Securosis

Research

Endpoint Security Management Buyer’s Guide: the ESM Lifecycle

As we described in The Business Impact of Managing Endpoint Security, the world is complex and only getting more so. You need to deal with more devices, mobility, emerging attack vectors, and virtualization, among other things. So you need to graduate from the tactical view of endpoint security. Thinking about how disparate operations teams manage endpoint security today, you probably have tools to manage change – functions such as patch and configuration management. You also have technology to control use of the endpoints, such as device control and file integrity monitoring. So you might have 4 or more different consoles to manage one endpoint device. We call that problem swivel chair management – you switch between consoles enough to wear out your chair. It’s probably worth keeping a can of WD-40 handy to ensure your chair is in tip-top shape. Using all these disparate tools also creates challenges in discovery and reporting. Unless the tools cleanly integrate, if your configuration management system (for instance) detects a new set of instances in your virtualized data center, your patch management offering might not even know to scan those devices for missing patches. Likewise, if you don’t control the use of I/O ports (USB) on the endpoints, you might not know that malware has replaced system files unless you are specifically monitoring those files. Obviously, given ongoing constraints in funding, resources, and expertise, finding operational leverage anywhere is a corporate imperative. So it’s time to embrace a broader view of Endpoint Security Management and improve integration among the various tools in use to fill these gaps. Let’s take a little time to describe what we mean by endpoint security management, the foundation of an endpoint security management suite, its component parts, and ultimately how these technologies fit into your enterprise management stack. The Endpoint Security Management Lifecycle As analyst types, the only thing we like better than quadrant diagrams are lifecycles. So of course we have an endpoint security management lifecycle. Of course none of these functions are mutually exclusive, and you don’t may not perform all these functions. And keep in mind that you can start anywhere, and most organizations already have at least some technologies in place to address these problems. It’s has become rare for organizations to manage endpoint security manually. We push the lifecycle mindset to highlight the importance of looking at endpoint security management strategically. A patch management product can solve part of the problem, tactically. And the same with each of the other functions. But handling endpoint security management as a platform can provide more value than dealing with each function in isolation. So we drew a picture to illustrate our lifecycle. We show both periodic functions (patch and configuration management) which typically occur every day or every two. We also depict ongoing activities (device control and file integrity monitoring) which need to run all the time – typically using device agents. Let’s describe each part of the lifecycle at a high level, before we dig down in subsequent posts. Configuration Management Configuration management provides the ability for an organization to define an authorized set of configurations for devices in use within the environment. These configurations govern the applications installed, device settings, services running, and security controls in place. This capability is important because a changing configuration might indicate malware manipulation, an operational error, or an innocent and unsuspecting end user deciding it’s a good idea to bring up an open SMTP relay on their laptop. Configuration management enables your organization to define what should be running on each device based on entitlements, and to identify non-compliant devices. Patch Management Patch management installs fixes from software vendors to address vulnerabilities in software. The best known patching process comes from Microsoft every month. On Patch Tuesday, Microsoft issues a variety of software fixes to address defects that could result in exploitation of their systems. Once a patch is issued your organization needs to assess it, figure out which devices need to be patched, and ultimately install the patch within the window specified by policy – typically a few days. The patch management product scans devices, installs patches, and reports on the success and/or failure of the process. Patch Management Quant provides a very detailed view of the patching process, so check it out if you want more information. Device Control End users just love the flexibility their USB ports provide for their ‘productivity’. You know – the ability to share music with buddies and download your entire customer database onto their phones became – it all got much easier once the industry standardized on USB a decade ago. All kidding aside, the ability to easily share data has facilitated better collaboration between employees, while simultaneously greatly increasing the risk of data leakage and malware proliferation. Device control technology enables you both to enforce policy for who can use USB ports, and for what; and also to capture what is copied to and from USB devices. As a more active control, monitoring and enforcement of for device usage policy eliminates a major risk on endpoint devices. File Integrity Monitoring The last control we will mention explicitly is file integrity monitoring, which watches for changes in critical system files. Obviously these file do legitimately change over time – particularly during patch cycles. But those files are generally static, and changes to core functions (such as the IP stack and email client) generally indicate some type of problem. This active control allows you to define a set of files (including both system and other files), gather a baseline for what they should look like, and then watch for changes. Depending on the type of change, you might even roll back those changes before more bad stuff happens. The Foundation The centerpiece of the ESM platform is an asset management capability and console to define policies, analyze data, and report. A platform should have the following capabilities: Asset Management/Discovery: Of course you can’t manage what you can’t see, so the first critical

Share:
Read Post

Friday Summary, TdF Edition: August 3, 2012

Rich here. Two weeks ago I got to experience something that wasn’t on the bucket list because it was so over the top I lacked the creativity to even think of putting it on the bucket list. I’ve been a cycling fan for a while now. Not only is it one of the three disciplines of triathlon, but I quite enjoy cycling for its own sake. As with tri, it’s one of the only sports out there where you can not only do what the pros do, but sometimes participate in the same events with them. You might run into a pro football player at a bar or restaurant, but it isn’t uncommon to see a pro rider, runner, or triathlete riding the same Sunday route as you, or even setting up in the same start/transition area for a race. Earlier this year Barracuda networks started sponsoring the Garmin-Sliptream team (for a short time it was Garmin-Barracuda, and now it’s Garmin-Sharp-Barracuda). I made a joke to @petermanmc about needing analyst support for the Tour de France, and something like 6 months later I found myself flying out to France for a speaking gig… and a little bike riding. I won’t go into the details of what I did outside the speaking part, but suffice it to say I got a fair bit of road time and caught the ends of a few stages. It was an unbelievable experience that even the Barracuda folks (especially a fellow cyclist from the Cuda exec team) didn’t expect. One of the bonuses was getting to meet some of the team and the directors. It really showed me what it takes to play at the absolute top of the game in one of the most popular sports on the planet (the TdF is the single biggest annual sporting event). For example, during a dinner after the race about half the team was also lined up for the Olympics. We heard the Sky team (mostly UK riders) all hopped on a plane mere hours after winning the Tour so they could continue training. None of the Garmin riders competing in the Olympics had as much as a single celebratory drink as far as I could tell. After three weeks of racing some of the hardest rides out there, they didn’t really take one night off. Earlier in the day, watching the finish to the Tour, I was talking with one of the development team riders who is likely to move up to the full pro team soon. Me: “Have you ever seen the Tour before?” Him: “Nope, it’s my first time. Pretty awesome.” Me: “Does it inspire you to train harder?” Him: “No. I always train harder.” That was right up there with one of the pros who told me he doesn’t understand all the attention the Tour gets. To him, it’s just another race on the schedule. “We’ll be riding these same stages in a few months and no one will be out there”. That’s the difference between those at the top of the game, and those who wonder why they can’t move up. It doesn’t matter if it’s security, cycling, or whatever else you are into. Only those with a fusion reactor of internal motivation, mixed with a helping of natural talent, topped off with countless hours of effective training and practice, have any chance of winning. And trust me, there are always winners and losers. I’d like to think I’m as good at my job as those cyclists are at theirs. Maybe I am, maybe I’m not, but the day I start thinking I get to do things like snag a speaking gig at the Tour de France because of who I am or where I work, rather than how well I do what I do, is the day someone else gets to go. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Rich presented at Black Hat and Defcon, but we have otherwise been out of the media. Favorite Securosis Posts Mike Rothman: New Series: Pragmatic WAF Management. WAFs have a bad name, but it’s not entirely due to the technology. Adrian and I will be doing a series over the next couple weeks to dig into a more effective operational process for managing your WAF. PCI says buy it, so you may as well get the most value out of the device, right? Adrian Lane: Earning Quadrant Leadership. What a great post. Do you have any idea how often vendors and customers ask us this question? Rich: Pragmatic WAF Management: the Trouble with WAF. Ah, WAF. Other Securosis Posts Endpoint Security Management Buyers Guide: the ESM Lifecycle. Endpoint Security Management Buyer’s Guide: The Business Impact of Managing Endpoints. Incite 8/1/2012: Media Angst. Incite 7/25/2012: Detox. Incite 7/18/2012: 21 Days. Proxies –Meet the ‘Agents’ of Cloud Computing. Heading out to Black Hat 2012! FireStarter: We Need a New Definition of Dead. Takeaways from Cloud Identity Summit. Favorite Outside Posts Adrian Lane: Tagging and Tracking Espionage Botnets. I’m fascinated by botnets – both because of the solid architectures they employ as well as plenty of clever secure coding. I wish mainstream software development was as good. Mike Rothman: Q2 Earnings Call Transcripts. I’m a sucker for the quarterly earnings calls. Seeking Alpha provides transcripts, which can be pretty enlightening for understanding what’s going on with a company. Check out a sampling from Check Point, Fortinet, Symantec, SolarWinds, and Sourcefire. Pepper: The Power Strip That Lets You Snoop On An Entire Network. I want one! Adrian Lane: Top Ten Black Hat Pick Up Lines. OK, not really security per se, but it was funny. And we need more humor in security. TSA jokes only go so far. Mike Rothman: Lessons Netflix Learned from the AWS Storm. You can learn from someone else, or you can learn the hard way (through painful personal experience). I prefer the former. Go figure. It’s truly a huge gift that companies like Netflix air their dirty laundry about

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.