Securosis

Research

Multi-Cloud Key Management: Use Cases

This post will cover some issues and concerns customers cite when considering a move – or more carefully reassessing a move they have already made – to cloud services. To provide some context to this discussion, one of the major mental adjustments security folks need to make when moving to cloud services is where their responsibilities begin and end. You are no longer responsible for physical security of cloud systems, and do not control the security of resource pools (e.g.: compute, storage, network), so your areas of concern move “up the stack”. With IaaS you control applications, data, user access, and network accessibility. With SaaS, you’re limited to data and user access. With either you are more limited in the tools at your disposal, either provided natively by your vendor or third-party tools which work with the specific cloud service. The good news is that the cloud shrinks your overall set of responsibilities. Whether or not these are appropriate to your use case is a different question. Fielding customer calls on data security for the better part of the last decade, we learned inquiries regarding on-premise systems typically start with the data repository. For example, “I need to protect my database”, “My SAN vendor provides encryption, but what threats does that protect us from?” or “I need to protect sensitive data on my file servers.” In these conversations, once we understand the repository and the threats to address, we can construct a data security plan. They usually center on some implementation of encryption with supporting key management, access management, and possibly masking/tokenization technologies. In the cloud encryption is still the primary to tool for data security, but the starting points of conversations have been different. The issues are more about needs than by threats. The following are the main issues cited by customers: PII: Personally Identifiable Information – essentially sensitive data specific to a user or customer – is the top concern. PII includes things like social security numbers, credit card numbers, account numbers, passwords, and other sensitive data types, as defined by various regulations. And it’s highly very common for what companies move into – or derive inside – the cloud to contain sensitive customer information. Other types of sensitive data are present as well, but PII compliance requirements are driving our conversations. The regulation might be GLBA, Mass Privacy Regulation 201 CMR 17, NIST 800-53, FedRAMP, PCI-DSS, HIPAA, or another from the evolving list. The mapping of these requirements to on-premise security controls has always been fuzzy, and the differences have confused many IT staff and external auditors who are accustomed to on-premise systems. Leveraging existing encryption keys and tools helps ensure consistency with existing processes. Trust: More precisely, the problem is lack of trust: Some customers simply do not trust their vendor.s Many security pros, having seen security products and platforms fail repeatedly during their careers, view security with a jaundiced eye. They are especially hesitant with security systems they cannot fully audit. Or they do not have faith that cloud vendors’ IT staff cannot access their data. In some cases they do not trust software-based encryption services. Perhaps the customer cannot risk the cloud service provider being forced to turn over encryption keys by court order, or compromised by a nation-state. If the vendor is never provided they keys, they cannot be compelled to turn them over. Vendor Lock-in and Migration: A common reservation regards vendor lock-in, and not being able to move to another cloud service provider in case a service fails or the contractual relationship becomes untenable. Some native cloud encryption systems do not allow customer keys to move outside the system, and cloud encryption systems offer proprietary APIs. The goal is to maintain protection regardless of where data resides, moving between cloud vendors as needed. Jurisdiction: Cloud service providers, and especially IaaS vendors, offer services in multiple countries, often in more than one region, and with multiple (redundant) data centers. This redundancy is great for resilience, but the concern arises when moving data from one region to another with may have different laws and jurisdictions. For example the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is an EU regulation governing the personal data of EU citizens, and applies to any foreign company regardless of where data is moved. While similar in intent and covered types of data to the US regulation mentioned above under ‘PII’, it further specifies that some citizen data must not be available in foreign countries, or in some data centers. Many SaaS and IaaS security models do not account for such data-centric concerns. Segregation of duties and access controls are augmented in this case by key management. Consistency: It’s common for firms to adopt a “best of breed” cloud approach. They leverage multiple IaaS providers, placing each application on the service which best fits the application’s particular requirements. Most firms are quite familiar with their on-premise encryption and key management systems, so they often prefer to leverage the same tool and skills across multiple clouds. This minimizes process changes around key management, and often application changes to support different APIs. Obviously there nuances of each cloud implementation guide these conversations as well. Not all services are created equally, so what works in one may not be appropriate in another. But the major vendors offer very strong encryption implementations. Concerns such as data exfiltration protection, storage security, volume security, database security, and protecting data in transit can all be addressed with provided tools. That said, some firms cannot fully embrace a cloud native implementation, typically for regulatory or contract reasons. These firms have options to maintain control over encryption keys and leverage cloud native or third-party encryption. Our next post will go into detail on several deployment options, and then illustrate how they work. Share:

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.