Sisense: Learning Lessons Before the Body Hits the Ground

Look, we don’t yet know what really happened at Sisense. Thanks to Brian Krebs and CISA, combined with the note sent out by the CISO (bottom of this post), it’s pretty obvious the attackers got a massive trove of secrets. Just look at that list of what you have to rotate. It’s every cred you ever had, every cred you ever thought of, and the creds of your unborn children and/or grandchildren. Brian’s article has basically one sentence that describes the breach: Sisense declined to comment when asked about the veracity of information shared by two trusted sources with close knowledge of the breach investigation. Those sources said the breach appears to have started when the attackers somehow gained access to the company’s code repository at Gitlab, and that in that repository was a token or credential that gave the bad guys access to Sisense’s Amazon S3 buckets in the cloud. And as to where the data ended up? Sure sounds like the dark web to me: On April 10, Sisense Chief Information Security Officer Sangram Dash told customers the company had been made aware of reports that “certain Sisense company information may have been made available on what we have been advised is a restricted access server (not generally available on the internet.)” So if (and that’s a very big if, this early) the first quote is correct, then here’s what probably happened: Someone at Sisense stored IAM user keys in GitLab. Probably in code, but that’s an open question. Could have been in the pipeline config. Sisense also stored a vast trove of user credentials that either were not encrypted before putting them in S3 (I’ll discuss that in a moment), or with the decryption key in the code. Bad guys got into GitLab. Bad guys (or girls, I’m not sexist) tested keys and discovered they can access S3. Maybe this was obvious because the keys were in the code to access S3, or maybe it was non-obvious and they tried good old ListBuckets. Attackers (is that better, people?) downloaded everything from S3 and put it on a private server or somewhere in the depths of Tor. We don’t know the chain of events that lead to the key/credential being in GitLab. There’s also the chance it was more-advanced and the attacker stole session credentials from a runner or something and a static key wasn’t a factor. I am not going to victim blame yet — let’s see what facts emerge. The odds are decent this is more complex than what’s emerged. HOWEVER Some of you will go to work tomorrow, and your CEO will ask, “how can we make sure this never happens to us?” None of this is necessarily easy at scale, but here’s where to start: Scan all your repositories for cloud credentials. This might be as simple as turning on a feature of your platform, or you might have to use a static analysis tool or credential-specific scanner. If you find any, get rid of them. If you can’t immediately get rid of them, hop on over to the associated IAM policy and restrict it to the necessary source IP address. Don’t think S3 encryption will save you. First, it’s always encrypted. The trick is to encrypt with a key that isn’t accessible from the same identity that has access to the data. So… that’s not something most people do. Encryption is almost always incorrectly implemented to stop any threat other than a stolen hard drive. If you manage customer credentials, that sh** needs to be locked down. Secrets managers, dedicated IAM platforms, whatever. It’s possible in this case all the credentials weren’t in an S3 bucket and there were other phases of the attack. But if they were in an S3 bucket, that is… not a good look. Sensitive S3 buckets should have an IP-based resource policy on them. All the IAM identities (users/roles) with access should also have IP restrictions. Read up on the AWS Data Perimeter. Get rid of access keys. Scan your code and repositories for credentials. Lock down where data can be accessed from. And repeat after me, Every cloud security failure is an IAM failure, and every IAM failure is a governance failure. I’m really sorry for any of you using Sisense. That list isn’t going to be easy to get through. 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.