Securosis

Research

Firewall Management Essentials: Quick Wins

As we put a little bow on our Firewall Management Essentials series, it’s time to focus on getting quick value from your investment. We are big fans of a Quick Wins approach, because far too many technologies sputter as deployment lags and value commensurate with the investment is never seen. The quick wins approach focuses on building momentum early in the deployment by balancing what can be done right now against longer-term goals for a technology investment. If a project team doesn’t prove value early and often, that typically dooms the implementation to failure. For firewall management, the lowest hanging fruit is optimization of existing rule sets before implementing a strong change management process. But let’s not put the cart before the horse – first you need to deploy the tool and integrate it with other enterprise systems. Deployment and Integration The good news for firewall management is that one central server can handle quite a few firewalls – especially because the optimization and change management processes happen on a periodic, rather than continuous or real-time, basis. It’s not like management devices need to be inline and monitoring continuously, so the deployment architecture won’t make or break the implementation. Typically you deploy the firewall management server in a central location, and have it discover all the firewalls in your environment. You might kickstart the effort by feeding the list of existing firewalls into the management system. Do you want one central system, or a distributed environment? That depends on the scale of your environment and how quickly you need to be notified of changes. The longer the interval before rechecking each device’s configuration, the longer the window before you detect an unauthorized change. So you need to balance resource consumption against frequent checks to narrow the exploitation window between exploitation and detection. The deployment architecture depends more on the frequency of monitoring for configuration changes than on anything else. The change process (workflow) can run off the central server. And the math to optimize a rule set doesn’t consume resources on a firewall. We have seen large firewall environments (think service providers) managed by a handful of firewall management devices – multiple devices installed for availability and redundancy, rather than for performance reasons. For integration, as described earlier in this series, you will want to pull or push information from tools like a vulnerability management system, a SIEM/log management tool, and/or a reporting/GRC system. Most of these tools have well-established APIs, and it is reasonable to expect your vendor to already have integrated with the leading tools in these categories. Pulling information into the firewall management tool provides more context to understand what changes pose what risk. The area where you will gain the most value from enterprise integration is the help desk/task management system. Given the operational leverage of automating an effective firewall change management process, you will want to make sure changes are tracked in whatever tool(s) the operations team uses so you don’t have two sources of information, and everything is in sync. The good news is that these operational tools are mature, with mature SDKs for integration. Again, it is reasonable to expect your firewall management vendor to have already integrated with your work management environment. Getting the Quick Win and Showing Value We covered the change management process first in this series, because over time it is where we typically see the most sustainable value accrued. But in a quick wins scenario we need to get something done now. So going through existing firewalls and pinpointing areas of improvement, in terms of both security and performance, can yield the quick win we want. This is the optimization process. The first job is to get value, but that is no good unless you can communicate it. So look to reports to highlight the results of the early optimization efforts. You will want to show things like how many unused rules were eliminated (reducing attack surface), as well as whether any of your old rules conflicted, and how the cleanup improved security. This quick effort (it should take a day or two) can build momentum for the next area of focus: change management. Once the change management process is accepted in the environment and enumerated in the firewall management tool, you can start tracking service levels and response times on changes happening daily. You can also track the number of times changes that would have increased attack surface were flagged (and stopped) before going operational, to show how the tool reduces risk and increases the accuracy of firewall changes. This highlights the benefits of a firewall management tools to reduce the risk of a faulty rule change and adding attack surface. A what-if analysis of potential changes can ensure that nothing will break (or crush performance) before actually making a change. You can also demonstrate value by migrating rules from one firewall to another. If you need to support a heterogeneous environment, or are currently moving to a NGFW-based architecture, these tools can provide value by suggesting rule sets based on existing policies and optimizing them for the new platform. If you are a glutton for punishment you can migrate one device without using the tool (busting out your old spreadsheets), and then use the firewall management tool for the next migration for a real comparison. Or you can use an anecdote (we saved XX days by using the tool) to communicate the value of the firewall management tool. Either way, substantiate the value of the tool to your operational process. Finally, at some point after deploying the tool, you will have an assessment or audit. You can then both leverage and quantify the value of the firewall management tool, in terms of saving time and increasing the accuracy of audit documentation. Depending on the regulation, the tool is likely to include a pre-built report which requires minimal customization the first time you go through the audit, in order to generate documentation and substantiate your firewall controls. You have now learned a bit about how to manage your firewalls in a

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.