Securosis

Research

What Amazon AWS’s PCI Compliance Means to You

This morning Amazon announced that Amazon Web Services achieved PCI-DSS 2.0 Validated Service Provider compliance. This is both a very big deal, and no big deal at all. Here’s why: This certification means that the AWS services within scope (EC2, EBS, S3, and VPC – most of the important bits) passed an annual assessment by a QSA and undergo quarterly scans by an ASV. This means that Amazon’s infrastructure is certified to support payment system applications and services (anything that takes a credit card). This is a big deal, because there is no longer any question (until something changes) that you are allowed to deploy a payment system/application on AWS. Just because AWS is certified doesn’t mean you are. You still need to deploy a PCI compliant application/service and anything on AWS is still within your assessment scope. But any assessment you pay for will be limited to your installation – the back-end AWS components are covered by Amazon’s assessment, and your assessor won’t need to pound through all of Amazon to certify your environment deployed on AWS. Chris Hoff presciently wrote about this the night before Amazon’s announcement. Anything on your side that’s in scope (containing PAN data) is still in scope and needs to be assessed, but there are no longer any questions that you can deploy into AWS (another big deal). The “big whoop” part? As we said, your systems are still in scope even if you deploy on AWS, and still need to be assessed (and compliant). The open question? PCI-DSS 2.0 doesn’t address multi-tenancy concerns (which Amazon actually notes in their release). This is a huge political battleground behind the scenes (ask anyone in the virtualization SIG), and just because AWS is certified as a service provider doesn’t mean all cloud IaaS providers will be, nor that there won’t be a multi-tenancy failure on AWS leading to exposure of cardholder data. Compliance (still) != security. For a practical example: you can store PAN data on S3, but it still needs to be encrypted in accordance with PCI-DSS requirements. Amazon doesn’t do this for you – it’s something you need to implement yourself; including key management, rotation, logging, etc. If you deploy a server instance in EC2 it still needs to undergo ASV scans and meet all other requirements, and will be assessed by your QSA (if in scope). What this certification really does is eliminate any doubts that you are allowed to deploy an in-scope PCI system on AWS, and reduces your assessment scope to only your in-scope bits on AWS, not the entire service. This is a big deal, but your organization’s assessment scope isn’t necessarily reduced, as it might be when you move to something like a tokenization service where you reduce your handling of PAN data. Share:

Share:
Read Post

React Faster and Better: Introduction

One of the cool things about Securosis is its transparency. We develop all our research positions in the open through our blog, and that means at times we’re wrong. Wrong is such a harsh word, and one you won’t hear most analysts say. Of course, we aren’t like most analysts, and sometimes we need to recalibrate on a research project and recast the effort. Near the end of our Incident Response Fundamentals series, we realized we weren’t tracking with our project goals, so we split that off and get to start over. Nothing like putting your first draft on the Internet. But now it’s time for the reboot. Incident response is near and dear to our philosophy of security, between my insistence (for years) of Reacting Faster and Rich’s experience as a first responder. The fact remains that you will be breached. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but it will happen. We’ve made this point many times before (and it even happened to us, indirectly). So we’ll once again make the point that response is more important than any specific control. But it’s horrifying how unsophisticated most organizations are about response. This is compounded by the reality of an evolving attack space, which means even if you do incident response well today, it won’t be good enough for tomorrow. We spent a few weeks covering many of the basics in the Incident Response Fundamentals series, so let’s review those (very) quickly because they are still an essential foundation. Organization and Process First and foremost, you need to have an organization that provides the right structure for response. That means you have a clear reporting structure, focus on objectives, and can be flexible (since you never know where any investigation will lead). You need to make a fairly significant investment in specialists (either in-house or external) to make sure you have the right skill sets on call when you need them. Finally you need to make sure all these teams have the tools to be successful, which means providing the communications systems and investigation tools they’ll need to find root causes quickly and contain damage. Data Collection Even with the right organization in place, without an organizational commitment to systematic data collection, much of your effort will be for naught. You want to build a data collection environment to keep as much as you can, from both the infrastructure and the applications/data. Yes, this is a discipline itself, and we have done a lot of research into these topics (check out our Understanding/Selecting SIEM and Log Management and Monitoring up the Stack papers). But the fact remains, even with a lot of data out there, there isn’t as much information as we need to pinpoint what happened and figure out why. Before, During, and after the Attack We also spent some time in the Fundamentals series focused on what to do before the attack, which involves analyzing the data you are collecting to figure out if/when you have a situation. We then moved to the next steps, which involve triggering your response process and figuring out what kind of situation you face. Once you have sized up the problem, you must move to contain the damage, and perform a broad investigation to understand the extent of the issue. Then it is critical to revisit the response in order to optimize your process – this aspect of response is often forgotten, sadly. It’s Not Enough Yes, there is a lot to do. Yes, we wrote 10 discrete posts that barely cover the fundamentals. And that’s great, but for high-risk organizations.. it’s still not enough. And within the planning horizon (3-5 years), we expect even the fundamentals will be insufficient to deal with the attacks we will see. The standard way we practice incident response just isn’t effective or efficient enough for emerging attack methods. If you don’t understand what is possible, spend a few minutes reading about how Stuxnet seems to really work, and you’ll see what we mean. While the process of incident response still works, how we implement that process needs to change. So in our recast React Faster and Better series, we’ll focus on pushing the concepts of incident response forward. Dealing with advanced threats requires leveraging advanced tools. Thank you, Captain Obvious. We’ve had to deal with new tools for every new attack since the beginning of time. But it’s more than that. RFAB is about taking a much broader and more effective perspective on dealing with attacks – from what data you collect, to how you trigger higher-quality alerts, to the mechanics of response/escalation, and ultimately remediation and cleaning activities. This is not your grandpappy’s incident response. All these functions need to evolve dramatically to keep up. And those ideas are what we’ll present in this series. Share:

Share:
Read Post

RIP Marty Martian

OK, before you start leaving flowers and wreaths at Looney Toons HQ, our favorite animated Martian is not dead. But the product formerly known as Cisco MARS is. The end of life announcement hit last week, so after June of 2011 you won’t be able to buy MARS and support will ebb away over the next 3 years. Of course, this merely formalize what we’ve all known for a long time. The carcass is mostly decomposed by the time you get the death notice. That being said, there are thousands of organizations with MARS installed (and probably thousands more with it sitting on a shelf), which need to do something. Which raises the question: what do you do when a key part of your infrastructure is EOL? You may be SOL. Don’t be on the ship when it goes down: The first tip we’d give you is to get off the ship well before it’s obvious it’s going down. There have been lots of folks talking about the inevitability of MARS’ demise for years. If you are still on the ship, shame on you. But it is what it is – sometimes there are reasons you just can’t move. What then? Follow the vendor path: In many cases when a vendor EOLs a product, they define a migration path. Of course in the case of MARS, Cisco is very helpful in pointing out: “There is no replacement available for the Cisco Security Monitoring, Analysis, and Response System at this time.” Awesome. They also suggest you look to SIEM ecosystem partners for your security management needs. Yes, they are basically handing you a bag of crap and asking what you’d like to do with it. So in this case you must… Think strategically: Basically this is a total reset. There is no elegant migration. There is no way to stay on the yellow brick road. So take a step back and figure out what problem(s) you are trying to solve. I’d suggest you take a look at our Understanding and Selecting a SIEM/Log Management Platform paper to get some ideas of what is involved in this procurement. Just remember not to make a tactical decision based on what you think will be easiest. It was easiest to deploy MARS way back when, remember? And how did that work out for you? Don’t get fooled again: Speaking of easy, you are going to hear from a zillion vendors about their plans to move your MARS environment to something else. Right, their something else. The MARS data formats are well understood, so pulling your data out and levering in a new platform isn’t a huge deal. But before you rush headlong into something, make sure it’s the right platform to solve your problems as you see them today. You can’t completely avoid vendors pulling the plug on their products, but you can do homework up front to minimize the likelihood of depending on something that goes EOL. Buy smart: Once you figure out what you want to buy, make the vendors compete for your business. Yes, a zillion companies want your business – make them work for it. Make them throw in professional services. Make them discount the hell out of their products. MARS plays in a buyer’s market for SIEM, which means many companies are chasing deals. Use that to your advantage and get the best pricing you can. But only on the products/services that strategically solve your problem (see above). Good thing you bought that extra plot at the cemetery right next to CSA, eh? Image credit: “MAN IS FED UP WITH EARTH…GOING BACK TO SPACE…” originally uploaded by Robert Huffstutter Share:

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

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.