Securosis

Research

Security’s Future: Implications for Cloud Providers

This is the fifth post in a series on the future of information security, which will be the basis for a white paper. You can leave feedback here as a blog comment, or even submit edits directly over at GitHub, where we are running the entire editing process in public. This is the initial draft, and I expect to trim the content by about 20%. The entire outline is available. See the first post, second post, third post and fourth post. Implications for Cloud and Infrastructure Providers Security is (becoming) a top-three priority for cloud and infrastructure providers of all types. For providers with enterprise customers and those which handle regulated data, security is likely the first priority. As important as it is to offer compelling and innovative services to customers, a major security failure has the potential to wipe out clients’ ability to trust you – even before legal liabilities. If you handle information with value on behalf of your customers, you are, for nearly all intents and purposes, a form of bank. Trust Is a Feature Enterprises can’t transition to the cloud without trust. Their stakeholders and regulators simply won’t support it. Consumers may, to a point, but only the largest and most popular properties can withstand the loss of trust induced by a major breach. There are 5 corollaries: Customers need a baseline of security features to migrate to the cloud. This varies by the type of service, but features such as federated identity, data security, and internal access controls are table stakes. Cloud providers need a baseline of inherent security to withstand attacks, as well as customer-accessible security features to enable clients to implement their security strategies. You are a far bigger target than any single customer, and will experience advanced attacks on a regular basis. Centralizing resources alters the economics of attacks, inducing bad guys to incur higher costs for the higher rewards of access to all a cloud provider’s customers at once. User own their data. Even if it isn’t in a contract or SLA, if you affect their data in a way they don’t expect, that breaks trust just as surely as a breach. Multitenancy isolation failures are a material risk for you and your customers. If a customer’s data is accidentally exposed to another customer, that is, again, a breach of security and trust. People have been hunting multitenancy breaks in online services for years, and criminals sign up for services just to hunt for more. Trust applies to your entire cloud supply chain. Many cloud providers also rely on other providers. If you own the customer trust relationship you are responsible for any failures in the digital supply chain. It isn’t enough to simply be secure – you also need to build trust and enable your customers’ security strategies. Building Security in The following features and principles allow customers to align their security needs with cloud services, and are likely to become competitive differentiators over time: Support APIs for security functions. Cloud platforms and infrastructure shouldn’t merely expose APIs for cloud features; but also for security functions such as identity management, access control, network security, and whatever else falls under customer control. This enables security management and integration. Don’t require customers to log into your web portal to manage security – although you also need to expose all those functions in your user interface. Provide logs and activity feeds. Extensive logging and auditing are vital for security – especially for monitoring the cloud management plane. Expose as much data, as close to in real time, as possible. Transparency is a powerful security enabler provided by centralization of services and data. Feeds should be easily consumable in standard formats such as JSON. Simplify federated identity management. Federation allows organizations to extend their existing identity and access management to the cloud while retaining control. Supporting federation for dozens or hundreds of external providers is daunting, with entire products available to address that issue. Make it as easy as possible for your customers to use federation, and stick to popular standards that integrate with existing enterprise directories. Also support the full lifecycle of identity management, from creation and propagation to changing roles and retirement. Extend security to endpoints. We have focused on the cloud, but mobility is marching right alongside, and just as disruptive. Endpoint access to services and data – including apps, APIs, and web interfaces – should support all security features equally across platforms. Clearly document security differences across platforms, such as the different data exposure risks on an iOS device vs. Android device vs. laptops. Encrypt by default. If you hold customer data encrypt it. Even if you don’t think encryption adds much security, it empowers trust and supports compliance. Then allow customers who want, to control their own keys. This is technically and operationally complex, but becomes a competitive differentiator, and can eliminate many data security concerns and smooth cloud adoption. Maintain security table stakes. Different types of services handling different types of workflows and data tend to share a security baseline. Fall below it and customers will be drawn to the competition. For example IaaS providers must include basic network security on a per-server level. SaaS providers need to support different user roles for access management. These change over time so watch your competition and listen to customer requests. Document security. Provide extensive documentation for both your internal security controls and the security features customers can use. Have them externally audited and assessed. This allows customers to know where the security lines are drawn, where they need to implement their own security controls, and how. Pay particular attention to documenting the administrator controls that restrict your staff’s ability to see customer data and audit when they do. These are nothing near all the security features and capabilities cloud providers should consider, but they strongly align with the way we see enterprise security evolving. Conclusion Once, many years ago, I had the good fortune to enjoy a few beers with futurist and science fiction author Bruce Sterling. That night he told me that his job as a futurist is to try to

Share:
Read Post

Incite 2/5/2014: Super Dud

I’m sure long-time Incite readers know I am a huge football fan. I have infected the rest of my family, and we have an annual Super Bowl party with 90+ people to celebrate the end of each football season. I have laughed (when Baltimore almost blew a 20 point lead last year), cried (when the NY Giants won in 2011), and always managed to have a good time. Even after I stopped eating chicken wings cold turkey (no pun intended), I still figure out a way to pollute my body with pizza, chips, and Guinness. Of course, lots of Guinness. It’s not like I need to drive home or anything. This year I was very excited for the game. The sentimental favorite, Peyton Manning, was looking to solidify his legacy. The upstart Seahawks with the coach who builds his players up rather than tearing them down. The second-year QB who everyone said was too short. The refugee wide receiver from the Pats, with an opportunity to make up for the drop that gave the Giants the ring a few years ago. So many story lines. Such a seemingly evenly matched game. #1 offense vs. #1 defense. Let’s get it on! I was really looking forward to hanging on the edge of my seat as the game came down to the final moments, like the fantastic games of the last few years. And then the first snap of the game flew over Peyton’s head. Safety for the Seahawks. 2-0 after 12 seconds. It went downhill from there. Way downhill. The wives and kids usually take off at halftime because it’s a school night. But many of the hubbies stick around to watch the game, drink some brew, and mop up whatever deserts were left by the vultures of the next generation. But not this year. The place cleared out during halftime and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t in protest at the chili peppers parading around with no shirts. The game was terrible. Those sticking around for the second half seemed to figure Peyton would make a run. It took 12 seconds to dispel that myth, as Percy Harvin took the second half kick-off to the house. It was over. I mean really over. But it’s the last football game of the year, so I watched until the end. Maybe Richard Sherman would do something to make the game memorable. But that wasn’t to be, either. He was nothing but gracious in the interviews. WTF? Overall it was a forgettable Super Bowl. The party was great. My stomach and liver hated me the next day, as is always the case. And we had to deal with Rich being cranky because his adopted Broncos got smoked. But it’s not all bad. Now comes the craziness leading up to the draft, free agency, and soon enough training camp. It makes me happy that although football is gone, it’s not for long. –Mike Photo credit: “Mountain Dew flavoured Lip Balm and Milk Duds!!!” originally uploaded by Jamie Moore Heavy Research We are 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. The Future of Information Security What it means (Part 3) Six Trends Changing the Face of Security A Disruptive Collision Introduction Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Security Monitoring The Threat Intelligence + Security Monitoring Process Revisiting Security Monitoring Benefiting from the Misfortune of Others Reducing Attack Surface with Application Control Use Cases and Selection Criteria The Double Edged Sword Advanced Endpoint and Server Protection Assessment Introduction Newly Published Papers Eliminating Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing What CISOs Need to Know about Cloud Computing Defending Against Application Denial of Service Security Awareness Training Evolution Firewall Management Essentials Continuous Security Monitoring API Gateways Threat Intelligence for Ecosystem Risk Management Dealing with Database Denial of Service Identity and Access Management for Cloud Services Incite 4 U Scumbag Pen Testers: Check out the Chief Monkey’s dispatch detailing pen testing chicanery. These shysters cut and pasted from another report and used the findings as a means to try to extort additional consulting and services from the client. Oh, man. The Chief has some good tips about how to make sure you aren’t suckered by these kinds of scumbags either. I know a bunch of this stuff should be pretty obvious, but clearly an experienced and good CISO got taken by these folks. And make sure you pay the minimum amount up front, and then on results. – MR Scumbags develop apps too: We seem to be on a scumbag theme today, so this is a great story from Barracuda’s SignNow business about how they found a black hat app developer trying to confuse the market and piggyback on SignNow’s brand and capabilities. Basically copy an app, release a crappy version of it, confuse buyers by ripping off the competitor’s positioning and copy, and then profit. SignNow sent them a cease and desist letter (gotta love those lawyers) and the bad guys did change the name of the app. But who knows how much money they made in the meantime. Sounds a lot like a tale as old as time… – MR He was asking for it: As predicted and with total consistency, the PCI Security Standards Council has once again blamed the victim, defended the PCI standard, and assured the public that nothing is wrong here. In an article at bankinfosecurity.com, Bob Russo of the SSC says: “As the most recent industry forensic reports indicate, the majority of the breaches happening are a result of some kind of breakdown in security basics – poor implementation, poor maintenance of controls. And the PCI standards [already] cover these security controls”. Well, it’s all good, right? Except nobody is capable of meeting the standard consistently, and all these breaches are against PCI Certified organizations. But nothing wrong with the standard – it’s the victim’s fault. You

Share:
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.