Securosis

Research

Friday Summary: October 12, 2012

Rich here. If memory serves, I completed my first First Aid/CPR certification when I was around 10. I followed up with lifeguard at 16, ensuring myself a few years of employment as a seasonal professional volleyball player. I completed my EMT and 19 after being dumped by my first girlfriend, when I needed a way to occupy my free time. For some reason it’s hard to get insurance for 19 year-old-males driving things with lights and sirens, so I didn’t get onto my first fire department or ambulance company until I was nearly 21. I followed that up with paramedic at 22, and since then have been trained, worked as, and/or certified in everything from dive rescue, mountain rescue, and ski patrol to WMD and national disaster medical response. That’s over 20 years of being an active emergency responder at the professional level, and 25 if you count sitting in a chair, getting sunburned, and pretending I was cool like on Baywatch (well, after Baywatch started). So I am struggling to deal with the fact that as the CEO of a startup and the father of 2.4 young children, my response days are probably on hold for a bit. My EMT expired a few months ago and I don’t have the time to go to a refresher class. This is the second time since I was 19 I have let it drop, the previous time also when I was busy as heck at work. I’m still technically on a federal response team, but without my EMT they are looking at slotting me into IT… where my job will be to fix people’s computers. I. Cannot. Handle. That. Besides, I can’t take off for the minimum 2-3 week deployments anymore. Giving up part of your identity, for however short a period, is never easy. Not to pick on people who dally with their EMT on weekends, but I worked On The Job at the full-time professional level, and have been in emergency services a lot longer than IT. Heck, my computer was a Commodore 128 when I first started in EMS. I would have killed for an iPhone and iPad to fill the hours on some of the slower shifts. “Siri – calculate the drip rate for digoxin on a 172 lb patient with rapid atrial fibrilation” “Let me find that for you Rich… Willie Davis played center field for the 1972 Dodgers” “No dammit, he’s dying!” “Now playing ‘Staying Alive’ by the Bee Gees” Maybe that wouldn’t have been so good. I can live without the lights and sirens, but I miss being an active part of the community. I miss cooking meals in the firehouse, drinking Crown Royal on the rocks in the locker room after a cold ski patrol shift, or simply bullshitting for hours on end with my partner in the ambulance parked on the street corner. Yes, there was the bad, but my kids puke on me far more than any patients ever did. But never underestimate the appeal of the Brotherhood. But I’m co-running a successful company and a happy family. There is absolutely no way I can balance the needs of those priorities with the demands of even a volunteer responder position. I try to be honest with myself, and the truth is I haven’t really been active since we had our first daughter. I could try and cling, but all I’d do is be bad at everything. So it’s time for a break. At some point work will settle down and the kids will be okay with Dad being gone for a shift every now and then. I’ll need to redo a lot of training, but there’s nothing wrong with that. And I’ll still totally abuse my background and use firefighting and rescue anecdotes in every presentation I can stuff them into. Thanks for letting me vent. I love a semi-captive audience. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Nothing I could find. No one loves us any more. Favorite Securosis Posts Adrian Lane: US Returns Fire in Huawei/ZTE Report. I’ve picked this as Fav internal, both for Rich identifying the pressure point as well as Huawei will be in the news for a long time. It’s not just the U.S. reaction, but about a dozen other countries and about half the firms that work with Huawei have made similar claims. Rich: Defending Against DoS Attacks: Defense Part 1, the Network. I got crap for seeming to dismiss the recent DoS attacks. It wasn’t that I dismissed their importance, but not everyone is in the same crosshairs. DDoS has been a problem for a while but we see a massive uptick in interest, for very valid reasons. Other Securosis Posts Defending Against DoS Attacks: Defense, Part 2: Applications. Incite 10/10/2012: A Perfect Day. Favorite Outside Posts Adrian Lane: Designing for failure may be the key to success. You need to be a database and language processing geek to appreciate this, but IBM Fellow Bruce Lindsey clearly sees the inner workings of data processing systems and how all the pieces fit together. Not for everyone, but an interesting view on designing software for unexpected outcomes. Rich: Spaf on the anti-science side of political rhetoric. I’m bordering on getting political by linking to this, but the important part for me is the importance of science and critical thinking. Research Reports and Presentations The Endpoint Security Management Buyer’s Guide. Pragmatic WAF Management: Giving Web Apps a Fighting Chance. Understanding and Selecting Data Masking Solutions. Evolving Endpoint Malware Detection: Dealing with Advanced and Targeted Attacks. Implementing and Managing a Data Loss Prevention Solution. Defending Data on iOS. Malware Analysis Quant Report. Top News and Posts Prepaid Enters Mainstream. Trying to find the consumer benefit here – I see a medium open to fraud and fees at consumers’ expense. Speaking of Huawei, hacker shows ease of gaining router access. Thousands of student records stolen in Florida breach. Google patches Chrome within 24 hours of bug

Share:
Read Post

Defending Against DoS Attacks: Defense, Part 2: Applications

Whereas defending against volumetric DoS attacks requires resilient network architectures and service providers, dealing with application-targeted DoS puts the impetus for defense back squarely on your shoulders. As discussed in Attacks, overwhelming an application entails messing with its ability to manage session state and targeting weaknesses in the application stack. These attacks don’t require massive bandwidth, bot armies or even more than a well crafted series of GET or POST requests. While defending against network-based DoS involves handling brute force, application attacks require a more nuanced approach. Many of these attack tactics are based on legitimate traffic. For example, even legitimate application transactions start with a simple application request. So the challenge is to separate the good from the bad without impacting legitimate traffic that will get you in hot water with your operations folks. What about WAFs? Application-targeted DoS attacks look an awful lot like every other application attack. Just the end goal is different. DoS attacks try to knock the application down, whereas more traditional application attacks involve compromising either the application or the server stack as a first step to either application/data tampering or exfiltration. Most organizations work to secure their applications either by building security in via a secure SDLC (software development lifecycle) or front ending the application with a WAF (web application firewall). Or, in many cases, both. So is building security in a solution to dealing with application DoS attacks? Obviously effectively managing state within a web app is good practice, and building anti-DoS protections directly into each application will help. But given the sad state of secure application development and the prevalence of truly simplistic attacks like SQLi, it’s hard to envision anti-DoS capabilities becoming a key specification of web apps any time soon. Yeah, that’s cynical, and we recommend that you keep DoS mitigation in mind during application security and technology planning, but it will be a while before that is widespread. A long while. What about WAFs? Are they reasonable devices for dealing with application DoS attacks? Let’s circle back to the trouble with existing WAFs: ease of evasion and the difficulty of keeping policies current. We recently did an entire series on maximizing the value of WAF: Pragmatic WAF Management, highlighting positive polices based on what applications should do, and negative policies to detect and handle attacks. It turns out many successful WAF implementations start with stopping typical application attacks. Like a purpose-built IPS to protect applications. Those WAF policies can be helpful in stopping application DoS attacks too. Whether you’re talking about GET floods, Slowloris-type session manipulation, or application stack vulnerabilities, a WAF is well positioned to deal with those attacks. Of course, a customer-premise-based WAF is another device that can be targeted, just like a firewall or IPS device. And given the type of inspection that is required to detect and block an application attack, overwhelming the device can be trivial. So the WAF needs anti-DoS capabilities built in, and the architectural protections discussed in the network defense post should be used to protect the WAF from brute force attacks. Anti-DoS Devices As mentioned in the last post, anti-DoS devices have emerged to detect volumetric attacks, drop bad traffic locally as long as possible, and then redirect the traffic to a scrubbing center. Another key capability of anti-DoS devices is their ability to deal with application DoS attacks. From this perspective they look an awful lot like half a WAF, focused on negative, policies without the capabilities to profile applications and implement positive policies. This is just fine if you are deploying equipment specifically to deal with DoS attacks. But you don’t need to choose between a WAF and an anti-DoS device. Many anti-DoS vendors also offer full-featured WAF products. These providers may offer the best of both worlds, helping you block network attacks (via load balancing, anti-DoS techniques, and coordination with scrubbing centers), as well as implement both negative and positive WAF policies within a single policy management system. Managed WAF Services and CDN As with network-based DoS attacks, there is no lack of service options for handling application attacks. Let’s go through each type of service provider to compare and contrast them. First, managed WAF services. We discussed service options in the Pragmatic WAF paper, and they tend to focus on meeting compliance requirements of regulations such as PCI-DSS. These cloud WAFs tend to implement slimmed-down rule bases, focused mostly on negative policies – exactly what you need to defend against application DoS attacks. Managed WAFs are largely offered by folks who offer Content Delivery Networks (CDN), as a value-added offering or possibly part of the core service. Obviously the less the service costs, the fewer capabilities you will have to customize the rule base, which impacts the usefulness of a general-purpose WAF. But a managed WAF service will provide the additional bandwidth and 24/7 protection you are looking for to deal with attacks, and if the primary use case is DoS mitigation, a CDN or managed WAF can meet the need. Keep in mind that you will need to run all your application traffic through the managed WAF service, and many of the same issues crop up as with CDN. If you don’t protect the application with the managed WAF, it can be attacked directly. If its direct IP address can be discovered the application can be attacked directly. And be clear on response processes, notifications, handoffs, and forensics with the service provider before things go live, so you are ready when an attack starts. Anti-DoS Service Providers We discussed handling volumetric attacks with scrubbing centers. Can a scrubbing center detect and block an application DoS attack? Of course they have racks of anti-DoS gear and sophisticated SOC infrastructures to detect and defeat attacks. But that doesn’t mean this kind of service is best suited to application DoS mitigation. Application DoS is not a brute force attack. It works by gaming the innards of an application stack or application code itself. By the time you

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.