Securosis

Research

Implementing and Managing Patch and Configuration Management: Defining Policies

So far we have focused on all the preparatory work and technology deployment that needs to happen before you can finally flip the switch and start using an endpoint security management tool in production. With the pieces in place it is now time to configure and deploy policies to prepare for the inevitable patch cycles, and to start monitoring configurations on your key devices. The first major choice is between the Quick Wins and Full Deployment processes – Quick Wins is focused on information gathering and refining priorities & policies – proving the tool’s value and making sure your results from initial testing weren’t misleading. Full Deployment is all about full coverage for all endpoint devices and users. We generally recommend you start with Quick Wins, which produces much more information and treads a bit more lightly, before jumping into Full Deployment. Who knows – you might even realign your priorities. But even after a few Quick Wins, a structured and (somewhat) patient path to Full Deployment makes the most sense. Iterative Deployment Before we get deep into staging your deployment, keep in mind that we break things out with extreme granularity, to fit the full range of organizations. Many of you won’t need this much depth, due to organizational size or the nature of your policies and priorities. Don’t get hung up on our multi-step process – many of you won’t need to move this cautiously, and can run through multiple steps quickly. The key to success is to think incrementally – too often we hear about organizations which can pump out a bunch of agents quickly, so they think they should. Endpoints can be finicky devices, and you should be sure to provide adequate time for testing and burn-in before you go all-in on deployment. So it’s prudent to pick a single device type or group of users, create the appropriate policy, slowly roll out, and tune iteratively until you attain full coverage. We are not opposed to deploying quickly, but we have a keen appreciation for the challenges of fast deployment – especially in managing expectations. Better to under-promise and over-deliver than vice-versa, right? So here is a reasonable deployment plan: Define the policy: This involves setting policies based on the type of device and what you are doing on it – patch or configuration management. We will dig into the specific policy decisions you need to make later in this post. Again, we suggest you start with a single device type – possibly even for a specific group of users – and expand incrementally once the first deployment is complete. This helps reduce management overhead and enables you to tune the policy. In most cases your vendor will provide prebuilt policies and categories to jumpstart your own policy development. It’s entirely appropriate to start with one of those and evaluate its results. Deploy to a subset: The next step is to deploy the policy to a limited subset (either device types, groups of users, or both) of your overall coverage goal. This limits the number of deployment failures, and gives you time to adjust and tune the policy. The key is to start small so you don’t get overloaded during the tuning process. It is much easier to grow a small deployment than to deal with overwhelming fallout from a poorly tuned policy. Analyze and tune: During analysis and tuning you iteratively observe results and adjust the policy. If you see too many deployment/remediation failures or false positives you adjust the policy. Expand scope: Once the policy is tuned you can start thinking about expanding the deployment scope and size. You can add additional devices and groups of users, expand the number of applications being patched, etc. Full deployments should rarely happen as a big bang, so grow it slowly and surely to ensure you don’t risk the perception of deployment success by going too far too fast. Smaller organizations can often move quickly to full deployment, but we strongly suggest starting small – even if it’s only for a day. When setting up the policies it makes sense to revisit the processes for both patch and configuration management – as they govern what the tool does, what you and your staff do, and what outcomes you can expect. So let’s touch on each process and the associated policy decisions you need to make. Patch Management Policies In a perfect world, the patch management engine would just run and you could get back to World of Warcraft. Alas, the world isn’t perfect and patch management isn’t nearly as automated as we would all prefer. You can automate some aspects of the process (including monitoring for new patches), but ultimately you need to define which patches get applied in what order and build the installation packages. The good news is that once this is done the tools generally do a good job of automating installation, confirmation, and tracking. But there is still significant work to do up front. Put another way, patch management policies are unique for every patch cycle. Of course you can define consistent aspects of the process (such as maintenance windows and user notifications) for every cycle, but every cycle you need to decide what gets patched and what doesn’t. 1. Discovery and Target Definition Depending on whether you are rolling out a Quick Wins limited deployment, extending an existing deployment, or going all-in with a big bang full deployment, the first step is to load up the system with the devices to be managed. Besides loading up the assets you need to decide what to do when a new device is found to be out of compliance with policy. Do you force a patch deployment right away? You also need to define the frequency of revisiting the asset list (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.), because new devices need some endpoint security management love as well. 2. Obtain Patches The next step in patch management is actually finding the patches applicable to your environment. Here

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.