Securosis

Research

Research Scratchpad: Stateless Security

Here’s another idea I’ve been playing with. As I spend more time playing with various cloud and infrastructure APIs, I’m starting to come around to the idea of Stateless Security. Here’s what I mean: Right now, a reasonable number of our security tools rely on their own internal databases for tracking state. Now for something like IPS this isn’t a problem, but there are a lot of other functions that have to rely on potentially stale data since there are only so many times we can run security checks before pissing off the rest of the infrastructure. Take configuration and vulnerability management — we tend to lack even an accurate idea of our assets and have to scan the heck out of our environment to keep track of things. But as both security tools and infrastructure expose APIs, we can use Software Defined Security to pull data, in real time, from the most canonical source, rather than relying on synchronization or external scanning. Take the example I wrote up in my SecuritySquirrel proof of concept. We pull a real time snapshot of running instances directly from the cloud, then correlate it with a real time feed from our configuration management tool in order to quickly identify any unmanaged servers. I originally looked at building a simple database to track everything, but quickly realized I could handle it more quickly and accurately in memory resident code. Even 100,000 servers could easily be managed like this with the memory in your laptop (well, depending on the responsiveness of the API calls). The more I think about it, the more I can see a lot of other use cases. We could pull data from various security tools and the infrastructure itself, performing real time assessments instead of replicating databases. Now it won’t work everywhere, and maybe not even in the majority of cases, but especially as we add more API enabled infrastructure and applications it seems to open a lot of doors. Using a software defined network? Need to know the real-time route to a particular server and correlate with firewall rules based on a known vulnerability? With stateless security this is potentially a few dozen lines of code (or less) that could trigger automatically anytime a new vulnerability is either detected or an advisory released (just add your threat intelligence feed). The core concept is, wherever possible, pull state in real time from the most canonical source available. I’m curious what other people think about this idea. Share:

Share:
Read Post

New Paper: The 2014 Endpoint Security Buyer’s Guide

Our updated and revised 2014 Endpoint Security Buyer’s Guide updates our research on key endpoint management functions, including patch and confirmation management and device control. We have also added coverage of anti- … malware, mobility, and BYOD. All very timely and relevant topics. The bad news is that securing endpoints hasn’t gotten any easier. Employees still click things, and attackers have gotten better at evading perimeter defenses and obscuring attacks. Humans, alas, remain gullible and flawed. Regardless of any training you provide employees, they continue to click stuff, share information, and fall for simple social engineering attacks. So endpoints remain some of the weakest links in your security defenses. As much as the industry wants to discuss advanced attacks and talk about how sophisticated adversaries have become, the simple truth remains that many successful attacks result from simple operational failures. So yes, you do need to pay attention to advanced malware protection tactics, but if you forget about the fundamental operational aspects of managing endpoint hygiene, the end result will be the same. The goal of this guide remains to provide clear buying criteria for those of you looking at endpoint security solutions in the near future. The landing page is in our Research Library. You can also download The 2014 Endpoint Security Buyer’s Guide (PDF) directly. We would like to thank Lumension Security for licensing the content in this paper. Obviously we wouldn’t be able to do the research we do, or offer it to you without cost, without companies supporting our work. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 8/21/2013: Hygienically Challenged

I spend a lot of time in public places. I basically work in coffee shops and spend more than my fair share of time in airports and restaurants. There is nothing worse than being in the groove, banging out a blog post, and then catching a whiff of someone – before I can see them. I start to wonder if the toilet backed up or something died in the wall. Then I look around the coffee shop and notice the only open table is next to you. no. No. NO. Yes, the sticky dude sits right next to you. Now I’m out of my productivity zone and worried about whether the insides of your nostrils are totally burned out. Sometimes I’m tempted to carry some Tiger Balm with me, just to put under my nose when in distress. Yes it would burn like hell, but that’s better than smelling body odor (BO) for the next couple of hours. It’s not just BO. How about those folks that bathe in stinky perfume? Come on Man! The Boy had a tutor once that just dumped old lady perfume on. I wonder if she thought we were strange because we had all the windows in the house open in the middle of winter. Finally the Boss had to tell her the perfume was causing an allergic reaction. Seems we’re all allergic to terrible perfume. I just don’t get it. Do these folks not take a minute to smell their shirt before they emerge from the house? Do they think the smell of some perfumes (like the scent that smells like blood, sweat and spit) is attractive or something? Do they have weak olfactory senses? Do they just not care? I know some cultures embrace natural human smells. But not the culture of Mike. If you stink, you should bathe and wear clean clothes. If you leave a trail of scent for two hours after you leave, you may be wearing too much perfume. There’s got to be a Jeff Foxworthy joke in there somewhere. What should I do? There are no other tables available in the coffee shop. I could throw in the towel and move to a different location. I could suggest to the person they are hygienically challenged and ask them to beat it. I could go all passive aggressive and tattle to the barristas, and ask them to deal with it. Maybe I’ll get one of those nose clips the kids wear when swimming to keep my nostrils closed. But I’ll do none of the above. What I’ll do is sit there. I won’t be chased away by some smelly dude. I mean, I paid my $2.50 to sit here as long as I want. So I pull the cover off my coffee and take a big whiff of java every 10 seconds or so to chase away the stench. By the way, it’s hard to type when you are inhaling coffee fumes. It’s unlikely I’ll get a lot done, but I have no where else to be, I can just wait it out. Which is stupid. My ridiculous ego won’t accept that body odor is likely covered under the 1st Amendment, so I couldn’t make the guy leave even if I wanted to. I’ll suffer the productivity loss to prove nothing to no one, instead of hitting another of the 10 coffee shops within a 5 mile radius of wherever I am. Thankfully I have legs that work and a car that drives. I can just go somewhere else, and I should. Now when the stinky dude occupies the seat next to you on a 7 hour flight, that’s a different story. There is no where to go, but 30,000 feet down. In that case, I’ll order a Jack and Coke, even at 10 in the morning. I’ll accidentally spill it. OOPS. You have to figure the waft of JD > BO every day of the week. -Mike Photo credit: “body_odor“_ originally uploaded by istolethetv Heavy Research We’re back at work on a variety of blog series, so here is a list of the research currently underway. Remember you can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, where you can get all our content in its unabridged glory. And you can get all our research papers too. Ecosystem Threat Intelligence The Risk of the Extended Enterprise Continuous Security Monitoring Migrating to CSM The Compliance Use Case The Change Control Use Case The Attack Use Case Classification Defining CSM Why. Continuous. Security. Monitoring? Database Denial of Service Countermeasures Attacks Introduction API Gateways Implementation Key Management Developer Tools Newly Published Papers The CISO’s Guide to Advanced Attackers Defending Cloud Data with Infrastructure Encryption Network-based Malware Detection 2.0: Assessing Scale, Accuracy, and Deployment Quick Wins with Website Protection Services Email-based Threat Intelligence: To Catch a Phish Network-based Threat Intelligence: Searching for the Smoking Gun Incite 4 U Define “Integration”: So Forrester’s Rick Holland took the time machine for a spin advocating for security solution integration and the death of point solutions. Nothing like diving back into the murky waters of the integrated suite vs. best of breed issue. It’s not like a lot has changed. Integration helps reduce complexity, at the alleged cost of innovation since it’s mostly big, lumbering companies that offer integrated solutions. That may be an unfair characterization, but it’s been mostly true. Then he uses an example of FireEye’s partnerships as a means to overcome this point solution issue. Again, not new. The security partner program has been around since Check Point crushed everyone in the firewall market with OPSEC in an effort to act big, even as a start-up. But the real question isn’t whether a vendor has good BD folks that can get contracts signed. It’s whether the solutions are truly integrated. And unless the same company owns the technologies, any integrations are a matter of convenience, not necessity. – MR Movies are real: Yesterday I had an interview with a mainstream reporter about some of the research presented at DEF CON this year. Needless to say, there was the ubiquitous “terrorism” question. It

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.