Securosis

Research

Firewall Management Essentials: Optimizing Rules

Now that you have a solid, repeatable, and automated firewall change management process, it’s time to delve into the next major aspect of managing your firewalls: optimizing rules. Back in our introduction we talked about how firewall rule sets tend to resemble a closet over time. You have a ton of crap in there, most of which you don’t use, and whatever you do use is typically hard to get to. So you need to occasionally clean up and reorganize – getting rid of stuff you don’t need, making sure the stuff that’s still in there should be, and arranging things so you can easily access the stuff you use the most. But let’s drop the closet analogy to talk firewall specifics. You need to optimize rules for a variety of reasons: Eliminate duplicate rules: When you have a lot of hands in the rule base, rules can get duplicated. Especially when the management process doesn’t require a search to make sure an overlapping rule doesn’t already exist. Address conflicting rules: At times you may add a rule (such as ALLOW PORT 22) to address a short-term issue, even though you might have other rules to lock down the port or application. Depending on where the rule resides in the tree, the rules may conflict, either adding attack surface or breaking functionality. Get rid of old and unused rules: If you don’t go back into the rule set every so often to ensure your rules are relevant, you are bound to have rules that are no longer necessary, such as access to that old legacy mainframe application that was decommissioned 4 years ago. It is also useful to go back and confirm with each rule’s business owner that their application still needs that access, and they accept responsibility for it. Simplify the rule base: The more rules, the more complicated the rule base, and the more likely something will go wrong. By analyzing and optimizing rules on a periodic basis, you can find and remove unneeded complexity. Improving performance: If you have frequently used rules at the bottom of the tree, the firewall needs to go through every preceding rule to reach them. That can bog down performance, so you want the most frequently hit rules as early as possible. Without conflicting with other rules, of course. Controlling network risk: Networks are very dynamic, so you need to ensure that every network or device configuration change doesn’t add attack surface, requiring a firewall rule change. For all these reasons, going through the rule base on a regular basis is key to keeping firewalls running optimally. Every rule should be required to support the business, and optimally configured. Key Firewall Management Rule Optimization Features The specific features you should get in your firewall management product or service apply directly to the requirements above. Centralized management: A huge benefit of more actively managing firewalls is the ability to enforce a set of consistent policies across all firewalls, regardless of vendor. So you need a scalable tool that supports all your devices. You should have a single authoritative source for firewall policies. Rule change recommendations: If a firewall rule set gets complicated enough it’s hard for any human – even your best security admin – to keep everything straight. So a tool should be able to mine the existing rule set (thousands of rules) to find and get rid of duplicate, hidden, unused, and expired rules. Tools should assess the risk of the rules, and flag rules which allow too much access (you know: ANY ANY). Optimize rule order: A key aspect of improving firewall performance is making sure the most-hit rules are closer to the top of the tree. The tool should track which rules are hit most often through firewall log analysis, and suggest an ordering to optimize performance without increasing exposure. Simulating rule changes: Clever ideas can turn out badly if a change conflicts with other rules or opens up (or closes) the wrong ports/protocols/applications/users/groups, etc. The tool should simulate rule changes and a prediction of whether the change is likely to present problems. Monitoring network topology and device configuration: Every network and device configuration change can expose additional attack surface, so the tool needs to analyze every proposed change in context of the existing rule set. This involves polling managed devices for their configurations on a periodic basis, as well as monitoring routing tables. Compliance checking: Related to monitoring topology and configurations, changes can also cause compliance violations. SO you need the firewall management tool to flag rule changes that might violate any relevant compliance mandates. Recertify rules: The firewall management tool should offer a mechanism to go back to business owners to ensure rules are still relevant and that they accept responsibility for their rules. You should be able to set an expiration date on a rule, and then require an owner to confirm each rule is still necessary. Getting rid of old rules is one of the most effective ways to optimize a rule set. Asking for Forgiveness Speaking of firewall rule recertification, you certainly can go through the process of chasing down all the business owners of rules, if you know who they are, and getting them to confirm each rule is still needed. That’s a lot of work. You could choose a less participatory approach as well: make changes and then ask forgiveness if you break something. There are a couple options with this approach: Turn off unused rules: Use the firewall management tool’s ability to flag unused rules and just turn them off. If someone complains you know the rule is still required and you can assume they would be willing to recertify the rule. If not you can get rid of it. Blow out the rule base: You can also burn the rule base to the ground and wait for complaints to start about applications that broke as a result. This is only sane in dire circumstance, where no one will take responsibility for rules or people are totally unresponsive to your attempts to clean things up. But it’s certainly an option. NGFW Support With the move

Share:
Read Post

Black Hat West Cloud Security Training

I am psyched to announce that our Black Hat Vegas class went well, and we have been invited to teach in Seattle December 9-10 and 11-12. As before, we will be bringing some advanced material, but you shouldn’t be scared off – advanced skillz are not required to make it through the class. You can sign up for the class here. The short description is: CLOUD SECURITY PLUS (CCSK-Plus) Provide students with the practical knowledge they need to understand the real cloud security issues and solutions. The Cloud Security Plus class provides students a comprehensive two-day review of cloud security fundamentals and prepares them to take the Cloud Security Alliance Certificate of Cloud Computing Security Knowledge (CCSK) exam (this course is also known as the CCSK-Plus). Starting with a detailed description of cloud computing, the course covers all major domains in the latest Guidance document from the Cloud Security Alliance, and includes a full day of hands-on cloud security training covering both public and private cloud. 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.