Securosis

Research

Incite 2/15/2012: Brushfire

I had this fraternity brother back in college named Lucas. We gave him a pretty hard time, mostly because he was the nicest guy you’d ever want to meet. Turns out he didn’t know what jobs just sucked. We’d ask Luke to clean the grease trap, a typical task when we were pledges. Not a problem for him, and that was probably the nicest thing we asked him to do. Remember that when you live in a house with 40+ guys, you tend to share a lot of things. Get your heads out of the gutter. I’m talking about things like toiletries. It wouldn’t be a surprise to see your brand new shampoo bottle in the gang shower 80% gone. Nor should it have surprised anyone to find their toothpaste ravaged by the cheap slugs I lived with. I always figured it was a decent investment because most of these guys wouldn’t have brushed their teeth at all, if it weren’t for my toothpaste. But Luke would have none of that. He went berserk one day when he found his toothpaste mostly gone. He proceeeded to write his name on everything he owned, as if that would make a difference. He was ranting and raving. Of course, once we knew that bothered him, we hit the gas. We’d still take his toothpaste, but we’d put it back in his room – empty. We’d hide his stuff all over the house. Come on, you would have done the same thing when you were 20. But slowly I’ve become Luke in terms to my stuff. I live with 4 other people and they are constantly using my stuff. I know when the Boss has been in my toothpaste because she squeezes from the top, not the bottom like I do. Yeah, that annoys me, so I put a new tube in her drawer, hoping she won’t screw with mine. But it’s the brush that really annoys me. I know instantly when one of the girls has polluted my brush. There are all sorts of long hairs tickling my ears when I brush my hair. So I peek at my brush and sure enough there is a ton of long brown hair in my brush. My hair is short and gray – I know it’s not mine. I don’t know why, but it annoys me. In a fit of rage, I did consider lighting the brush on fire, as that seemed like the only way I could ever keep everyone else from using it. Now that would be a cool brushfire. So I did what any person does when annoyed. I bought about 10 other brushes. I put extra brushes in each girl’s room and a few downstairs. Just in case. But amazingly enough, even with the extra brush inventory, half the time we can’t find a brush when we need it. There must be some kind of gremlin with long hair in the house who keeps taking our brushes. So time and time again, they go to the only place where they can be absolutely sure there is always a brush in the house. Right, my drawer. Either that, or maybe they are just screwing with me, because they know finding hair in my brush annoys me. I annoy them enough that I probably deserve to be messed with a bit. I guess karma balances out in the long run. But who could have guessed it would be in the form of a brush? -Mike Photo credits: “Hairy Brush” originally uploaded by Ashley Coombs Heavy Research After a bit of a blogging hiatus, we are back at it. The Heavy Research feed is hopping, and here are a couple of links of our latest stuff. So check them out and (as always) let us know what you think via comments. We posted a new paper earlier this week, assembling the Network-based Malware Detection series into a spiffy document. Check it out. And we have started posting our annual RSA Conference Guide. The first post was on our Key Themes. It seems over the past year we haven’t lost our snark, so our themes include stuff like “Is that a Cloud in Your Pocket?” “#OccupyRSA,” “Ha-Duped about Security BigData,” and “Data Olestra.” Yes, we insist on having fun if we have to write. We’ll be doing 1-2 a day over the next week, and then we’ll package it up as a paper you can take with you to the conference. Here’s the other stuff we have been up to: Implementing and Managing a Data Loss (DLP) System: Index of Posts. Rich is still at it, so check out his latest on deploying DLP. Malware Analysis Quant: Take the Survey (and win fancy prizes!) We need your help to understand what you do (and what you don’t) for malware analysis. And you can win some nice gift cards from Amazon for your trouble. Remember, you can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, where you can access all our content in its unabridged glory. Incite 4 U Behold the Nortel ostrich: Great expose in the WSJ about Nortel being totally and utterly compromised for over a decade. Seems there was no part of their infrastructure that the attackers didn’t have access to. But that’s kind of an old, tired story. What’s more interesting is the reaction from former Nortel folks. As the carcass of what used to be Nortel has been auctioned off from bankruptcy, the folks acquiring the assets play stupid. The old CEOs play stupid. And then they mention one of the main forensics guys would cry wolf. But he wasn’t crying wolf, was he? But this is the kind of institutional disregard we, alas, expect to see. It’s not like Nortel had anything interesting to state-sponsored hackers, right? Like the signaling software that runs a huge fraction of the national voice networks. This is just a reminder: your organization is pwned. The question is whether you know it or not. Or want to know it, I guess. – MR Probing the unprobable: I have to admit that

Share:
Read Post

RSA Conference 2012 Guide: Key Themes

It’s hard to believe, but we are two weeks out from the RSA Conference. As in previous years, your pals at Securosis have put together our 3rd annual RSA Guide, which we will distribute next week. But we will give you blog reading faithful, an early look at what we expect to see at the show. So let’s with the key themes… #OccupyRSA… It’s hard to believe, but the RSA breach was less than a year ago. Feels like forever, doesn’t it? At last year’s RSA Conference we heard a lot of marketing puffery about stopping the APT, and guess what? We’re in for another week of baseless claims and excessive FUD about targeted attacks, advanced malware, and how to detect state-sponsored attackers. As long as you remember that you can’t stop a targeted attack, and continue to focus on Reacting Faster and Better, you’ll have plenty to look at. Especially given that our conference hosts acquired the leading network forensics company (NetWitness) last spring. Just remember to laugh as you walk around the show floor in your Red Army uniform. But there is another return engagement we expect to witness at this year’s RSA: the Guy-Fawkes-mask-wearing crew from Anonymous. Though they have kept busy over the past year occupying every park in the nation, we figure they’ll make some kind of splash at RSA. If only because their boy Topiary’s trial is scheduled to start in May. Obviously it’ll be hard for them to top the grand entrance they made on the back of Aaron Barr and HBGary at last year’s conference, but we figure they’re up to something. Given the continuing rise of chaotic actors, and our inability to build a reasonable threat model against attackers who have no clear motive, it’ll be interesting to see them #OccupyRSA. Is That a Cloud in Your Pocket? Or are you just happy to see us? We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again – the overlapping rapid adoption of cloud computing and mobility make this the most exciting time to be in technology since the start of the Internet bubble. I find today far more interesting, because these two trends affect our lives more fundamentally than the early days of the Internet. Then again, avalanches, earthquakes, and someone pointing an assault rifle at your nose are also pretty exciting, but from a different perspective. Unlike the past two years, at this year’s conference we will see far more real cloud security solutions. Up until now most of what we’ve seen was marketecture or cloudwashing, but merely printing a pretty pamphlet or tossing your existing product into a virtual appliance doesn’t make a real cloud security tool. Of course we see plenty of make-believe, but we see the emergence of new and exciting tools designed from the ground up for cloud security. Our biggest problem is that we still need more people who understand practical cloud architectures, but most of the people I meet at security conferences are more interested in writing policy. Unless you know how this stuff works you won’t be able to tell which is which – it all looks good on paper. But here’s a hint – if it’s the same product name as an appliance on your network, odds are it’s an old product that’s been dipped in a bath of cloudy paint. And then there’s mobility. I can securely access every file I have on every computer through my phone or tablet, but for everyone like me there are dozens of less paranoid folks doing the same thing with no thought for protecting their data. IT lost the battle to fully control all devices entering the enterprise long ago, and combined with the current dramatic growth in local storage on laptops, even barely-technical users can snarf down all the storage they can choke down from the cloud. You’ll see consumerization and mobility themes at nearly every booth, even the food vendors, but for good reason. Everyone I know is forced to adapt to all those friggin’ iPhones and iPads coming in the door, as well as the occasional malware magnet (Android) and the very pretty, can’t-figure-out-why-she’s-being-ignored Windows Mobile. Ha-Duped about Security BigData Yep, it looks like security has gotten intelligence and business-style analysis religion. So you’ll see and hear a lot of BigData, massive databases, NoSQL, Hadoop, and service-based architectures that enable analysis of ginormous data stores to pinpoint attacks. And there is plenty of value in applying ‘BigData’ tactics to security analytics and management. But we clearly aren’t there yet. You will see a bunch of vendors talking about their new alerting engines taking advantage of these cool new data management tactics, but at the end of the day, it’s not how something gets done – it’s still what gets done. So a Hadoop-based backend is no more inherently helpful than that 10-year-old RDBMS-based SIEM you never got to work. You still have to know what to ask the data engine to get meaningful answers. Rather than being blinded by the shininess of the BigData backend focus on how to use the tool in practice. On how to set up the queries to alert on stuff that maybe you don’t know about. Unless the #OccupyRSA folks are sending you their attack plans ahead of time. Then you don’t have to worry… Data Olestra It’s supposed to be good for you. It’s in lots of the products you buy. Marketing documents advertise how you’ll stay slender while enjoying tasty goodness. It’s a miracle product and everyone uses it! Yep, I am talking about Olestra! The irony here is that the product actually makes you fatter. Worse, eat too much, and you’ll ‘leak’ like crazy in your pants. Yuck! Notice any similarities between that and IT products? We buy solutions that are supposed to keep us secure, but don’t. These products suck up all your budget and personnel resources. And the coup de grace is your boss – the person who gave you the budget to buy these security tools – has the deluded conviction that your data is secure. You’re leaking like

Share:
Read Post

[New White Paper] Network-Based Malware Detection: Filling the Gaps of AV

We know it’s a shock, but your endpoint protection suite isn’t doing a good enough job of blocking malware attacks. So the industry has resorted additional layers of inspection, detection, and even protection to address its shortcomings. One place focus is turning, which is seeing considerable innovation, is the network. We see a new set of devices and enhancements to existing perimeter platforms, focused on detecting and blocking malware. A paragraph from Network-Based Malware Detection: Filling the Gaps of AV says it best: We have been doing anti-virus for years and it hasn’t worked. Malware detection moving forward is about really understanding what the files are doing, and then determining whether that behavior is bad. By leveraging the collective power of the network we can profile bad stuff much more quickly. With the advancement of network security technology we can start to analyze those files before they make their way onto our devices. Can we actually prevent an attack? Under the right circumstances, yes. We would like to thank Palo Alto Networks for sponsoring this research, and making sure you can read it for a remarkably fair price. You can download the paper directly: Network-Based Malware Detection: Filling the Gaps of AV The paper is based on several posts: Introduction Identifying Today’s Malware Where to Detect the Bad Stuff? The Impact of the Cloud Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 2/7/2012: The Couch

Do you ever stumble upon a show from the old days, perhaps on Boomerang or TVLand, where the doting wife meets the hubby as he comes home from work? It’s just like my deal. I come home from that tough day writing at Starbucks and the Boss is waiting with my smoking jacket, pipe, and slippers, and the trusty glass of brandy to take the edge off a tough day. And then I wake up. What about those scenes where the entire family sits down to dinner and discusses current events? We don’t either. When I come home has more to do with which kid needs to be shuttled to which activity. The Boss has to ride herd on play dates, homework, and all those other balls she keeps in the air every day. We have sit down dinners a few times a month, usually when we go out to dinner as a family. But most of the time we don’t have time to breathe until the kids are in bed, numbing the pain with some inane show on TV. For years we had a great couch we bought from Crate and Barrel. It wasn’t cheap, but it lasted for 10 years. Maybe more. It held up well, but it wasn’t new and we didn’t worry about eating on it. So we’d park on the couch, eat our dinner, talk, and wind down from the day. I know she wanted a new couch, but the old one was fine, so I was pretty resistant to dropping a bunch of coin for something I didn’t think we really needed. But then my overly generous in-laws decided they can’t take it with them, so they gave us a new couch. It was a floor model, and we got a great deal on it. I’m not one to be ungrateful so I said thank you and moved on. Of course, the Boss was very happy, so it was all good. Until I got home. At that point I was suddenly transported back into the 50’s, when we had a virtual sheet of plastic wrap on the couch. Not literally a cover like your grandparents had on their couches, but it might as well have been. I mean, we couldn’t get close to the couch. I was kind of scared to sit on it unless I had just jumped out of the shower. The kids had to change their clothes if they were outside and wanted to sit down. Eating on the new couch? No chance. So we set up some other chairs in front of the couch, so we could still eat in the family room, but the priority was protecting the sanctity of our virginal couch. But we still had to deal with the elephant in the (family) room. That was our annual Super Bowl party. We host about 100 folks on my favorite day of the year. They eat pizza and wings and buffalo chicken dip and all sorts of other things that don’t look very good when spilled on your couch. It was quite a problem, and the Boss even threatened to cancel the party. But as my stepfather says, if it’s a problem that can be solved with money it’s not really a problem. So we went over to the store and bought about 8 huge cushy throw blankets and wrapped the couch from top to bottom. OK, it’s not plastic wrap, but it worked. No spills on the couch. The Giants won, and a good time was had by all, especially me. But Lord knows I wasn’t drinking my Guinness on the new couch. I was willing to take the chance of someone spilling something, so long as it wasn’t me. -Mike Photo credits: “frakkin’ plastic!” originally uploaded by wotthe7734 Heavy Research After a bit of a hiatus from blogging we are back at it. The Heavy Research feed is hopping, and here are a couple links of our latest stuff. So check them out and (as always) let us know what you think via comments. Implementing and Managing a Data Loss (DLP) Solution: Index of Posts. Rich will be updating this post with the latest in his ongoing series on DLP. Here are the posts so far: Implementing and Managing a DLP Solution Implementing DLP: Getting Started Implementing DLP: Picking Priorities and a Deployment Process Implementing DLP: Final Deployment Preparations Implementing DLP: Integration, Part 1 Implementing DLP: Integration Priorities and Components Implementing DLP: Starting Your Integration Understanding and Selecting a Database Security Platform: Defining DSP Bridging the Mobile Security Gap: Operational Consistency: Malware Analysis Quant: Take the Survey (and win fancy prizes!) We need your help to understand what you do (and what you don’t) for malware analysis. And you can win some nice gift cards from Amazon for your trouble. You can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, where you can access all our content in its unabridged glory. Incite 4 U Yamatough lost the negotiating handbook… I won’t say the T word but the rules are the same. Did Symantec really think it would end well when they tried to buy back the source code to Norton and pcAnywhere? They really didn’t think the emails would end up on Pastebin? That email thread is actually quite entertaining – the funniest part is Symantec’s condition that yamatough lie about the hack of the source code. And then SYMC wants to put them on a payment plan. Totally ridiculous. I get they wanted to protect customers – code for minimizing a PR fiasco. But they should have come clean immediately, fixed whatever the issue was, and moved on. I don’t think these folks follow the Negotiating 101 handbook. – MR Security Bowl: Last Sunday’s Super Bowl was a heck of a good game. I’m just sad I had to turn the TV off after the first quarter, record it on the TiVo, and then watch it later mostly in fast forward mode thanks to both kids melting down. Many years ago I had the chance to go work physical security

Share:
Read Post

Bridging the Mobile Security Gap: Operational Consistency

We started the Bridging the Mobile Security Gap series by accepting that we can’t control the devices that show up on our networks any more. We followed up with a diatribe on the need for context to build and enforce policies which ensure that (only) the right users get to the right stuff at the right times. To wrap up the series we need to dig deeper into enforcement, because as we all know the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. There are various places where mobile device security policies can be enforced – including on the devices themselves (via mobile device management) and on the network (firewall/VPN, IPS, network access control, etc.). There is no one right or wrong place to enforce policies. In fact the best answer is often “all of the above”. The more places you can enforce policy, the more likely your defenses will succeed at blocking attacks. Of course complexity is the obvious downside to multiple enforcement points. Complexity has a strong negative correlation with operational consistency. You need to make sure your enforcement points work together. Why? Let’s run through a few scenarios where policies are not aligned. Yeah, they do not end well. You can implement a policy forcing device to connect through the corporate VPN to receive the protection of the enterprise network – but that only works if the VPN recognizes the device and puts it in the right trust zone, with access to what the user needs. When that doesn’t happen correctly, the user is out of business – or a risk. Likewise, preventing misconfigured smartphones from accessing the network reflects good security enforcement, right? Sure, unless it belongs to the CEO who is trying to access a letter of understanding about an acquisition – even worse if you have no way to override the control. Exceptions are part of the game of managing security, so you need the ability to adapt as needed. Both those scenarios result in users being unable to access what they need, which means a bad day for you. This is why neither MDM nor any kind of network-based control can operate in a vacuum. You can take a number of steps to attain operational consistency. Coexistence The first stop on our path to policy consistency is just making the enforcement points coexist. Do enough to make sure one tool is working contrary to the others. Unfortunately this is largely a manual process. Whenever changes are made or new policies implemented, your administrators need to run through the impact of these changes. All of them. Well, all the practical ones anyway. It’s a lot of work, but necessary, given how important mobile devices have become to business productivity. Remember the good old days, when you did a similar dance when changing firewall rules. Some folks waited for the help desk to light up, and then they knew something was broken. We don’t recommend that approach. To avoid that problem vendors starting offering built-in policy checkers, and third-party firewall management tools emerged to perform these functions at higher scale and on multiple firewalls. Unfortunately those tools don’t support mobile devices (or the relevant network controls) today, so for now you are on your own. That can be problematic, since you know (even if you don’t want to admit it) that it’s difficult to maintain operational discipline – particularly in the face of the number of changes made, exceptions managed, and other fires to fight. It’s not where you want to be, but coexistence is the start. Integration at the console The next step is console integration. In this scenario alerts funnel from one management console to the other. Integration at least gives administrators a coordinated view of what’s happening. It may even be possible to click on one console and have that link to a specific event or device in the other. Very fancy, and downright useful from an operational standpoint. A little less integration your admins need to perform in their own heads improves productivity. Of course this requires cooperation between vendors and these kinds of relationships are not commonplace. But they will be – enterprise customers will demand them. Another benefit of this initial integration is more effective compliance reporting. Vendors map from a data source to the compliance report and pump the data in. That’s pretty helpful too – you know how painful getting ready for an audit remains, especially when you need to manage 5-10 different data sources to show to the auditor that you know what you’re doing. Of course this is less than full integration – you still need to deal with multiple consoles to make policy changes, and the logic to ensure a policy in one tool doesn’t adversely impact another tool is missing. But it’s progress. True integration What you really want is the ability to manage a single policy, implemented across different devices and network controls. How cool would that be? But don’t hold your breath waiting. Like most other non-standards-based integration, we will see integration initially forced by huge customers. Some Fortune 50 company using a device-centric management product will want to implement network controls. They will call everyone together, write down on a whiteboard how much they spend with each company, and make it very clear that integration will happen, and soon. It’s the proverbial offer they can’t refuse, and they usually don’t. Over time integration gives way to consolidation, and we expect MDM to be integrated into the larger IT device management stack and eventually work with network controls that way. Obviously that’s a few years down the road, but it’s the way these things work out. It’s not a matter of if but a matter of when. But without a crystal ball there isn’t much to do about that, so the best bet is to make decisions based on available integration today, and be ready to adapt for tomorrow. Losing device specificity We used to think of mobile devices as only laptops, but the pendulum has swung back the other way, to focus

Share:
Read Post

Malware Analysis Quant: Take the Survey (and win fancy prizes!)

One of the coolest things about how we work at Securosis is our Totally Transparent Research approach. We always post our work to the blog first and let you folks have at it. In many cases it gets poked and prodded, ridiculed, and broken down. It’s certainly tough on the ego, but in the end makes the work better. So we are now asking for more help as we enter Phase 2 of our Malware Analysis Quant research. As we described over the weekend, Phase 1 resulted in a nice (not so) little paper breaking down the process map for studying malware infections. Now we have to match up theory against reality. And thus the MAQ survey. As with all our surveys, we have set it up so you can take it anonymously, and all the raw results (anonymized, in spreadsheet format) will be released after our analysis. By the way, unlike other folks posting surveys, we don’t know the answers before we post the survey. Click here to take the survey, and please spread the word. We know from our last few surveys that we need to consider the time you are taking to help, so we kept this one pretty short. We would be surprised if it takes you more than 10-15 minutes. We understand filling out surveys is a pain in the behind, so we are providing an incentive. We will give 3 $100 Amazon gift cards to lucky participants. You don’t need to provide an email address to take the survey, but you do to be entered into the drawing. We are also tracking where we get our responses from, so if you take the survey in response to this post, please use Securosis. as your source code. If you repost the link you can make up your own code and email it to us. We’ll let you know how many people responded to your referral. If you generate sufficient response we will be happy to send you your keycode’s slice of the data. Thanks again for your help. We’ll keep the survey open at least 2 weeks and then begin analysis. Again, here is the link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MalwareAnalysisQuant-Survey Photo credit: “Survey says…” originally uploaded by hfabulous Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 2/1/2012: Bored to Tears

It’s unbelievable how different growing up today is. When I was in elementary school in the late 70s, Pong was state of the art and a handheld Coleco football game would keep a little kid occupied for hours. When they came up with the Head to Head innovation, two kids would be occupied for hours. That was definitely a different type of Occupy movement. We also didn’t have 300 channels on the boob tube. We had 5 channels, and the highlight of the year was Monster Week. At least for me. Most days I jumped on my bike to go play with my friends. Sometimes we played football. Okay – a lot of days we’d play football. It was easy – you didn’t need much equipment or a special field or anything. Just an even number of kids. I’m not sure what little girls did back in the day, since it was just me and my younger brother, but I’m sure it was similarly unsophisticated. We just played. Why am I getting nostalgic? Basically because I’m frustrated. Today kids don’t play. They need to be entertained. The thing that makes me cringe most is when one of my kids tells me they are bored. Bored? This usually happens after I tell them 5 hours on the iPod touch is enough over the weekend. Or that the 3 hours they watched crappy TV in the morning is more than enough. I tell them to get a book and read. I tell them to play a game. Maybe use some of the thousands of dollars of toys in the basement. Perhaps even build something with Lincoln Logs. Or break out one of the 25 different Lego contraptions we have. Mostly I tell them to get out of my hair, since I’m doing important stuff. Like reading about the Super Bowl on my iPad. But I digress. What ever happened to the 5 Best Toys of All Time? I’d add a football to that list and be good. That was my childhood in a nutshell. No more. Our kids’ minds are numbed with constant stimulation, which isn’t surprising considering that many of us are similarly numb, and it’s not helping us find happiness. Rich sent around this article over the weekend, and it’s right. We seem to have forgotten what it’s like to interact with folks, unless it’s via Words with Friends. Sometimes you need to slow down to speed up in the long run. I know you can’t stop ‘progress’. But you don’t need to just accept it either. After XX1 realized I wasn’t going to cave and let her play on the computer, she spent a few hours writing letters to her camp friends. She painstakingly colored the envelopes, and I think she even wrote English. But what she wrote isn’t the point. It’s that there was no battery, power cord, or other electronics involved. No ads were flying at her head either. Amazingly enough, she overcame her boredom and was even a little disappointed when everyone had to get ready for bed. It was a small victory, but I’ll take it. They don’t come along too often, since my kids are always right. Just ask them. -Mike Photo credits: “Mattel & Coleco H2H classics” originally uploaded by Vic DeLeon Heavy Research After a bit of a blogging hiatus we are back at it. The Heavy Research feed is hopping, so here are a couple links to our latest stuff. Please check them out and (as always) let us know what you think via comments. Implementing and Managing a Data Loss (DLP) Solution: Index of Posts: Rich will be updating this post with the latest in his ongoing series on DLP. Understanding and Selection Database Security Platforms: Rich and Adrian are updating their landmark DAM research from a few years ago. As with many things, what used to a single-purpose capability (DAM) is now a database security platform. Follow along as they explore exactly what that means. Bridging the Mobile Security Gap: The Need for Context: Got rid of those smartphones yet? No? Then you should be checking out this series on how to provision layered controls to maintain order, in light of the onslaught of all sorts of new devices. Malware Analysis Quant: Phase 1 – The Process: We have finished up Phase 1 of Malware Analysis Quant, and packaged up the process map and descriptions into a paper. Check it out, but please understand the process will continue to evolve as we keep digging into the research. We will launch the survey this week, so keep an eye out. You can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, where you can access all our content in its unabridged glory. Incite 4 U Privacy and Google: Google’s new privacy policy has been making waves the last few days. For me it’s not so much about the policy – I’m nonplussed about that. Sure, I don’t like the Google’s non-anonymity posture. On the other hand it’s much easier to understand Google’s consolidated policy on privacy and the intentions behind it – for that they should be commended. Essentially it comes down to “use our stuff and we’ll use your data”, which is clear enough and completely unsurprising in light of their business model. Understand that an encrypted search provides an illusion of privacy, meaning nobody on the network you traverse should be able to see the query, but it does not mean your activity is not logged and indexed by Google (or your other search provider). Good or bad – you be the judge. The real question is what are you going to do about it? For me this is an important “rubber meets the road” milestone. And that’s too bad because I like using Google’s search engine – it is clearly the the best. Gmail is free and it works – but I don’t have an easy way to encrypt email running through my Gmail account so Google can’t read it. Which means I have to get off my lazy butt and stop using these tools, or accept that Google owns an online identity

Share:
Read Post

Bridging the Mobile Security Gap: The Need for Context

As we discussed in the first post of this series, consumerization and mobility will remain macro drivers of security for the foreseeable future, and force us to stare down network anarchy. We can certainly go back into the security playbook and deal with an onslaught of unwieldy devices by implementing some kind of agentry on the devices to provide a measure of control. But results of this device-centric approach have been mixed. And that’s being kind. On the other hand from a network security standpoint a device is a device is a device. Whether it’s a desktop sitting in a call center, a laptop in an airline club, or a smartphone traipsing around town, the goal of a network security professional is the same. Our network security charter is always to make sure those devices access the right stuff at the right time, and don’t have access to anything else. So we enforce segmented networks to restrict devices to certain trusted network zones. Remember: segmentation is your friend – and that model holds, up to a point. But here’s the rub in dealing with those pesky smartphones: the folks using these devices actually want to do stuff. You know, productive stuff – which requires access to data. The nerve of those folks. So just parking these devices in a proverbial Siberia on your network falls apart. Instead we have to figure out how to recognize these devices, make sure each device is properly configured, and then restrict it to only what the user legitimately needs to access. But controlling the devices is only the first layer of the onion, and as you peel back layers your eyes start to tear. Are you crying? We won’t tell. The next layer is the user. Who has this device? Do they needs access to sensitive stuff? Is it a guest who wants Internet access? Is it a contractor whose access should expire after a certain number of days? Is it a finance team member who needs to use a tablet app on a warehouse floor? Is it the CEO, who basically does whatever he or she wants? Depending on the answer you would enforce a very different network security policy. For lack of a better term, let’s call this context, and be clear that the idea of a generic network security policy no longer provides adequate granularity of protection as we move to this concept of any computing. It’s not enough to know which device the user uses – it gets down to who the user is and what they are entitled to access. Unfortunately that’s not something you can enforce exclusively on the device because it doesn’t: 1) know about the access policies within your enterprise, 2) have visibility into the network to figure out what the device is accessing, or 3) have the ability to interoperate with network security devices to enforce policies. The good news is that we have seen this before, and as good security historians we can draw parallels with how we initially embraced VPNs. But there is a big difference from the past, when we could just install a VPN agent that downloaded a VPN access policy which worked with the perimeter VPN device. With smartphones we get extremely limited access to the mobile operating systems. These new operating systems were built with security much more strongly in mind – including from us – so mobile security agents don’t have nearly as deep access into what other apps are doing – that’s largely blocked by the sandbox model embraced by mobile operating systems. Simply put, the device doesn’t see enough to be able to enforce access policies without some deep, non-public access to the operating systems. But even that is generally not the stickiest issue with supporting these devices. You cannot count on being able to install mobile security agents on mobile devices, particularly because many organizations support a BYOD (bring your own device) policy, and users may not accept security agents on their devices. Of course, you can declare they can’t access the network, which quickly becomes a Mexican stand-off. Isn’t there another way, which doesn’t require agents to implement at least basic control over which mobile devices gain access and what they can reach? In fact there is. You should be looking for a network security device that can: Identify a mobile device and enforce device configuration policies. Have some idea of the user, and be able to understand the access rights of the user + device combination. For example, the CFO may be able to get to everything from their protected laptop, but be restricted if they use an app on their smartphone. Support the segmentation approach of the enterprise network – identifying users and devices is neat but academic until it enables you to restrict them to specific network segments. And we cannot forget: we must be able to most of this without an agent on the smartphone. To bridge this mobile security gap, those are the criteria we need to satisfy. In the next post we will wrap up this series by dealing with some of the additional risk and operational issues of having multiple enforcement points to provide this kind of access control. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Malware Analysis Quant: Phase 1 – The Process [Check out the paper!]

We are well aware that the Quant research can be overwhelming. 70+ pages of process, metrics, and survey data is a lot to get through. So we have broken the Malware Analysis Quant project up into two phases. The first phase focuses on defining and describing the underlying process. In the second phase we get into metrics and run the survey to figure out who is actually doing which aspects of the process. In the end will still produce the big paper in all its glory. But we figured an interim deliverable at the end of Phase 1 would make a lot of sense. So that’s what we have done. Download paper: Malware Analysis Quant: Phase 1 – The Process (PDF) You will see that we have updated the process map once again to account for the fact that some organizations find infected devices and just remediate them. They don’t analyze the malware, or even see whether other devices have been infected. We don’t get it either, but it happens, so we need to reflect the possibility in the process map. Again, we want to thank Sourcefire for sponsoring this Quant project. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 1/25/2011: Prized Possessions

So I was sitting in Dunkin Donuts Sunday morning, getting in a few hours of work while the kids were at Sunday school. You see the folks who come in and leave with two boxes of donuts. They are usually the skinny ones. Yeah, I hate them too. You see the families with young kids. What kid doesn’t totally love the donuts? You snicker at the rush at 11am when a local church finishes Sunday services and everyone makes a mad dash for Dunkin and coffee. You see the married couples about 20 years in, who sit across from each other and read the paper. You see the tween kids fixated on their smartphones, while their parents converse next to them. It’s a great slice of life. A much different vibe than at a coffee shop during the week. You know – folks doing meetings, kibitzing with their friends while the kids are at school, and nomads like me who can’t get anything done at the home office. There is an older couple who come in most Sundays. They drive up in a converted van with a wheelchair ramp. The husband is in pretty bad shape – his wife needs to direct his wheelchair, as it seems he has no use of his hands. They get their breakfast and she feeds him a donut. They chat, smile a bit, and seem to have a grand time. I don’t know what, but something about that totally resonates with me. I guess maybe I’m getting older and starting to think about what the second half of my life will be like. The Boss is a caretaker (that’s just her personality), so should I not age particularly well, I have no doubt she’ll get a crane to load me into my wheelchair and take me for my caffeine fix. And I’d do the same for her. She probably has doubts because I’m the antithesis of a caretaker. On the surface, it’s hard to imagine me taking care of much. But we entered a partnership as kids (we got married at 27/28) without any idea what was in store. Just the knowledge that we wanted to be together. We have ridden through the good and bad times for over 15 years. I will do what needs to be done so she’s comfortable. For as long as it takes. That’s the commitment I made and that’s what I’ll do. Even if she doesn’t believe me. We were out last weekend with a bunch of our friends, and we played a version of the Newlywed Game. One of the questions to the wives was: “Name your husband’s most prized possession.” The answers were pretty funny, on both sides. A bunch of the guys said their wife or their kids. Last time I checked, a person isn’t a possession, but that’s just me. But it was a cute sentiment. The Boss was pretty much at a loss because I don’t put much value on stuff, and even less value on people who are all about their stuff. I figured she’d say our artwork, because I do love our art. But that’s kind of a joint possession so maybe it didn’t occur to her. She eventually just guessed and said, “Mike’s iPad is his most prized possession.” That got a chuckle from the other couples, but she wasn’t even close. My iPad is a thing, and it will be replaced by the 3rd version of that thing when that hits in 60-90 days. I like my iPad and I use it every day, but it means nothing to me. The answer was obvious. At least it was to me. Maybe she missed it because it’s so commonplace. It’s with me at all times. It’s easy to forget it’s even there. But for me, it’s a reminder of what’s really important. Of the thing I value the most. My most prized possession is my wedding ring. And there is no second place. -Mike Photo credits: “Nobel-Prize” originally uploaded by Abhijit Bhaduri Heavy Research We started two new series this week, so check them out and (as always) let us know what you think via comments. Bridging the Mobile Security Gap: Staring down Network Anarchy: This series will focus on how we need to start thinking a little more holistically about the tidal wave of mobile devices invading our networks. Implementing and Managing a DLP Solution: Rich is taking our DLP research to the next level by getting into the specifics of deployment and ongoing management of DLP. It’s not enough to just pick a solution – you need to make it work over time. And remember you can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, where you can access all our content in its unabridged glory. Incite 4 U Cyberjanitors: Someone needs to clean up the mess: I’m not a big fan of poking someone in the eye without offering potential solutions. Jeff Bardin goes after RSA a bit, particularly their focus on response, which means they have given up on stopping attackers. Wait, what? Sorry man, there’s doing what you can to stop the bad guys before they get it, and then there’s Mr. Reality. Jeff is calling for “true innovative thought that uses cyber intelligence, counterintelligence and active defense and offensive measures…” WTF? Like what, launching DDoSes on everyone you think might attack or be attacking? I hate this puffery. Yeah, don’t wait to be attacked, go get ‘em, tiger! Well, Jeff, how do you suggest we do that? There were always those guys who gave the janitors a hard time in high school. Making a mess and generally being asses. They didn’t understand that not everyone gets to chase shiny objects. Someone has to pull out the mop and clean up the mess because there is always a mess. Do we need to innovate more? Clearly. But saying that a focus on detection and response is giving up is ridiculous. – MR Overaggressively managing reputation: Comments are one of the truly great features of the Internet, giving people fora to voice

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.