. The paper suggests that some training isn’t worth the cost. Lance argues that although we can’t always directly derive the desired benefits, there are legitimate halo effects. Lance also points out that the metrics chosen for the paper might not be the best. I’d like to flip this a little bit. The problem isn’t the potential value of awareness training – it’s that most training is total crap. When we improperly design the economics, incentives and/or metrics of the system, we fail to achieve desired objectives. Right, it’s not brain surgery. Let’s use the No Child Left Behind act here in the US as an example. This law requires standardized testing in schools, and funding is directly tied to test results. Which means teachers now teach to do well on an exam, rather than to educate. Students show up at universities woefully unprepared due to lack of general knowledge and possession of a few rote skills. It is the natural outcome of the system design. Most security awareness training falls into the same trap. The metrics tend to be test scores and completion rates. So organizations dutifully make sure employees sit through the training (if that’s what you want to call it) and get their check mark every year. But that forgets why we spend time and money to perform the training in the first place. What we really care about is improving security outcomes, which I’ll define as a reduction in frequency and severity of security incidents. Not about making sure every employee can check a box. Thus we need outcome-based security awareness programs, which means we have to design our metrics and economics to support measurable improvements in security. Rather than measuring how many people took a class or passed a stupid test, we should track outcomes such as: For a virus infection, was user interaction involved? User response rates to phishing spam. Results from authorized social engineering penetration tests. Tracking incidents where the user was involved can determine whether the incident was reasonably preventable, and whether the user was (successfully) trained to avoid that specific type of incident. Follow the trends over time, and feed this back into your awareness program. If all you do is force people to sit through boring classes or follow mind-numbing web-based training, and then say your training was successful if they can answer a few multiple choice questions, you are doing it wrong. So we have not given up hope on the impact of security awareness training. If we focus on tracking real world outcomes, not auditor checklist garbage like how many people signed a policy or sat in a chair for a certain number of hours, it can make a difference. Are taking too many hits off the peace pipe? Have any of you had a measurable impact of training in your environment? Speak up in the comments. Share:

Read Post

ESF: Controls: Firewalls, HIPS, and Device Control

Popular perception of endpoint security revolves around anti-malware. But they are called suites for a reason – other security components ship in these packages, which provide additional layers of protection for the endpoint. Here we’ll talk about firewalls, host intrusion prevention, and USB device control. Firewalls We know what firewalls do on the perimeter of the network: selectively block traffic that goes through gateways by port and protocol. The functionality of a host firewall on an endpoint is similar. They allow an organization to enforce a policy governing what traffic the device can accept (ingress filtering) and transmit (egress filtering). Managing the traffic to and from each endpoint serves a number of purposes, including hiding the device from reconnaissance efforts, notifying the user or administrators when applications attempt to access the Internet, and monitoring exactly what the endpoints are doing. Many of these capabilities are available separately on the corporate network, but when traveling or at home and not behind the corporate perimeter, the host firewall is the first defense against attacks. Of course, a host firewall (like everything else that runs on an endpoint) takes up resources, which can be a problem on older or undersized machines. It also bears consideration that alerts multiply, especially when you have a couple thousand endpoints forwarding them to a central console, so some kind of automated alert monitoring becomes critical. Although pretty much every vendor bundles a host firewall with their endpoint suite nowadays, the major operating systems also provide firewall options. Windows has included a firewall since XP, but keep in mind that the XP firewall does not provide egress (outbound) filtering – remedied in Windows Vista. Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard added a ‘socket’ firewall to manage application listeners (ingress), and deprecated the classic ipfw network firewall, which is still available. As with all endpoint capabilities, just having the feature isn’t enough, since the number of endpoints to be managed puts a real focus on managing the policies. This makes policy management more important than firewall engine details. Host Intrusion Prevention Systems (HIPS) We know what network intrusion detection/prevention products do, in terms of inspecting network traffic and looking for attacks. Similarly, host intrusion detection/prevention capabilities look for attacks by monitoring what’s happening on the endpoint. This can include application behavior, activity logs, endpoint network traffic, system file changes, Windows registry changes, processes and/or threads, memory allocation, and pretty much anything else. The art of making host intrusion prevention work is to set up the policies to prevent malware infection, without badly impacting the user experience or destroying the signal-to-noise ratio of alerts coming into the management console. Yes, this involves tuning, so you start with the product’s default settings (hopefully on a test group) and see what works and what doesn’t. You should be able to quickly optimize the policy. Given the number of applications and activities at each endpoint, you can go nuts trying to manage these policies, which highlights the importance of the standard builds (as described in Controls: Secure Configurations). Starting with 3-4 different policies, and then you can manage others by exception. Keep in mind that tuning the product for servers is totally different, as the policies will need to be tailored for very different applications running on servers. Currently, all the major endpoint suites include simple HIPS capabilities. Some vendors also offer a more capable HIPS product – typically targeting server devices, which are higher profile targets and subject to different attacks. USB Device Control Another key attack vector for both data compromise and malware proliferation is the USB ports on endpoint devices. In the old days, you’d typically know when someone brought in a huge external drive to pilfer data. Nowadays many of us carry a 16GB+ drive at all times (yes, your smartphone is a big drive), so we’ve got to control USB ports to address this exposure. Moreover, we’ve all heard stories of social engineers dropping USB sticks in the parking lot and waiting for unsuspecting employees to pick them up and plug them in. Instant pwnage 4U! So another important aspect of protecting endpoints includes defining which devices can connect to a USB port and what those devices can do. This has been a niche space, but as more disclosure is required for data loss, organizations are getting more serious about managing their USB ports. As with all other endpoint technologies, device control adds significant management overhead for keeping track of all the mobile devices and USB sticks, etc. The products in the space include management consoles to ease the burden, but managing thousands of anything is non-trivial. Right now device control is a discrete function, but we believe these niche products will also be subsumed into the endpoint suites over the next two years. In the meantime, you may be able to gain some leverage by picking a device control vendor partnered with your endpoint suite provider. Then you should at least be able centralize the alerts, even if you don’t get deeper management integration. Management Leverage Though we probably sound like a broken record at this point, keep in mind that each additional security application/capability (control) implemented on the endpoint devices increases the management burden. So when evaluating technology for implementation, be sure to assess the additional management required and the level of integration with your existing endpoint management workflow. We’ll wrap up our discussion of Endpoint Controls in the next post, as we discuss full disk encryption, which disclosure laws have shifted from nice-to-have to something you need deployed – immediately. Other posts in the Endpoint Security Fundamentals Series Introduction Prioritize: Finding the Leaky Buckets Triage: Fixing the Leaky Buckets Controls: Update and Patch Controls: Secure Configurations Controls: Anti-Malware Share:

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.