Full Disk Encryption (FDE) Advice from a Reader

I am doing some work on FDE (if you are using the Securosis Nexus, I just added a small section on it), and during my research one of our readers sent in some great advice. Here are some suggestions from Guillaume Ross @gepeto42: Things to Check before Deploying FDE Support Ensure the support staff that provides support during business days is able to troubleshoot any type of issue or view any type of logs. If the main development of the product is in a different timezone, ensure this will have no impact on support. I have witnessed situations where logs were in binary formats that support staff could not read. They had to be sent to developers on a different continent. The back and forth for a simple issue can quickly turn into weeks when you can only send and receive one message per day. If you are planning a massive deployment, ensure the vendor has customers with similar types of deployments using similar methods of authentication. Documentation Look for a vendor who makes documentation available easily. This is no different than for any enterprise software, but due to the nature of encryption and the impact software with storage related drivers can have on your endpoint deployments and support, this is critical. (Rich: Make sure the documentation is up to date and accurate. We had another reader report on a critical feature removed from a product but still in the documentation – which lead to every laptop being encrypted with the same key. Oops.) Local and remote recovery Some solutions offer a local recovery solution that allow the user to resolve forgotten password issues without having to call support to obtain a one time password. Think about what this means for security if it is based on “secret questions/answers”. Test the remote recovery process and ensure support staff have the proper training on recovery. Language If you have to support users in multiple languages and/or multiple language configurations, ensure the solution you are purchasing has a method for detecting what keyboard should be used. It can be frustrating for users and support staff to realize a symbol isn’t in the same place on the default US keyboard and on a Canadian French keyboard. Test this. (Rich: Some tools have on-screen keyboards now to deal with this. Multiple users have reported this as a major problem.) Password complexity and expiration If you sync with an external source such as Active Directory, consider the fact that most solutions offer offline pre-boot authentication only. This means that expired passwords combined with remote access solutions such as webmail, terminal services, etc. could create support issues. Situation: The user goes home. Brings his laptop. From home, on his own computer or tablet, uses an application published in Citrix, which prompts him to change his Active Directory password which expired. The company laptop still has the old password cached. Consider making passwords expire less often if you can afford it, and consider trading complexity for length as it can help avoid issues between minor keyboard mapping differences. Management Consider the management features offered by each vendor and see how they can be tied to your current endpoint management strategy. Most vendors offer easy ways to configure machines for automatic booting for a certain period or number of boots to help with patch management, but is that enough for you to perform an OS refresh? Does the vendor provide all the information you need to build images with the proper drivers in them to refresh over an OS that has FDE enabled? If you never perform OS refreshes and provide users with new computers that have the new OS, this could be a lesser concern. Otherwise, ask your vendor how you will upgrade encrypted workstations to the next big release of the OS. Authentication There are countless ways to deal with FDE authentication. It is very possible that multiple solutions need to be used in order to meet the security requirements of different types of workstations. TPM: Some vendors support TPMs combined with a second factor (PIN or password) to store keys and some do not. Determine what your strategy will be for authentication. If you decide that you want to use TPM, be aware that the same computer, sold in different parts of the world, could have a different configuration when it comes to cryptographic components. Some computers sold in China would not have the TPM. Apple computers do not include a TPM any more, so a hybrid solution might be required if you require cross-platform support. USB Storage Key: A USB storage key is another method of storing the key separately from the hard drive. Users will leave these USB storage keys in their laptop bags. Ensure your second factor is secure enough. Assume USB storage will be easier to copy than a TPM or a smart card. Password sync or just a password: A solution to avoid having users carry a USB stick or a smart card, and in the case of password sync, two different sets of credentials to get up and running. However, it involves synchronization as well as keyboard mapping issues. If using sync, it also means a simple phishing attack on a user’s domain account could lead to a stolen laptop being booted. Smart cards: More computers now include smart card readers than ever before. As with USB and TPM, this is a neat way of keeping the keys separate from the hard drive. Ensure you have a second factor such as a PIN in case someone loses the whole bundle together. Automatic booting: Most FDE solutions allow automatic booting for patch management purposes. While using it is often necessary, turning it on permanently would mean that everything needed to boot the computer is just one press of the power button away. Miscellaneous bits Depending on your environment, FDE on desktops can have value. However, do not rush to deploy it on workstations used by multiple users (meeting rooms, training, workstations used by multiple

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.