Securosis

Research

Vulnerability Management Evolution: Enterprise Features and Integration

We’re in the home stretch of the Vulnerability Management Evolution research project. After talking mostly about the transition from an audit-centric tactical tool to a much more strategic platform providing security decision support, it is now time to look critically at what’s required to make the platform work in your enterprise. That means providing both built-in tools to help manage your vulnerability management program, as well as supporting integration with existing security and IT management tools. Remember, it is very rare to have an opportunity to start fresh in a green field. So whether you select a new platform or stay with your incumbent provider, as you add functionality you’ll need to play nicely in your existing sandbox. Managing the Vulnerability Management Program We have been around way too long to actually believe that any tool (or toolset) can ever entirely solve any problem, so our research tends to focus around implementing programs to address problems rather than selecting products. Vulnerability management is no different, so let’s list what you need to actually manage the program internally. First you basic information before you can attempt any kind of prioritization. That has really been the focus of the research to date. Taking tactical scans and configuration assessments of the infrastructure and application layers, then combining then with perceived asset value and the value-added technologies we discussed in the last post, and running some analytics to provide usable information. But the fun begins once you have an idea of what needs to be fixed and relative priorities. Dashboards Given the rate of change in today’s organizations, wading through a 200-page vulnerability report or doing manual differential comparisons of configuration files isn’t efficient or scalable. Add in cloud computing and everything is happening even faster, making automation critical to security operations. You need the ability to take information and visualize it in ways that makes sense for a variety of constituencies. You need an Executive View, providing a high-level view of current security posture and other important executive-level metrics. You need an operational view to help guide the security team on what they need to do. And you can probably use views for application-specific vulnerabilities and perhaps infrastructure and database visuals for those folks. Basically you need the flexibility to design an appropriate dashboard/interface for any staffer needing to access the platform’s information. Most vendors ship with a bunch of out-of-the-box options, but more importantly ensure they offer a user-friendly capability to easily customize the interface for what staff needs. Workflow Unless your IT shop is a one-man (or one-woman) band, some level of communication is required to keep everything straight. With a small enough team a daily coffee discussion might suffice. But that doesn’t scale so the vulnerability/threat management platform should include the ability to open ‘tickets’, or whatever you call them, to get work done. It certainly doesn’t need to include a full-blown trouble ticket system, but this capability comes in handy if you don’t have an existing support/help desk system. As a base level of functionality look for the ability to do simple ticket routing, approval / authorization, and indicate work has been done (close tickets). Obviously you’ll want extensive reporting on tickets and the ability to give specific staff members lists of the things they should be doing. Straightforward stuff. Don’t forget that any program needs to have checks and balances, so an integral part of the workflow capability must be enforcement of proper separation of duties to ensure no one individual has too much control over your environment. That means proper authorization before making changes or remediating issues, and ensuring a proper audit trail for everything administrators do with the platform. Compliance Reporting Finally you need to substantiate your controls for the inevitable audits, which means your platform needs to generate documentation to satisfy the auditor’s appetite for information. Okay, it won’t totally satisfy the auditor (as if that were even possible) but at least provide a good perspective on what you do and how well it works, with artifacts to prove it. Since most audits break down to some kind of checklist you need to follow, having those lists enumerated in the vulnerability management platform is important and saves a bunch of time. You don’t want to be mapping reports on firewall configurations to PCI Requirement 1 – the tool should do that out of the box. Make sure whatever you choose offers the reports you need for the mandates you are subject to. But reporting shouldn’t end when the auditor goes away. You should also use the reports to keep everyone operationally honest. That means reports showing similar information to the dashboards we outlined above. You’ll want your senior folks to get periodic reports talking about open vulnerabilities and configuration problems, newly opened attack paths, and systems that can be exploited by the pen test tool. Similarly, operational folks might get reports of their overdue tasks or efficiency reports showing how quickly they remediate their assigned vulnerabilities. Again, look for customization – everyone seems to want the information in their own format. Dashboards and reporting are really the ying/yang of managing any security-oriented program. So make sure the platform provides the flexibility to display and disseminate information however you need it. Enterprise Integration As we mentioned, in today’s technology environment nothing stands alone, so when looking at this evolved vulnerability management platform, how well it integrates with what you already have is a strong consideration. But you have a lot of stuff, right? So let’s prioritize integration a bit. Patch/Config Management: In the value-add technologies piece, we speculated a bit on the future evolution of common platforms for vulnerability/threat and configuration/patch management. As hinted there, tight integration between these two functions is critical. You will probably hear the term vulnerability validation to describe this integration, but it basically means closing the loop between assessment and remediation. So when an issue is identified by the VM platform, the fix is made (presumably by the patch/config tool) and

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.