Vaults within Vaults

My session for the Atlanta BSides conference was about what I expected in 2011. I might as well have thrown a dart at the wall. But the exercise got me thinking about the newest attacks (like Stuxnet) and the realization of how state-sponsored attackers have penetrated our networks with impunity. Clearly we have to shake up the status quo in order to keep up. This is a point I hit on in last week’s Incite, when discussing Greg Shipley’s post on being outgunned. Obviously what we are doing now isn’t working, and if anything the likelihood of traditional controls such as perimeter defense and anti-malware agents protecting much of anything decreases with every application moved up to the cloud and each trading partner allowed into your corporate network. The long-term answer is to protect the fundamental element of data. Rich and Adrian (with an assist from Gunnar) are all over that. As what we used to call applications continue to decompose into data, logic, processing, and presentation we have neither control over nor visibility into the data at most points in the cycle. So we are screwed unless we can figure out some way to protect the data regardless of how, where, or by whom it’s going to be used. But that is going to be a long, long, long, long slog. We don’t even know how to think about tackling the problem, so solutions are probably a decade away, and that’s being optimistic. Unfortunately that’s the wrong answer, because we have the problem now and need to start thinking about what to do. Did I mention we need answers now? Since I’m the plumber, I took a look into my tool bag and started thinking about what we could do within the constraints of our existing infrastructure, political capital, and knowledge to give us a better chance. This was compounded by the recent disagreement Adrian and I had about how much monitoring is necessary (and feasible) driven by Kindervag’s ideas on Zero Trust. I always seem to come back to the idea of not a disappearing perimeter, but multiple perimeters. Sorry Jerichonians, but the answer is more effectively segmenting networks with increasingly stringent controls based on the type and sensitivity of data within that domain. Right, this is not a new idea. It’s the idea of trust zones based on type of data. The military has been doing this for years. OK, maybe it isn’t such a great idea… Yes, I’m kidding. Many folks will say this doesn’t work. It’s just the typical defense in depth rhetoric, which says you need everything you already have, plus this new shiny object to stop the new attack. The problem isn’t with the architecture, it’s with the implementation. We don’t compartmentalize – not even if PCI says to. We run into far too many organizations with flat networks. From a network ops standpoint, flat networks are certainly a lot easier to deal with than trying to segment networks based on what data can be accessed. But flat networks don’t provide the hierarchy necessary to protect what’s important, and we have to understand that we don’t have the money (or resources) to protect everything. And realize that not everything needs to be protected with the same level of control. OK Smart Guy, How? Metaphorically, think about each level of segmented network as a vault. As you climb the stack of data importance, you tighten the controls and make it harder to get to the data (and theoretically harder to compromise), basically implementing another vault within the first. So an attacker going after the crown jewels needs to do more than compromise a vulnerable Windows 2000 Server that someone forgot about to see the targeted assets. Here’s how we do it: Figure out what’s important: Yes, I’ve been talking about this for years (this is the first step of the Pragmatic CSO). Find the important data: This is the discover step from all the Pragmatic Data Security research we’ve done. Assess the data’s importance: This gets back to prioritization and value. How much you can and should spend on protecting the data needs to correlate to how valuable it is, right? You should probably look at 3-4 different levels of data importance/value. Re-architect your network: This means working with the network guys to figure out how to segment your networks to cordon off each level of increasingly sensitive data. Add controls: Your existing perimeter defenses are probably fine for the first layer. Then you need to figure out what kind of controls are appropriate for each layer. More on Controls Again, the idea of layered controls is old and probably a bit tired. You don’t want a single point of failure. No kidding? But here I’m talking about figuring out what controls are necessary to protect the data, depending on its sensitivity. For example, maybe you have a call center and those folks have access to private data. Obviously you want that behind more than just the first perimeter, but the reality is that most of the risk is from self-inflicted injury. You know, a rep sending data out inadvertently. Sounds like a situation where DLP would be appropriate. Next you have some kind of transactional system that drives your business. For the layer, you monitor database and application activity. Finally you have intellectual property that is the underpinning of your business. This is the most sensitive stuff you have. So it makes sense to lock it down as tightly as possible. Any devices on this network segment are locked down using application whitelisting. You also probably want to implement full network packet capture, so you know exactly what is happening and can watch for naughty behavior. I’m making this up, but hopefully the idea of implementing different (and more stringent) controls in each network segment makes sense. None of this is new. As I’m starting to think about my 2011 research agenda, I like this idea of vaults (driven by network segmentation) as a metaphor for infrastructure security. But this isn’t just my show. I’m interested in whether you all think there is

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.