Securosis

Research

Watching the Watchers: Monitor Privileged Users

As we continue our march through the Privileged User Lifecycle, we have locked down privileged accounts as tightly as needed. But that’s not the whole story, and the lifecycle ends with a traditional audit. Because verifying what the administrators do with their privileges is just as important as the other steps. Admittedly, some organizations have as large a cultural issue with granular user monitoring because they actually want to trust their employees. Silly organizations, right? But in this case there is no monitoring slippery slope – we aren’t talking about recording an employee’s personal Facebook interactions or checking out pictures of Grandma. We’re talking about capturing what an administrator has done on a specific device. Before we get into the how of privileged user monitoring, let’s look at why you would monitor admins. There are two main reasons: Forensics: In the event of a breach, you need to know what happened on the device, quickly. A detailed record of what an administrator did on a device can be instrumental to putting the pieces together – especially in the event of an inside job. Of course privileged user monitoring is not a panacea to forensics – there are a zillion other ways to get compromised – but if the breach began with administrator activity, you would have a record of what happened, and the proverbial smoking gun. Audit: Another use is to make your auditor happy. Imagine the difference between showing the auditor a policy saying how you do things, and showing a screen capture of an account being provisioned or a change being committed. Monitoring logs are powerful for showing that the controls are in place. Sold? Good, but how to you move from concept to reality? You have a couple of options, including: SIEM/Log Management: As part of your other compliance efforts, you likely send most events from sensitive devices to a central aggregation point. This SIEM/Log Management work can also be used to monitor privileged users. By setting up some reports and correlation rules for administrator activity you can effectively figure out what administrators are doing. By the way, this is one of the main use cases for SIEM and log management. Configuration Management: A similar approach is to pull data out of a configuration management platform which tracks changes on managed devices. A difference between using configuration management and a SIEM is the ability to go beyond monitoring, and actually block unauthorized changes. Screen Capture If a picture is worth a thousand words, how much would you say a video is worth? An advantage of routing your administrative sessions through a proxy is the ability to capture exactly what admins are doing on every device. With a video screen capture of the session and the associated keystrokes, there can be no question of intent – no inference of what actually happened. You’ll know what happened – you just need to watch the playback. For screen capture you can deploy an agent on the managed device or you could route sessions through a proxy. We started discussing the P-User Lifecycle by focusing on how to restrict access to sensitive devices. After discussing a number of options, we explained why proxies make a lot of sense for making sure only the right administrators access the correct devices at the right times. So it’s appropriate that we come full circle and end our lifecycle discussion back in a similar position. Let’s look at performance and scale first. Video is pretty compute intensive, and consumes a tremendous amount of storage. The good news is that an administrative session doesn’t require HD quality to catch a bad apple red-handed. So significant compression is feasible, and can save a significant chunk of storage – whether you capture with an agent or through a proxy. But there is a major difference in device impact between these approaches. An agent takes resources for screen capture from the managed device, which impacts the server’s performance – probably significantly. With a proxy, the resources are consumed by the proxy server rather than the managed device. The other issue is the security of the video – ensuring there is no tampering with the capture. Either way you can protect the video with secure storage and/or other means of making tampering evident, such as cryptographic hashing. The main question is how you get the video into secure storage. Using an agent, the system needs a secure transport between the device and the storage. Using a proxy approach, the storage could be integrated into (or very close to) the proxy device. We believe a proxy-based approach to monitoring privileged users makes the most sense, but there are certainly cases where an agent could suffice. And with that we have completed our journey through the Privileged User Lifecycle, but we aren’t done yet. This “cloud computing” thing threatens to dramatically complicate how all devices are managed, with substantial impact on how privileged users need to be managed. So in the next post we will delve into the impact of the cloud on privileged users. 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.