Securosis

Research

ENISA BYOD FTW

ENISA released a solid BYOD/Consumeriation of IT guide. At first I was turned off by phrases in the executive summary like: Ensure that governance aspects are derived from business processes and protection requirements, and are defined before dealing with technology. But once you get into it, this is a great starter guide that includes both policy and technical pieces. Best part: a lot of examples and links to real world projects. Worst parts: the DLP bits don’t reflect what’s available (over-estimates); and some vendor-specific language. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Pwn Ur Cisco Phone

what’s the deal with the cisco phone eavesdropping hack? These phones are basically little computers. If an attacker can take control of it, they can do the same things from it that they could by using a rogue or compromised system on a network. The “eavesdropping mic” is just one of many ways the compromised phone could be used. Yup, there is a demo out there of someone taking over a Cisco IP phone because basically it’s a computer. Even better, it’s a computer that allows privilege escalation via a kernel exploit if someone has access to the phone. Of course Lonervamp brings up one of the key issues, which is exfiltration. So if someone can eavesdrop on my very interesting heavy breathing during my deep research endeavors, they still have to get the data off the phone and out of the network. Remember back to Rich’s awesome data breach triangle. No exfiltration, no breach for you (in my Soup Nazi voice). But all the same, folks just plug stuff into their networks without a lot of thought for how these devices can become weapons against them. At some point they will, or not. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Understanding Identity Management for Cloud Service: The Solution Space

Adrian and Gunnar here: After spending a few weeks getting updates from Identity and Access Management (IAM) service vendors – as well as a couple weeks for winter break – we have gathered the research we need to delve into the meat of our series on Understanding and Selecting Identity Management for Cloud Services. Our introductory post outlined the topics we will cover. This series is intended as a market overview, taking a broad look at issues you need to consider when evaluating cloud-based identity support systems. The intro hinted at the reasons cloud computing models force change in our approaches to access control, but today’s post will flesh out the problems of cloud IAM. The cloud excels at providing enterprise with apps and data. But what about identity information? Companies face issues trying to retain control of identity management while taking advantage of the cloud. The goal is to unify identity management for internal and external user across both traditional IT and third party cloud services. It is possible to manage user access to cloud computing resources in-house, but the architecture must address take integration complexity and management costs into account. Most organizations – particularly enterprises – find these inconveniences outweigh the benefits. For many of the same reasons (including on-demand service, elasticity, broad network access, reduction in capital expenditures, and total cost) companies adopt cloud computing services instead of in-house services, and they also leverage third-party cloud services to manage identity and access management. Managing identity was a lot simpler when the client-server computing model was the norm, and users were mostly limited to a desktop PC with another set of credentials to access a handful of servers.. set up the ACLs, sprinkle on some roles, and voila! But as servers and applications multiplied, the “endpoint” shifted from fixed desktop to remote devices, and servers were integrated to other server domains – never mind ACLs and roles, what realm are we in? – we used directory services to provide a single identity management repository, and help propagate identity across the enterprise. Now we have an explosion of external service providers: financial applications, cloud storage, social media, workflow, CRM, email, collaboration, and web conferencing, to name a few. These ‘extra-enterprise’ services are business critical, but don’t directly link into traditional directory services. Cloud computing services turn identity management on its ear. The big shift comes in three main parts: IT no longer owns the servers and applications the organization relies upon, provider capabilities are not fully compatible with existing internal systems, and the ways users consume cloud services have changed radically. In fact an employee may consume corporate cloud services without ever touching in-house IT systems. Just about every enterprise uses Software as a Service (SaaS), and many use Platform and Infrastructure as a Service (PaaS and IaaS, respectively) as well – each with its own approaches to Identity and Access Management. Extending traditional corporate identity services outside the corporate environment is not a trivial effort – it requires integration of existing IAM systems with the cloud service provider(s). Most companies rely on dozens of cloud service providers, each with a different set of identity and authorization capabilities, as well as different programatic and web interfaces. The time, effort, and cost to develop and maintain links with each service provider can be overwhelming. Cloud Identity Solutions Ideally we want to extend the existing in-house identity management capabilities to third-party systems, minimizing the work for IT management while delivering services to end users with minimal disruption. And we would like to maintain control over user access – adding and removing users as needed, and propagating new authorization policies without significant latency. We also want to collect information on access and policy status that help meet security and compliance requirements. And rather than build a custom bridge to each and every third-party service, we would like a simple management interface that extends our controls and policies to the various third-party services. Features and benefits common to most cloud identity and access management systems include: Authentication, Single Sign-on (SSO): One of the core services is the ability to authenticate users based on provided credentials, and then allow each user to access multiple (internal and external) services without having to repeatedly supply credentials to each service. Offering SSO to users is, of course, just about the only time anyone is happy to see the security team show up – make the most of it! Identity Federation: Federated identity is where identity and authorization settings are collected from multiple identity management systems, enabling different systems to define user capabilities and access. Identity and authorization are a shared responsibility across multiple authoritative sources. Federated identity is a superset of authentication and single sign-on. Federation made headway as a conveyance engine for SSO and Web Services. Its uptake in cloud has been substantial because its core architecture helps companies navigate one of the thornier cloud issues: retaining in-house control of user accounts while leveraging cloud apps and data. Granular authorization controls: Access is typically not an ‘all-or-nothing’ proposition – each user is allowed access to a subset of functions and data stored in the cloud. Authorization maps instruct applications which resources to provide to each user. How much control you have over each user’s access depends, both on the capabilities of the cloud service provider and on the capabilities of the IAM system. The larger industry trends – in authorization in general and the cloud specifically – are a focus on finer-grained access control, and removing access policy from code as much as possible. In a nutshell, roles are necessary but not sufficient for authorization – you need attributes too. You also do not want to spelunk through millions of lines of code to define/review/change/audit them, so they should be configurable and data driven. Administration: User administrators generally prefer a single management pane for administering users and managing identity across multiple services. The goal of most cloud IAM systems is to do just that, but they

Share:
Read Post

Prove It to Use It

“Last year, one billion dollars was stolen in the U.S. by Romanian hackers,” says American ambassador in Bucharest, Mark Gitenstein. I expect to see this used in plenty of presentations and press releases in the coming months. If you use the number, you have to prove it is real. Good luck with that. Share:

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.