Securosis

Research

Applied Network Security Analysis: The Breach Confirmation Use Case

As our last use case in Applied Network Security Analysis, it’s time to consider breach confirmation: confirming and investigating a breach that has already happened. There are clear similarities to the forensics use case, but breach confirmation takes forensic analysis to the next level: you need to learn the extent of the breach, determining exactly what was taken and from where. So let’s revisit our Forensics scenario to look at how that can be extended to confirm a breach. In that scenario, a friend at the FBI gave you a ring to let you know they found some of your organization’s private data during a cybercrime investigation. In the initial analysis you found the compromised devices and the attack paths, as part of isolating the attack and containing the damage. You cleaned the devices and configured IPS rules to ensure those particular attacks will be blocked in the future. You also added some rules to the network security analysis platform to ensure you are watching for those attack traffic patterns moving forward – just in case the attackers evade the IPS. But you still can’t answer the question: “What was stolen?” with any precision. We know the attackers compromised a device and used it to pivot within your environment to get to the target: a database of sensitive information. We can’t assume that was the only target, and if your attack was like any other involving a persistent attacker, they found multiple entry points and have a presence on multiple devices. So it’s time to head back into your analysis console to figure out a few more things. What other devices were impacted: Start by figuring out how many other machines were compromised by the perimeter device. By searching all traffic originating from the compromised DMZ server, you can see which devices were scanned and possibly owned. Then you can confirm using either the configuration data you’ve been collecting, or by analyzing the machine using an endpoint forensics tool. You may already have some or all of this information already when trying to isolate the attack path. What was taken: Next you need to figure out what was taken. You already know at least one egress path, identified during the initial forensic analysis. Now you need to dig deeper into the egress captures to see if there were any other connections or file transfers to unauthorized sites. The attackers continue to improve their exfiltration techniques, so it’s likely they’ll use both encrypted protocols and encrypted files to make it hard to figure out what was actually stolen. Having the full packet stream allows you to analyze the actual files, though depending on the sophistication of your attacker, you might need specialized help (from third party experts or law enforcement) to break the crypto. Remember that the first wave of forensic investigation focuses on determining the attack paths and gathering enough information to do an initial damage assessment and remediation. From there it’s all about containing the immediate damage as best you can. This next level of forensic analysis is more comprehensive: determine the true extent of the compromise and inventory what was taken. As you can imagine, without having the network packet capture it’s impossible to do this analysis. You would be stuck with log files telling you what happened, but not what, how, or how much was taken. That’s why we keep harping on the need for more comprehensive data on which to base network security analysis. Clearly you can’t capture all the data flowing around your networks, so it’s likely you’ll miss something. But you will have a lot more useful information for responding to attacks than organizations which do not capture traffic. Summary To wrap up our Applied Network Security Analysis series let’s revisit some of the key concepts we’ve covered. First of all, in today’s environment, you can’t assume you will be able to stop a targeted attacker. It is much smarter and more realistic to assume your devices are compromised, and to act accordingly. This assumption puts a premium on detecting successful attacks, preventing breaches, and containing damage. All those functions require data collection to be able to understand what is happening in your environment. Log Data Is Not Enough: Most organizations start by collecting their logs, which is clearly necessary for compliance purposes. But it’s not sufficient – not by a long shot. Additional data – including configuration, network flow, and even the full network packet stream, is key to understanding what is happening in your environment. Forensics: We walked through how these additional data sources can be instrumental in a forensic investigation, ultimately resulting in a breach confirmation (or not). The key objective of forensics is to figure out what happened, and the ability to replay attacks and monitor egress points (using the actual traffic) replaces forensic interpretation with tested fact. And forensics folks like facts much better. Security: These additional data sources are not just useful after an attack has happened, but also to recognize issues earlier. By analyzing the traffic in your perimeter and critical network segments, you can spot anomalous behavior and investigate preemptively. To be fair, the security use cases are predicated on knowledge of what to look for, which is never perfect. But in light of the number of less sophisticated attackers using known attacks, making sure you don’t get hit by the same attack twice is very useful. We all know there are always more projects than your finite resources and funding will allow. So why is network security analysis something that should bubble up to the top of your list? The answer is about what we don’t know – we cannot be sure what the attack will be in the future, but we know it will be hard to detect, and it will steal critical information. We built the Securosis security philosophy on Reacting Faster and Better, by focusing on gathering as much data as possible, which requires an institutional commitment to data collection and analysis.

Share:
Read Post

A Public Call for eWallet Design Standards

Last week StorefrontBacktalk ran an article on Mobile Wallets. It underscored my personal naivete in assuming that anyone who designed and built a digital wallet for ecommerce would first and foremost protect customer payment data and other private information. Reading this post I had one of those genuine “Oh $&!#” moments – what if the wallet provider was not interested in my security or privacy? Duh! A wallet is a small data store for your financial, personal, and shopping information. Think about that for a minute. If you buy stuff on your computer or from your phone via an eWallet app, over time it will collect a ton of information. Transaction receipts. Merchant lists. Merchant relationship information such as passwords. Buying history. Digital coupons. Pricing information. Favorites and wish lists. Private keys. This is all in addition to “payment instruments” such as credit cards, PayPal accounts, and bank account information. Along with personal data including phone number, address, and (possibly) Social Security Number for antitheft/identity verification. It’s everything about you and your buying history all in one spot – effectively a personal data warehouse, on you. And it’s critical that you control your own data. This is a really big deal! To underscore why, let me provide a similar example from an everyday security product. For those of you in security, wallets are effectively personal equivalents to key management servers and Hardware Security Modules (HSMs). Key management vendors do not have full access to their customers’ encryption keys. You do not and would not give them a backdoor to the keys that secure your entire IT infrastructure. The whole point of an HSM is to secure the data from everyone who is not authorized to use it. And only the customer who owns the HSM gets to decide who gets keys. For those of you not in security, think of the eWallet as a combination wallet and keychain. It’s how you gain access to your home, your car, your mailbox, your office, and possibly your neighbors’ houses for when you catsit. And it holds your cash (technically more like a blank checkbook, along with your electronic signature), credit cards, debit card, pictures of your kids, and that Post-It with your passwords. You don’t hand this stuff out to third parties! Heck, when your kid wants to borrow the car, you only give them one key and forty bucks for gas – they don’t get everything! But the eWallet systems described in that article don’t belong to you – they are the property of third parties, who would naturally want the ability to rummage through them for useful (marketing and sales) data – what you might consider your data. Human history clearly shows that if someone can abuse your trust for financial gain, they will. Seriously, people – don’t give your wallet to strangers. Let’s throw a couple design principles out there for people who are building these apps: If the wallet does not secure all the user’s content – not just credit card data – it’s insecure and the design is a failure. If the wallet’s author does not architect and implement controls for the user to select what they wish to share with third parties, they have failed. If the wallet does not programatically protect one ‘pocket’, or compartment inside the wallet, from other compartments, it is untrustworthy (as is its creator). If the wallet has a vendor backdoor, it has failed. If the wallet does not use secure and publicly validated communications protocols, it has failed. Wallet designers need to consider the HSM / key management security model. It must protect user data from all outsiders first and foremost. If sharing data/coupons/trends/transaction receipts, easy shopping, “loyalty points”, providing location data, or any other objective supersedes security: the wallet needs to be scrapped and re-engineered. Security models like iOS compartmentalization could be adapted, but any intra-wallet communication must be tightly controlled – likely forcing third parties to perform various actions outside the wallet, if the wallet cannot enable them with sufficient security and privacy. I’ll follow up with consider the critical components of a wallet, as a general design framework; things like payment protocols, communications protocols, logging, authentication, and digital receipts should all be standardized. But more important: the roles of buyer, seller, and any mediators should be defined publicly. Just because some giant company creates an eWallet does not mean you should trust it. 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.