Securosis

Research

Implementing and Managing Patch and Configuration Management: Leveraging the Platform

This series has highlighted the intertwined nature of patch and configuration management. So we will wrap up by talking about leverage from using a common technology base (platform) for patching and configuration. Capabilities that can be used across both functions include: Discovery: You can’t protect an endpoint (or other device, for that matter) if you don’t know it exists. Once you get past the dashboard, the first key platform feature is discovery, which is leveraged across both patch and configuration management. The enemy of every security professional is surprise, so make sure you know about new devices as quickly as possible – including mobile devices. Asset Repository: Closely related to discovery is integration with an enterprise asset management system/CMDB to get a heads-up whenever a new device is provisioned. This is essential for monitoring and enforcement. You can learn about new devices proactively via integration or reactively via discovery – but either way, you need to know what’s out there. Dashboard: As the primary interface, this is the interaction point for the system. Using a single platform for both patch and configuration management; you will want the ability to only show certain elements, policies, and/or alerts to authorized users or groups; depending on their specific job functions. You will also want a broader cross-function view track what’s happening on an ongoing basis. With the current state of widget-based interface design, you can expect a highly customizable environment which lets each user configure what they need and how they want to see it. Alert Management: A security team is only as good as its last incident response, so alert management is critical. This allows administrators to monitor and manage policy violations which could represent a breach or failure to implement a patch. System Administration: You can expect the standard system status and administration capabilities within the platform, including user and group administration. Keep in mind that larger and more distributed environments should have some kind of role-based access control (RBAC) and hierarchical management to manage access and entitlements for a variety of administrators with varied responsibilities. Reporting: As we mentioned in our discussion of specific controls, compliance tends to fund and drive these investments, so it is necessary to document their efficacy. That applies to both patch and configuration management, and both functions should be included in reports. Look for a mixture of customizable pre-built reports and tools to facilitate ad hoc reporting – both at the specific control level and across the entire platform. Deployment Priorities Assuming you decide to use the same platform for patch and configuration management, which capability should you deploy first? Or will you go with a big bang implementation: both simultaneously? That last question was a setup. We advocate a Quick Wins approach: deploy one function first and then move on to the next. Which should go first? That depends on your buying catalyst. Here are a few catalysts which drive implementation of patch and configuration management: Breach: If you have just had a breach, you will be under tremendous pressure to fix everything now, and spend whatever is required to get it done. As fun as it can be to get a ton of shiny gear drop-shipped and throw it all out there, it’s the wrong thing to do. Patch and configuration management are operational processes, and without the right underlying processes the deployment will fail. If you traced the breach back to a failure to patch, by all means implement patch management first. Similarly, if a configuration error resulted in the loss, then start with configuration. Audit Deficiency: The same concepts apply if the catalyst was a findings document from your auditor mandating patch and/or configuration. The good news is that you have time between assessments to get projects done, so you can be much more judicious in your rollout planning. As long as everything is done (or you have a good reason if it isn’t) by your next assessment, you should be okay. All other things being equal, we tend to favor configuration management first, because configuration monitoring can alert you to compromised devices. Operational Efficiency: If the deployment is to make your operations staff more efficient, you can’t go wrong by deploying either patch or configuration first. Patch management tends to be more automated, so that’s likely a path of least resistance to quick value. But either choice will provide significant operational efficiencies. Summary And with that we wrap up this series. We have gone deeply into implementing and managing patch and configuration management – far deeper than most organizations ever need to get the technology up and running. We hope that our comprehensive approach provides all the background you need to hit the ground running. Take what you need, skip the rest, and let us know how it works. We will assemble the series into a paper over the next few weeks, so keep an eye out for the finished product, and you still have a chance to provide feedback. Just add a comment – don’t be bashful! Share:

Share:
Read Post

Friday Summary: November 16, 2012

A few weeks ago I was out in California, transferring large sums of my personal financial worth to a large rodent. This was the third time in about as many years I engaged in this activity – spending a chunk of my young children’s college fund on churros, overpriced hotel rooms, and tickets for the privilege of walking in large crowds to stand in endless lines. As a skeptical sort of fellow, I couldn’t help but ask myself why the entire experience makes me So. Darn. Happy. Every. Single. Time. When you have been working in security for a while you tend to become highly attuned to the onslaught of constant manipulation so endemic to our society. The constant branding, marketing lies, and subtle (and not-so-subtle) abuse of psychological cues to separate you from every penny you can borrow on non-existent assets – at least that’s how it works here in Arizona. When I walk into a Disney park I know they fill the front with overpriced balloons, time the parades and events to distribute the crowd, and conveniently offer a small token of every small experience, all shippable to your home for a minor fee. Even with that knowledge, I honestly don’t give a crap and surrender myself to the experience. This begs the question: why don’t I get as angry with Disney as I do with the FUD from security vendors? It certainly isn’t due to the smiles of my children – I have been enjoying these parks since before I even conceived (get it?) of having kids. And it isn’t just Disney – I also tend to disable the skepticnator for Jimmy Buffett, New Zealand, and a few (very few) other aspects of life. The answer comes down to one word: value. Those balloons? We bought one once… and the damn thing didn’t lose a mole of helium molecules over the 5 days we had it before giving it away to some incoming kid while departing our hotel. I think her parents hate us now. As expensive as Disney is, the parks (and much of the rest of the organization) fully deliver value for dollar. You might not agree, but that isn’t my problem. The parks are the best maintained in the business. The attention to detail goes beyond nearly anything you see anywhere else. For example, at Disneyland they update the Haunted Mansion with a whole Nightmare Before Christmas theme. They don’t merely add some external decorations and window dressing – they literally replace the animatronics inside the ride between Halloween and Christmas. It’s an entirely different experience. Hop on Netflix and compare the animation from nearly any other kids channel to the Disney stuff – there is a very visible quality difference. If you have a kid of the right age, there is no shortage of free games on the website. Download the Watch Disney app for your iDevice and they not only rotate the free shows, but they often fill it with some of the latest episodes and the holiday ones kids go nuts for. I am not saying they get everything right, but overall you get what you pay for, even if it costs more than some of the competition. And I fully understand that it’s a cash extraction machine. Buffett is the same way: I have never been to a bad concert, and even if his branded beer and tequila are crap, I get a lot of enjoyment value for each dollar I pay. Even after I sober up. It seems not many companies offer this sort of value. For example, I quite like my Ford but it is crystal clear that dealerships ‘optimize’ by charging more, doing less, and insisting that I am getting my money’s worth despite any contradictory evidence. How many technology vendors offer this sort of value? I think both Apple and Amazon are good examples on different ends of the cost spectrum, but what percentage of security companies hit that mark? To be honest, it’s something I worry about for Securosis all the time – value is something I believe in, and when you’re inside the machine it’s often hard to know if you are providing what you think. With another kid on the way the odds are low we’ll be getting back to Disney, or Buffett, any time soon. I suppose that’s good for the budget, but to be honest I look forward to the day the little one is big enough to be scared by a six foot rat in person. On to the Summary: Once again our writing volume is a little low due to extensive travel and end-of-year projects… Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Mr. Mortman on cloud security at VentureBeat. Adrian gets a nod on big data security. Favorite Securosis Posts Adrian Lane & David Mortman: Incite 11/7/2012: And the winner is… Math. Mike Rothman: Defending Against DoS Attacks [New Paper] and Index of Posts. Yes it’s a paper I wrote and that makes me a homer. But given the increasing prevalence of DoS attacks, it’s something you should get ahead of by reading the paper. Other Securosis Posts Implementing and Managing Patch and Configuration Management: Leveraging the Platform. Implementing and Managing Patch and Configuration Management: Configuration Management Operations. Implementing and Managing Patch and Configuration Management: Patch Management Operations. Implementing and Managing Patch and Configuration Management: Defining Policies. Building an Early Warning System: Internal Data Collection and Baselining. Building an Early Warning System: The Early Warning Process. Incite 11/14/2012: 24 Hours. Securing Big Data: Security Recommendations for Hadoop and NoSQL [New Paper]. Favorite Outside Posts (A few extras because we missed last week) Rich: Wher is Information Security’s Nate Silver? David Mortman: Maker of Airport Body Scanners Suspected of Falsifying Software Tests. Dave Lewis: Are you scared yet? Why cloud security keeps these 7 execs up at night. Mike Rothman: Superstorm Sandy Lessons: 100% Uptime Isn’t Always Worth It. Another key question is how much are you willing to pay to

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.