Securosis

Research

Defending iOS Data: iOS Security and Data Protection

Before we delve into management options we need time to understand the iOS security and data protection models. These are the controls built into the platform – many utilized in the various enterprise options we will discuss in this series. We are focused on data but will also cover iOS security basics, as they play an important role in data security, and for those of you who aren’t familiar with the specifics. The short version is that iOS is quite secure – far more secure than a general-purpose computer. The downside is that Apple supports only limited third-party security management options. Note: We are only discussing iOS 5 or later (as of this writing 5.1 is the current version of the iOS operating system – for iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch). We do not recommend supporting previous versions of the OS. Device and OS Security No computing device is ever completely secure, but iOS has an excellent track record. There has never been any widespread remote attack or malware used against (non-jailbroken) iOS devices, although we have seen proof of concept attacks and plenty of reported vulnerabilities. This is thanks to a series of anti-exploitation features built into the OS, some of which are tied to the hardware. Devices may be vulnerable to local exploitation if the attacker has physical access (using the same techniques as jailbreakers). This is increasingly difficult on newer iOS devices (the iPhone 4S and iPad 2, and later), and basic precautions can protect data even if you lose physical control. Let’s quickly review the built-in security controls. Operating System Hardening Five key features of iOS are designed to minimize the chances of successful exploitation, even if there is an unpatched vulnerability on the device: Data Execution Protection (DEP): DEP is an operating system security feature that marks memory locations as non-executable, which is then enforced by the CPU itself. This reduces the opportunity for successful memory corruption attacks. Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR): ASLR randomizes the memory locations of system components to make it extremely difficult for an attacker to complete exploitation and run their own code, even if they do find and take advantage of a vulnerability. Randomizing the locations of system components makes it difficult for attackers to know exactly where to hook their code, in order to take over the system. Code Signing: All applications on iOS must be cryptographically signed. Better yet, they must be signed using an official Apple digital certificate,or an official enterprise certificate installed on the device for custom enterprise applications – more on this later. This prevents unsigned code from running on the device, including exploit code. Apple only signs applications sold through the App Store, minimizing the danger of malicious apps. Sandboxing: All applications are highly compartmentalized from each other, with no central document/file store. Applications can’t influence each other’s behavior or access shared data unless both applications explicitly allow and support such communication. The App Store: For consumers, only applications distributed by Apple through the App Store can be installed on iOS. Enterprises can develop and distribute custom applications, but this uses a model similar to the App Store, and such applications only work on devices with the corresponding enterprise digital certificate installed. All App Store apps undergo code review by Apple – this isn’t perfect but dramatically reduces the chance of malicious applications ending up on a device. There are, of course, techniques to circumvent DEP and ASLR, but it is extremely difficult to circumvent a proper implementation of them working together. Throw in code signing and additional software and hardware security beyond the scope of our discussion, and iOS is very difficult to exploit. Again, it isn’t impossible, and we have seen exploits (especially local attacks such as tethered jailbreaks), but their rarity, in light of the popularity of these devices, makes clear that these security controls work well enough to thwart widespread attacks. Specifically, we have yet to see any malware spread among un-jailbroken iPhones or iPads. Security Features In addition to its inherent security controls, iOS also includes some basic security features that users can either configure themselves or employers can manage through policies: Device PIN or Passcode: The most basic security for any device, iOS supports either a simple 4-digit PIN or full (longer) alphanumeric passphrases. Either way, they tie into the data protection and device wipe features. Passcode Wipe: When a PIN or passphrase is set, if the code is entered incorrectly enough many times the device erases all user data (this is tied to encryption features discussed in the next section). Remote Wipe: iOS supports remote wipe commands via Find My iPhone and through Exchange ActiveSync. Of course the device must be accessible across the Internet to execute the wipe remotely. Geolocation: The device’s physical location can be tracked using location services, which are part of Find My iPhone and can be incorporated into third-party applications. VPN and on-demand VPN: Virtual private networks can be activated manually or automatically when the device accesses any network service. (Not all VPNs support on-demand connection and this is VPN-provider specific). Configuration Profiles: Many of the security features, especially those used in enterprise environments, can be managed using profiles installed on the device. These include options far beyond those available to consumers configuring iOS personally, such as restricting which applications and activities the user can access on the phone or tablet. These are the core features we will build on as we start discussing enterprise management options. But iOS also includes data protection features that are the cornerstone of most iOS data security strategies. Data Protection Although it was nearly impossible to protect data on early iPhones, modern devices use a combination of hardware and software to provide data security: Hardware Encryption: The iPhone 3GS and later, and all iPads, support built-in hardware encryption. All user data can be automatically encrypted in hardware at all times. This is used primarily for wiping the device, rather than to stop attacks. Rather than slowly erasing the entire flash storage, wiping works by immediately destroying the encryption key, which makes user data

Share:
Read Post

Defending Enterprise Data on iOS: Introduction

The numbers alone don’t tell the story. In 2011 Apple sold 315 million iOS devices (62 million in the fourth quarter alone). There are over 100 million iCloud users – using a service less than a year old. And these numbers are for Apple alone – never mind all the other mobile devices. Apple calls this the dawn of the “post-PC era”, and with numbers like those it’s hard to argue. Even Microsoft is in the midst of what is shaping up to be the largest change in their platform strategy since Windows, in an attempt to address this market. These devices aren’t confined to the home. Survey after survey shows growing enterprise adoption of iOS, including major migrations off RIM BlackBerry and other business-centric smartphones – even aside from the tidal wave called iPad. The phrase “the consumerization of IT” appeared before the release of the iPhone, but no other vendor is doing as much to drive the adoption of consumer technologies into the enterprise as Apple. In years past we in IT security served as the gatekeepers of new technologies in the enterprise. As much as we like to say we’re the last to find out about new tools and toys, mobility is one area where we have held tight control by limiting access to the network. But in the post-PC consumerization world we are losing our ability to stop the adoption of consumer technologies, even when they don’t support all our enterprise needs. In a recent session at the RSA Security Conference I asked a group of 150 operational security professionals how many were under pressure to support non-BlackBerry devices. Nearly every hand in the room went up, almost universally to support iOS, and only a relatively small percentage had technical capabilities or policies in place to manage this transition. And while there was some concern about the impact of these devices on the network, the universal concern was the safety of data. The question is no longer if or when to allow these devices, but how to support non-PC computing platforms while safely protecting enterprise data. To stay focused, this series will lay out options for protecting enterprise data on iOS, rather than talking about the myriad of other issues around mobile device management. Why iOS and Not Android Of course Apple isn’t single-handedly driving the consumerization of IT concept, but the numbers above (and a quick glance around the office) show that the company from Cupertino is clearly a major force. They have done more to alter the landscape of the smartphone and tablet markets than any other single provider. And, not coincidentally, we are asked more about securing iOS for the enterprise than any other platform. Until recently BlackBerry was the dominant platform – largely because it was designed specifically to address enterprise needs. As a result most organizations are comfortable securing these tools. Some organizations also supported Microsoft and perhaps Palm, but one of those companies no longer exists and the other completely tossed out its platform to start fresh. The real activity is with iOS and Google’s Android. But for a variety of reasons enterprises face more pressure to support iOS. Android-based tablets are not yet competitive or in wide use, and the fractured nature of Android phones and software versions makes it far easier to justify restricting those devices. From a security perspective, iOS is also a stronger platform. While nothing is invulnerable, there is essentially no iOS malware and few known security breaches. The software ties strongly to the hardware and current versions are very difficult to hack. Android, by its more open nature, represents a greater security risk – as demonstrated by ongoing malware issues (still lower than PC levels, but much higher than iOS). The main problem is that Apple provides limited tools for enterprise management of iOS. There is no ability to run background security applications, so we need to rely on policy management and a spectrum of security architectures. We will focus on iOS because: You already know how to manage BlackBerry. Android isn’t mature or safe enough for us to endorse for enterprise use, and the fractured operating system levels make strategic management difficult. Windows Mobile is not in widespread use and the Metro tablet platform is still in development. Clients tell us they are under pressure to support iOS more than other platforms – especially the iPad. Most of the options we will discuss also apply to other platforms – especially the latest version of Android (Ice Cream Sandwich, which isn’t widely available). Information-Centric Security We are focusing on data for this series, so we will take an information-centric approach. We won’t talk about network management or device restrictions that aren’t relevant to protecting data. But we will discuss managing the data even before it hits the device. Previously I wrote the following principles of information-centric security: Information (data) must be self describing and defending. Policies and controls must account for business context. Information must be protected as it moves from structured to unstructured, in and out of applications, and changing business contexts. Policies must work consistently through the different defensive layers and technologies we implement. These sound a bit like the usual analyst mumbo-jumbo, but we do actually have the technologies to implement much of this today. In terms of managing data for mobility and iOS we can hit every one of those points except movement between structured and unstructured data. Through the rest of this series we will show how to manage what data ends up on devices, how to protect it once it’s there, and how to build and manage policies to enable users without violating risk tolerances. To do this we will present a spectrum of options designed to satisfy different organizational needs; all of which are supported by existing products (some of which you probably already have). Before we dig into the management options we need to spend a little time understanding how iOS works… which will be the next post. And yes, this is the opening to a new

Share:
Read Post

Incite 3/14/2012: My Kind of People

Like everyone else, I have a bunch of jobs. There is the day job and then my job at home. Well, it’s not really a job, it’s more a responsibility – to be a good husband and to teach my kids to be properly functioning adults. As most of you know, I take the parenting responsibility very seriously. I am constantly stressing hard work and best effort. Making the point constantly to my kids that the only thing they can truly control is their own effort. But ultimately I am flawed, like everyone else, and I worry my flaws will be passed on to my kids. We get each kid’s schoolwork back on Thursday. Usually they do very well but sometimes they blow a test or quiz. The Boss spends a lot of time going through their mistakes to make sure they don’t make the same ones again. I peruse the papers and try to celebrate the good scores on the math quiz or the spelling test. But it’s hard. I’m on to the next thing already. What’s next on the list? No time to celebrate – too much to do. That’s how I’m wired. But all the accomplishments and all the tasks checked off the task list pale in comparison to trying to teach the kids to be good people. To be nice and supportive and good friends. To be empathetic about other folks’ challenges, and to appreciate the charmed life they lead. Part of that process is sending them to sleepaway camp each summer. There they need to function as part of a group, without the Boss and me to tell them exactly what to do. Before we know it they’ll be out in the nasty, unforgiving world, so we hope they can learn some important lessons in a safe environment before it’s real. Another aspect of their real life training is to show that everyone has their own challenges, and they can choose to make every situation either better or worse. USA Network recently aired a show called NFL Characters Unite, which provided a great opportunity to teach the kids about the importance of empathy and being kind. The show takes some NFL heavy hitters (Hines Ward, Jimmy Graham, Tony Gonzalez, and Tony Dungy) and tells their stories of suffering racism, bullying, and abandonment. A 6’5” and 250 lb guy, being bullied? Amazingly enough, yes. It showed how these guys overcame those challenges, and showed them each mentoring a kid in a similar position. The show was really awesome. Not because it humanized the players, which it did. But it (hopefully) taught my kids a few things. First the impact of being unkind. They could see how bullying and meanness impact a kid. I also hope they learned not to judge a book by its cover. You’d never think NFL stars could be bullied or suffer racism. These guys are invincible, right? Not so much. The kids shouldn’t draw conclusions, but instead get to know folks and make up their own minds. Finally, perhaps they can appreciate how lucky they are to have a supportive family. Maybe, just maybe, when they get into a situation where they can choose to be kind or unkind, they’ll choose correctly. We hope they will reject peer pressure to go for the quick laugh, and stand up for someone who may not be able to stand up for themselves. Ultimately, in 10 years, when all our kids are loose on the world, I can only hope they’ll be kind people. The kind of people I’ll be proud to know. –Mike Photo credits: “In the end, only kindness matters” originally uploaded by SweetOnVeg Lazy Deal Analysis: Dell goes SuperSonic(WALL) Dell made news a year ago shelling out big bucks for SecureWorks, and now they are at it again, spending a reported $1-1.5 billion to acquire SonicWALL from the clutches of private equity. We actually like this deal – not only because it reinforces that Mr. Market Says Security Is Winning. But additionally, SonicWALL’s traditional business in the mid-market is a good fit with Dell’s distribution engine, and dovetails nicely with the SecureWorks services offering. But this deal is all about IBM and HP envy. Do you think it will be long before Dell formally moves all their security stuff into a separate business unit? They want to compete with the big boys, and large enterprise wants security from their major IT providers. Both SecureWorks (via the VeriSign MSS deal) and SonicWALL (with its SuperMassive NGFW) have increasingly focused on the enterprise. We expect Dell to continue investing in services folks to wrap the integration layer around the products and services. We have been hearing speculation about Dell acquiring Fortinet, but this deal seems like a much better option. It’s much cheaper, provides functionally comparable technology, and brings on less infrastructure to worry about integrating – especially at the enterprise level. And don’t forget about the biggest winners here: Thoma Bravo, the private equity fund that took SonicWALL private about 18 months ago for $717 million. Perhaps doubling in that time period is a huge win. But as Rich said in Mr. Market: the bankers always win. Incite 4 U Leaving an Anonymous Trail of Bits: We all talk about how as a good guy you need to always be right, while the bad guys only need to be right once. It turns out that no one can be wrong, ever, as our buddies at Threatpost detail by showing how some Anons left a trail, and the FBI (and other law enforcement folks) are getting much better at following such trails. Sabu forgot to Tor a few times and got bagged. Rob G talked a bit about it. And finally Nigel Perry talks a bit about how Sabu turning turncoat was obvious, in hindsight anyway – given his attempts to get his buddies to do bad stuff. I recently saw the movie Drive, and the bad guy says to the good guy that he can walk away, but he’ll always be looking over his shoulder. I guess that’s a universal truth

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.