Research

Database Security Platforms are incredibly versatile – offering benefits for security, compliance, and even operations. The following are some classic use cases and ways we often see them used: Monitoring and assessment for regulatory compliance Traditionally the biggest driver for purchasing a DAM/DSP product was to assist with compliance, with Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) almost single-handedly driving the early market. The features were mostly used in for compliance in a few particular ways: To assess in-scope databases for known security issues and policy compliance. Some regulations require periodic database assessment for security issues, policy (configuration) compliance, or both. To assess databases for entitlement issues related to regulatory compliance. While all vulnerability tools can assess database platforms to some degree, no non-database-specific tools can perform credentialed scanning and assessment of user entitlements. This is now often required by certain regulations to ensure users cannot operate outside their designated scope, and to catch issues like users assigned multiple roles which create a conflict of interest. This can be evaluated manually, but it is far more efficient to use a tool if one is available. To monitor database administrators. This is often the single largest reason to use a DSP product in a compliance project. For comprehensive compliance reports spanning multiple databases and applications. Policy-level reports demonstrate that controls are in place, while other reports provide the audit trail necessary to validate the control. Most tools include such reports for a variety of major regulations, with tailored formats by industry. Web application security Almost all web applications are backed by databases, so SQL injection is one of the top three ways to remotely attack them. Web Applications Firewalls can block some SQL injection, but a key limitation is that they don’t necessarily understand the database they are protecting, and so are prone false positives and negatives. DSPs provide a similar capability – at least for database attacks – but with detailed knowledge of both the database type and how the application uses it. For example, if a web application typically queries a database for credit card numbers, the DSP tool can generate an alert if the application requests more card numbers than a defined threshold (often 1). A DSP tool with content analysis can do the same thing without the operator having to identify the fields containing credit card numbers. Instead you can set a generic “credit card” policy that alerts any time a credit card is returned in a query to the web application server, as nearly no front-end applications ask for full card numbers anymore – they are typically left to transaction systems instead. We have only scratched the surface of the potential security benefits for web apps. For example, query whitelisting can alert any time new queries or patterns appear. It is increasingly common for attackers to inject or alter stored procedures in order to take control of databases, and stored procedure monitoring picks up attacks that a WAF might miss. Some tools on the market even communicate violations back to a WAF, either for alerting or to terminate suspicious sessions and even block the offending IP address. Change management Critical databases go down more often due to poor change management than due to attacks. Unlike application code changes, administrators commonly jump right into production databases and directly manipulate data in ways that can easily cause outages. Adding closed-loop change management supported by DSP reduces the likelihood of a bad change, and provides much deeper accountability – even if shared credentials are used. Every administrator action in the database can be tracked and correlated back to a specific change ticket, with monitoring showing the full log of every SQL command – and often return values as well. Legacy system and service account support Many older databases have terrible logging and auditing features that can crush database performance, when they are even available. Such older databases are also likely to include poorly secured service accounts (although we concede that stored plain-text credentials for application accounts are still all too common in general). DSP can generate an audit trail where the database itself does not offer one, and DSP tools tend to support older databases – even those no longer supported by the database vendor. Even modern databases with auditing tend to impose a greater performance impact than DSPs. They can also audit service accounts – generic accounts used by applications to speed up performance – and even alert on unusual activity. This can be especially useful with even a simple rule – such as alerting on any access attempt using service account credentials from anywhere other than the application server’s IP address. And with that, we have wrapped up our series on Database Security Platforms. Share:

As much as we enjoy being the masters of the obvious, we don’t really need to discuss the move to cloud computing. It’s happening. It’s disruptive. Blah blah blah. People love to quibble about the details but it’s obvious to everyone. And of course, when the computation and storage behind your essential IT services might not reside in a facility under your control, things change a bit. The idea of a privileged user morphs in the cloud context, by adding another layer of abstraction via the cloud management environment. So regardless of your current level of cloud computing adoption, you need to factor the cloud into your PUM (privileged user management) initiative. Or do you? Let’s play a little Devil’s advocate here. When you think about it, isn’t cloud computing just more happening faster? You still have the same operating systems running as guests in public and/or private clouds, but with a greatly improved ability to spin up machines, faster than ever before. If you are able to provision and manage the entitlements of these new servers, it’s all good, right? In the abstract, yes. But the same old same old doesn’t work nearly as well in the new regime. Though we do respect the ostrich. Unfortunately burying your head in the sand doesn’t really remove the need to think about cloud privileged users. So let’s walk through some ways cloud computing differs fundamentally than the classical world of on-premise physical servers. Cloud Risks First of all, any cloud initiative adds another layer of management abstraction. You manage cloud resources though either a virtualization console (such as vCenter or XenCenter) or a public cloud management interface. This means a new set of privileged users and entitlements which require management. Additionally, this cloud stuff is (relatively) new, so management capability lags well behind a traditional data center. It’s evolving rapidly but hasn’t yet caught up with tools and processes for management of physical servers on a local physical network – and that immaturity poses a risk. For example, without entitlements properly configured, anyone with access to the cloud console can create and tear down any instance in the account. Or they can change access keys, add access or entitlements, change permissions, etc. – for the entire virtual data enter. Again, this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t proceed and take full advantage of cloud initiatives. But take care to avoid unintended consequences stemming from the flexibility and abstraction of the cloud. We also face a number of new risks driven by the flexibility of provisioning new computing resources. Any privileged user can spin up a new instance, which might not include proper agentry & instrumentation to plug into the cloud management environment. You don’t have the same coarse control of network access we had before, so it’s easier for new (virtual) servers to pop up, which means it’s also easier to be exposed accidentally. Management and security largely need to be implemented within the instances – you cannot rely on the cloud infrastructure to provide them. So cloud consoles absolutely demand suitable protection – at least as much as the most important server under their control. You will want to take a similar lifecycle approach to protecting the cloud console as you do with traditional devices. The Lifecycle in the Clouds To revisit our earlier research, the Privileged User Lifecycle involves restricting access, protecting credentials, enforcing entitlements, and monitoring P-user activity – but what does that look like in a cloud context? Restrict Access (Cloud) As in the physical world, you have a few options for restricting access to sensitive devices, which vary dramatically between private and public clouds. To recap: you can implement access controls within the network, on the devices themselves (via agents), or by running all connections through a proxy and only allowing management connections from the proxy. Private cloud console: The tactics we described in Restrict Access generally work, but there are a few caveats. Network access control gets a lot more complicated due to the inherent abstraction of the cloud. Agentry requires pre-authorized instances which include properly configured software. A proxy requires an additional agent of some kind on each instance, to restrict management connections to the proxy. That is actually as in the traditional datacenter – but now it must be tightly integrated with the cloud console. As instances come and go, knowing which instances are running and which policy groups each instance requires becomes the challenge. To fill this gap, third party cloud management software providers are emerging to add finer-grained access control in private clouds. Public cloud console: Restricting network access is an obvious non-starter in a public cloud. Fortunately you can set up specific security groups to restrict traffic and have some granularity on which IP addresses and protocols can access the instances, which would be fine in a shared administrator context. But you aren’t able to restrict access to specific users on specific devices (as required by most compliance mandates) at the network layer, because you have little control over the network in a public cloud. That leaves agentry on the instances, but with little ability to stop unauthorized parties from accessing instances. Another less viable option is a proxy, but you can’t really restrict access per se – the console literally lives on the Internet. To protect instances in a public cloud environment, you need to insert protections into other segments of the lifecycle. Fortunately we are seeing some innovation in cloud management, including the ability to manage on demand. This means access to manage instances (usually via ssh on Linux instances) is off by default. Only when management is required does the cloud console open up a management port(s) via policy, and only for authorized users at specified times. That approach address a number of the challenges of always on and always accessible cloud instances, and so it’s a promising model for cloud management. Protect Credentials (Cloud) When we think about protecting credentials for cloud computing resources, we use got an expanded concept of credentials. We now need to worry about three types of credentials: Credentials for the cloud console(s) Credentials