Securosis

Research

Hybrid Clouds: An Ugly Reality

In my recent paper on cloud network security I came down pretty hard on hybrid networks. I have been saying similar things in many presentations, including my most recent RSA session. Enough that I got a request for clarification. Here is some additional detail I will add to the paper; feedback or criticism is appreciated. Hybrid deployments often play an essential, yet complex, role in an organization’s transition to cloud computing. On the one hand they allow an organization to extend its existing resources directly into the cloud, with fully compatible network addressing and routing. They allow the cloud to access internal assets directly, and internal assets to access cloud assets, without having to reconfigure everything from scratch. But that also means hybrid deployments bridge risks across environments. Internal problems can extend to the cloud provider, and compromise of something on the cloud side extends to the data center. It’s a situation ripe for error, especially in organizations which already struggle with network compartmentalization. Also, you are bridging two completely different environments – one software defined, the other still managed with boxes and wires. That’s why we recommend trying to avoid hybrid deployments, to retain the single greatest security advantage of cloud computing: compartmentalization. Modern cloud deployments typically use multiple cloud provider accounts for a single project. If anything goes wrong you can blow away the entire account, and start over. Control failures in any account are isolated to that account, and attacks at the network and management levels are also isolated. Those are typically impossible to replicate with hybrid. All that said, nearly every large enterprise we work with still needs some hybrid deployments. There are too many existing internal resources and requirements to drop ship them all to a cloud provider. Applications, assets, and services designed for traditional infrastructure which would all need to be completely re-architected to operate correctly, with acceptable resilience, in the cloud. Yes, someday hybrid clouds will be rare. And for any new project we highly recommend designing to work in an isolated, dedicated set of cloud accounts. But until we all finish this massive 20-year project of moving nearly everything into the public cloud, hybrid is a practical reality. Thinking about the associated risks, bridging networks and reducing compartmentalization, focuses your security requirements. You need to understand those connections, and the network security controls across them. They are two different systems using a common vocabulary, with important implementation differences. Management planes for non-network functions won’t integrate (traditional environments don’t have one). Host, application, and data security are specific to the assets involved and where they are hosted; risks extend whenever they are connected, regardless of deployment model. A hybrid cloud doesn’t change SQL injection detection or file integrity monitoring – you implement them as needed in each environment. The definition of hybrid is connection and extension via networking; understanding those connections, how the security rules are set up on each side, and how to ensure the security of two totally different environments works together, is the focus. Share:

Share:
Read Post

How I got a CISSP and ended up nominated for the Board of Directors

About two years ago I was up in Toronto having dinner with James Arlen and Dave Lewis (@myrcurial and @gattaca). Since Dave was serving on the (ISC)2 Board of Directors, and James and I were not CISSPs, the conversation inevitably landed on our feelings as to the relative value of the organization and the certifications. I have been mildly critical of the CISSP for years. Not rampant hatred, but more an opinion that the cert didn’t achieve its stated goals. It had become less an educational tool, and more something to satisfy HR departments. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with looking for certifications. As an EMT, and a former paramedic, I’ve held at least a dozen or more medical, firefighting, and rescue certifications in my career. Some of them legally required for the job. (No, I don’t think we can or should do the same for security, but that’s fodder for another day). While I hadn’t taken the CISSP test, I did once, over a decade earlier, take a week class and look at becoming certified. I was at Gartner at the time and the security team only had one CISSP. So I was familiar with the CBK, which quickly disillusioned me. It barely seemed to reflect the skills base that current, operational security professionals needed. It wasn’t all bad, it just wasn’t on target. Then I looked at the ethics requirements, which asked if you ever “associated with hackers”. Now I know they meant “criminals” but that isn’t what was on paper, and, to me, that is the kind of mistake that reflects a lack of understanding as to the power of words. Or even the meaning of the word, and from an organizations that represents the very profession most directly tied to the hacker community. Out of touch content and a poorly written code of ethics wasn’t something I felt I needed to support, and thanks to where I was in my career I didn’t need it. To be honest, James and I teamed up a bit on Dave that night. Asking him why he would devote so much time to an organization he, as a hacker, technically couldn’t even be a part of. That’s right about the time he told us to put up or shut up. You see Dave helped get the code of ethics updated and had that provision removed. And he, and other board members, had launched a major initiative to update the exam and the CBK. He challenged us to take the test, THEN tell him what we thought. (He had us issued tokens, so we didn’t pay for the exam). He saw the (ISC)2 not merely as a certification entity, but as a professional organization with a membership and position to actually advance the state of the profession, with the right leadership (and support of the members). James and I each later took the exam (nearly a year later in my case). James and I each approached the exam differently – he studied, I went in cold. Then we sent feedback on our experience to Dave to pass on to the organization. We wanted to see if the content was representative of what security pros really need to know to get their jobs done. While I can’t discuss the content, it was better than I expected, but still not where I thought it needed to be. (There was one version back from the current exam). Over that time additional friends and people I respect joined the Board, and continued to steer the (ISC)2 in interesting directions. I never planned on actually getting my CISSP. It really isn’t something I needed at this point in my career. But the (ISC)2 and the Cloud Security Alliance had recently teamed up on a new certification that was directly tied to the CCSK we (Securosis) manage for the CSA, and I was gently pressured to become more involved in the relationship and course content. Plus, my friends in the (ISC)2 made a really important, personally impactful point. As a profession we face the greatest social, political, and operational challenges since our inception. Every day we are in the headlines, called before lawmakers, and fighting bad guys and, at times, our own internal political battles. But our only representation, speaking in our name, is lone individuals and profit-oriented companies. The (ISC)2 is potentially positioned to play a very different role. It’s not for profit, run by directors chosen in open elections. The people I knew who were active in the organization saw the chance, see the chance, for it to continue to evolve into something more than a certification shop. I submitted my paperwork. Then, the same day I was issued my certification, I found out I was nominated for the Board. Sorta didn’t really expect that. Accepting wasn’t a simple decision. I already travel a lot, and had to talk it over with my wife and coworkers (both of whom advised me not to do it, due to the time commitment). But something kept nagging at me. We really do need a voice. An organization with the clout and backing to represent the profession. Now I fundamentally don’t believe any third party can ever represent all the opinions of any constituency. I sure as hell have no right to assume I speak for everyone with ‘security’ in their title, but without some mutual agreement all that will happen is those with essentially no understanding of what we do will make many of the decisions that decide our future. That’s why I’m running for the Board of the (ISC)2. Because to play that role, the organization needs to continue to change. It needs to become more inclusive, with a wider range of certification and membership options, which better reflect operational security needs. It should also reach out more to a wider range of the community, particularly researchers, offensive security professionals, and newer, less experienced security pros. It needs to actually offer them something; something more than a piece of paper that will help their resume

Share:
Read Post

Chewie, We’re Home

Every week, we here at Securosis like to highlight the security industry’s most important news in our Friday Summary. Those events that not only made the press, but are likely to significantly impact your professional lives and, potentially, the well-being of the organization you work for. Ah, who am I kidding, let’s talk Star Wars. If you didn’t know a new trailer for The Force Awakens was released this week, you can’t be reading this statement, because you are either deceased (like a parrot) or currently imprisoned in an underground bunker by a religious fanatic who is feeding you nutritional supplements so he/she can harvest your organs and live for eternity. I can’t imagine any other legitimate options. Stick with me for a minute – I really do have a point or two. Like many of you, Star Wars played an incredibly influential role in my life. The first film hit when I was six, and it helped form the person I would eventually become. I know, cheesy and maybe weird or nerdy, but as children we all grab onto stories and metaphor to develop our own worldview. For some of you it was religion (that is pretty much the purpose of the Bible), or a book series, or a blend of influences. For me, Star Wars always stood far above and beyond anything else outside the direct guidance of my parents. Martial arts, public service, a love of aviation and space, and a fundamental recognition of the importance of helping and protecting others all trace back, to some degree, to the film series. Perhaps I would have grabbed onto these principles anyway, but at this point that experiment’s control group vaporized decades ago. I have, perhaps, an overconfidence in the new film. I’ve already bought tickets for opening night and the following day, and could only stop tearing up at the trailer through intense immersion therapy. Unlimited bandwidth FTW. There was a fascinating article in the New Yorker this week. The author admitted a love for the original trilogy, but claimed now that we are adults, there is no chance for a new entry to create the same wonder as the originals did for thousands (millions?) of children in theaters. That the new films must, of necessity, be for children, as adults are no longer of generating such emotions. You know, pretty much what you would expect The New Yorker to publish. The day I no longer believe a story can make me feel wonder is the day I ask Reverend Billy to finally remove my dead heart and implant it in that goat that makes our cheese (in the bunker, keep up people). Maybe the new film won’t hit that lofty goal (although the trailer sure did), but you can’t close your mind to the possibility. Okay, maybe Star Wars isn’t your thing, but if you no longer believe stories even have the potential to engender childlike joy, that’s a loss of hope with profound personal implications. I’m also fascinated to see how Star Wars changes for my children. Already the expanded universe is creating a different relationship with the canon. Growing up I only had Artoo and Threepio, but they now have Chopper (from Rebels, a really great show) and BB-8. My two year old is already obsessed with BB-8 and insists my Sphero toy sit next to him when he watches TV. When the battery runs out he likes to tell me “BB-8 sad”. They will never experience things the way I did. Maybe they’ll love it, maybe they won’t, that’s up for them to decide (after my meddling influence). But there is one aspect of the new films that, as a parent, endlessly excites me. The prequels weren’t merely bad films, they did nearly nothing to advance the story. They gave us the visuals of the history of Vader, and a few poorly retconned story beats, but they didn’t tell us anything material we didn’t already know. There was no anticipation between the films, not like when Empire came out and my friends and I spent 3 years debating if Darth was Luke’s father, or if it was merely another Sith lie. In two months we get to see an entirely new Star Wars that continues the story that started nearly 40 years ago. And, though I’m really just guessing here, I’m pretty sure Episode VII is going to end in a cliffhanger that won’t be resolved for another two to three years, if not the full six years to finish this next trilogy. My children will get a new story that will play out over a third of their childhood. Not some movies based on some existing books, however well written and popular. Not a television series they see every week or can marathon on Netflix. Three films. Six years. So popular (just a guess) that they extend Star Wars’ already deep influence in our global consciousness. The ending unknown until my entire family, the youngest now eight or nine (not two), the oldest bordering on a teenager, sits together in the theater as the lights dim, the curtain peels back, and the familiar fanfare blasts from the speakers. No, maybe I won’t ever feel the same as that day in 1977 when I sat next to my father and that first Star Destroyer loomed above our heads. I’m older, capable of far more emotional depth, with an ever greater need to escape the responsibilities of adulthood and the painful irrationality of the real world. Knowing that my children sitting next to me are building their own memories, and are experiencing their own wonder. It’s going to be so much better. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian was on a webinar on building secure software Securosis Posts Incite 10/21/2015: Appreciating the Classics. re:Invent Yourself (or else). Favorite Outside Posts Adrian: The MySpace Worm That Changed The Internet Forever Re-coding someone else’s site for fun – and unintentionally releasing the SAMY worm. Great story. Mike: Threat Intellgence-driven Risk Analysis –

Share:
Read Post

re:Invent Yourself (or else)

A bit over a week ago we were all out at Amazon’s big cloud conference, which is now up to 19,000 attendees. Once again it got us thinking as to how quickly the world is changing, and the impact it will have on our profession. Now that big companies are rapidly adopting public cloud (and they are), that change is going to hit even faster than ever before. In this episode the Securosis team lays out some of what that means, and how now is the time to get on board. Watch or listen: Share:

Share:
Read Post

It’s a Developer’s World Now

Last week Mike, Adrian, and myself were out at the Amazon re:Invent conference. It’s the third year I’ve attended and it’s become one of the core events of the year for me; even more important than most of the security events. To put things in perspective, there were over 19,000 attendees and this is only the fourth year of the conference. While there I tweeted that all security professionals need to get their asses to some non-security conferences. Specifically, to cloud or DevOps events. It doesn’t need to be Amazon’s show, but certainly needs to be one from either a major public cloud provider (and really, only Microsoft and Google are on that list right now), or something like the DevOps Enterprise Summit next week (which I have to miss). I always thought cloud and automation in general, and public cloud and DevOps (once I learned the name) in particular, would become the dominant operational model and framework for IT. What I absolutely underestimated is how friggen fast the change would happen. We are, flat out, three years ahead of my expectations, in terms of adoption. Nearly all my hallway conversations at re:Invent this year were with large enterprises, not the startups and mid-market of the first year. And we had plenty of time for those conversations, since Amazon needs to seriously improve their con traffic management. With cloud, our infrastructure is now software defined. With DevOps (defined as a collection of things beyond the scope of this post), our operations also become software defined (since automation is essential to operating in the cloud). Which means, well, you know what this means… We live in a developer’s world. This shouldn’t be any sort of big surprise. IT always runs through phases where one particular group is relatively “dominant” in defining our enterprise use of technology. From mainframe admins, to network admins, to database admins, we’ve circled around based on which pieces of our guts became most-essential to running the business. I’m on record as saying cloud computing is far more disruptive than our adoption of the Internet. The biggest impact on security and operations is this transition to software defined everything. Yes, somewhere someone still needs to wire the boxes together, but it won’t be most of the technology workforce. Which means we need to internalize this change, and start understanding the world of those we will rely on to enable our operations. If you aren’t a programmer, you need to get to know them, especially since the tools we typically rely on are moving much more slowly than the platforms we run everything on. One of the best ways to do this is to start going to some outside (of security) events. And I’m dead serious that you shouldn’t merely go to a cloud or DevOps track at a security conference, but immerse yourself at a dedicated cloud or DevOps show. It’s important to understand the culture and priorities, not merely the technology or our profession’s interpretation of it. Consider it an intelligence gathering exercise to learn where the rest of your organization is headed. I’m sure there’s an appropriate Sun Tsu quote out there, but if I used it I’d have to nuke this entire site and move to a security commune in the South Bay. Or Austin. I hear Austin’s security scene is pretty hot. Oh- and, being Friday, I suppose I should insert the Friday Summary below and save myself a post. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences A bunch of stuff this week, but the first item, Mike’s keynote, is really the one to take a look at. Mike’s HouSecCon keynote. Rich at GovInfoSecurity on the AWS not-a-hack. Adrian at CSO on why merchants are missing the EMV deadlines. Rich at the Daily Herald on Apple’s updated privacy site. Rich at Macworld/IDG on the “uptick” of OS X malware. TL;DR, it’s still less than new Windows malware created every hour. Rich, again on Apple privacy. This time at the Washington Post. Rich on Amazon’s new Inspector product over at Threatpost And one last Apple security story with Rich. This time over at Wired, on iOS malware. Recent Securosis Posts Building Security Into DevOps: The Role of Security in DevOps. Building a Threat Intelligence Program: Using TI. Building Security Into DevOps: Tools and Testing in Detail. New Report: Pragmatic Security for Cloud and Hybrid Networks. Building Security Into DevOps: Security Integration Points. Pragmatic Security for Cloud and Hybrid Networks: Design Patterns. Pragmatic Security for Cloud and Hybrid Networks: Building Your Cloud Network Security Program. Favorite Outside Posts Mike: US taxman slammed: Half of the IRS’s servers still run doomed Windows Server 2003. Uh, how do you lose 1300 devices? Chris Pepper: How is NSA breaking so much crypto? Rich: Teller Reveals His Secrets. As in the Penn and Teller. I’ve always loved magic, especially since I realized it is a pure form of science codified over thousands of years. So is con artistry, BTW. Dave Lewis: [What’s Holding Back the Cyber Insurance Industry? A Lack of Solid Data](7 http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2015/10/whats-holding-back-cyber-insurance-industry-lack-solid-data/122790/?oref=NextGovTCO). Research Reports and Presentations Pragmatic Security for Cloud and Hybrid Networks. EMV Migration and the Changing Payments Landscape. Network-based Threat Detection. Applied Threat Intelligence. Endpoint Defense: Essential Practices. Cracking the Confusion: Encryption and Tokenization for Data Centers, Servers, and Applications. Security and Privacy on the Encrypted Network. Monitoring the Hybrid Cloud: Evolving to the CloudSOC. Security Best Practices for Amazon Web Services. Securing Enterprise Applications. Top News and Posts Beware of Oracle’s licensing ‘traps,’ law firm warns Chip & PIN Fraud Explained – Computerphile Hacker Who Sent Me Heroin Faces Charges in U.S. Troy’s ultimate list of security links Summary of the Amazon DynamoDB Service Disruption and Related Impacts in the US-East Region Emergency Adobe Flash Update Coming Next Week Researchers Find 85 Percent of Android Devices Insecure Share:

Share:
Read Post

New Report: Pragmatic Security for Cloud and Hybrid Networks

This is one of those papers I’ve been wanting to write for a while. When I’m out working with clients, or teaching classes, we end up spending a ton of time on just how different networking is in the cloud, and how to manage it. On the surface we still see things like subnets and routing tables, but now everything is wired together in software, with layers of abstraction meant to look the same, but not really work the same. This paper covers the basics and even includes some sample diagrams for Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services, although the bulk of the paper is cloud-agnostic.   From the report: Over the last few decades we have been refining our approach to network security. Find the boxes, find the wires connecting them, drop a few security boxes between them in the right spots, and move on. Sure, we continue to advance the state of the art in exactly what those security boxes do, and we constantly improve how we design networks and plug everything together, but overall change has been incremental. How we think about network security doesn’t change – just some of the particulars. Until you move to the cloud. While many of the fundamentals still apply, cloud computing releases us from the physical limitations of those boxes and wires by fully abstracting the network from the underlying resources. We move into entirely virtual networks, controlled by software and APIs, with very different rules. Things may look the same on the surface, but dig a little deeper and you quickly realize that network security for cloud computing requires a different mindset, different tools, and new fundamentals. Many of which change every time you switch cloud providers. Special thanks to Algosec for licensing the research. As usual everything was written completely independently using our Totally Transparent Research process. It’s only due to these licenses that we are able to give this research away for free. The landing page for the paper is here. Direct download: Pragmatic Security for Cloud and Hybrid Networks (pdf) Share:

Share:
Read Post

Pragmatic Security for Cloud and Hybrid Networks: Design Patterns

This is the fourth post in a new series I’m posting for public feedback, licensed by Algosec. Well, that is if they like it – we are sticking to our Totally Transparent Research policy. I’m also live-writing the content on GitHub if you want to provide any feedback or suggestions. Click here for the first post in the series, [here for post two](https://securosis.com/blog/pragmatic-security-for-cloud-and-hybrid-networks-cloud-networking-101, post 3, post 4. To finish off this research it’s time to show what some of this looks like. Here are some practical design patterns based on projects we have worked on. The examples are specific to Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure, rather than generic templates. Generic patterns are less detailed and harder to explain, and we would rather you understand what these look like in the real world. Basic Public Network on Microsoft Azure This is a simplified example of a public network on Azure. All the components run on Azure, with nothing in the enterprise data center, and no VPN connections. Management of all assets is over the Internet. We can’t show all the pieces and configuration settings in this diagram, so here are some specifics:   The Internet Gateway is set in Azure by default (you don’t need to do anything). Azure also sets up default service endpoints for the management ports to manage your instances. These connections are direct to each instance and don’t run through the load balancer. They will (should) be limited to only your current IP address, and the ports are closed to the rest of the world. In this example we have a single public facing subnet. Each instance gets a public IP address and domain name, but you can’t access anything that isn’t opened up with a defined service endpoint. Think of the endpoint as port forwarding, which it pretty much is. The service endpoint can point to the load balancer, which in turn is tied to the auto scale group. You set rules on instance health, performance, and availability; the load balancer and auto scale group provision and deprovision servers as needed, and handle routing. The IP addresses of the instances change as these updates take place. Network Security Groups (NSGs) restrict access to each instance. In Azure you can also apply them to subnets. In this case we would apply them on a per-server basis. Traffic would be restricted to whatever services are being provided by the application, and would deny traffic between instances on the same subnet. Azure allows such internal traffic by default, unlike Amazon. NSGs can also restrict traffic to the instances, locking it down to only from the load balancer and thus disabling direct Internet access. Ideally you never need to log into the servers because they are in an auto scale group, so you can also disable all the management/administration ports. There is more, but this pattern produces a hardened server, with no administrative traffic, protected with both Azure’s default protections and Network Security Groups. Note that on Azure you are often much better off using their PaaS offerings such as web servers, instead of manually building infrastructure like this. Basic Private Network on Amazon Web Services Amazon works a bit differently than Azure (okay – much differently). This example is a Virtual Private Cloud (VPC, their name for a virtual network) that is completely private, without any Internet routing, connected to a data center through a VPN connection.   This shows a class B network with two smaller subnets. In AWS you would place each subnet in a different Availability Zone (what we called a ‘zone’) for resilience in case one goes down – they are separate physical data centers. You configure the VPN gateway through the AWS console or API, and then configure the client side of the VPN connection on your own hardware. Amazon maintains the VPN gateway in AWS; you don’t directly touch or maintain it, but you do need to maintain everything on your side of the connection (and it needs to be a hardware VPN). You adjust the routing table on your internal network to send all traffic for the 10.0.0.0/16 network over the VPN connection to AWS. This is why it’s called a ‘virtual’ private cloud. Instances can’t see the Internet, but you have that gateway that’s Internet accessible. You also need to set your virtual routing table in AWS to send Internet traffic back through your corporate network if you want any of your assets to access the Internet for things like software updates. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don’t – we don’t judge. By default instances are protected with a Security Group that denies all inbound traffic and allows all outbound traffic. Unlike in Azure, instances on the same subnet can’t talk to each other. You cannot connect to them through the corporate network until you open them up. AWS Security Groups offer allow rules only. You cannot explicitly deny traffic – only open up allowed traffic. In Azure you create Service Endpoints to explicitly route traffic, then use network security groups to allow or deny on top of that (within the virtual network). AWS uses security groups for both functions – opening a security group allows traffic through the private IP (or public IP if it is public facing). Our example uses no ACLs but you could put an ACL in place to block the two subnets from talking to each other. ACLs in AWS are there by default, but allow all traffic. An ACL in AWS is not stateful, so you need to create rules for all bidrectional traffic. ACLs in AWS work better as a deny mechanism. A public network on AWS looks relatively similar to our Azure sample (which we designed to look similar). The key differences are how security groups and service endpoints function. Hybrid Cloud on Azure This builds on our previous examples. In this case the web servers and app servers are separated, with app servers on a private subnet. We already explained the components in our other examples, so there is only a little to add:   The key security control here is a Network Security Group

Share:
Read Post

Pragmatic Security for Cloud and Hybrid Networks: Building Your Cloud Network Security Program

This is the fourth post in a new series I’m posting for public feedback, licensed by Algosec. Well, that is if they like it – we are sticking to our Totally Transparent Research policy. I’m also live-writing the content on GitHub if you want to provide any feedback or suggestions. Click here for the first post in the series, here for post two. There is no single ‘best’ way to secure a cloud or hybrid network. Cloud computing is moving faster than any other technology in decades, with providers constantly struggling to out-innovate each other with new capabilities. You cannot lock yourself into any single architecture, but instead need to build out a program capable of handling diverse and dynamic needs. There are four major focus areas when building out this program. Start by understanding the key considerations for the cloud platform and application you are working with. Design the network and application architecture for security. Design your network security architecture including additional security tools (if needed) and management components. Manage security operations for your cloud deployments – including everything from staffing to automation. Understand Key Considerations Building applications in the cloud is decidedly not the same as building them on traditional infrastructure. Sure, you can do it, but the odds are high something will break. Badly. As in “update that resume” breakage. To really see the benefits of cloud computing, applications must be designed specifically for the cloud – including security controls. For network security this means you need to keep a few key things in mind before you start mapping out security controls. Provider-specific limitations or advantages: All providers are different. Nothing is standard, and don’t expect it to ever become standard. One provider’s security group is another’s ACL. Some allow more granular management. There may be limits on the number of security rules available. A provider might offer both allow and deny rules, or allow only. Take the time to learn the ins and outs of your provider’s capabilities. They all offer plenty of documentation and training, and in our experience most organizations limit themselves to no more than one to three infrastructure providers, keeping the problem manageable. Application needs: Applications, especially those using the newer architectures we will mention in a moment, often have different needs than applications deployed on traditional infrastructure. For example application components in your private network segment may still need Internet access to connect to a cloud component – such as storage, a message bus, or a database. These needs directly affect architectural decisions – both security and otherwise. New architectures: Cloud applications use different design patterns than apps on traditional infrastructure. For example, as previously mentioned, components are typically distributed across diverse network locations for resiliency, and tied tightly to cloud-based load balancers. Early cloud applications often emulated traditional architectures but modern cloud applications make extensive use of advanced cloud features, particularly Platform as a Service, which may be deeply integrated into a particular cloud provider. Cloud-based databases, message queues, notification systems, storage, containers, and application platforms are all now common due to cost, performance, and agility benefits. You often cannot even control the network security of these services, which are instead fully managed by the cloud provider. Continuous deployment, DevOps, and immutable servers are the norm rather than exceptions. On the upside, used properly these architectures and patterns are far more secure, cost effective, resilient, and agile than building everything yourself, but you do need to understand how they work. Data Analytics Design Pattern Example A common data analytics design pattern highlights these differences (see the last section for a detailed example). Instead of keeping a running analytics pool and sending it data via SFTP, you start by loading data into cloud storage directly using an (encrypted) API call. This, using a feature of the cloud, triggers the launch of a pool of analytics servers and passes the job on to a message queue in the cloud. The message queue distributes the jobs to the analytics servers, which use a cloud-based notification service to signal when they are done, and the queue automatically redistributes failed jobs. Once it’s all done the results are stored in a cloud-based NoSQL database and the source files are archived. It’s similar to ‘normal’ data analytics except everything is event-driven, using features and components of the cloud service. This model can handle as many concurrent jobs as you need, but you don’t have anything running or racking up charges until a job enters the system. Elasticity and a high rate of change are standard in the cloud: Beyond auto scaling, cloud applications tend to alter the infrastructure around them to maximize the benefits of cloud computing. For example one of the best ways to update a cloud application is not to patch servers, but instead to create an entirely new installation of the app, based on a template, running in parallel; and then to switch traffic over from the current version. This breaks familiar security approaches, including relying on IP addresses for: server identification, vulnerability scanning, and logging. Server names and addresses are largely meaningless, and controls that aren’t adapted for cloud are liable to be useless. Managing and monitoring security changes: You either need to learn how to manage cloud security using the provider’s console and APIs, or choose security tools that integrate directly. This may become especially complex if you need to normalize security between your data center and cloud provider when building a hybrid cloud. Additionally, few cloud providers offer good tools to track security changes over time, so you will need to track them yourself or use a third-party tool. Design the Network Architecture Unlike traditional networks, security is built into cloud networks by default. Go to any major cloud provider, spin up a virtual network, launch a server, and the odds are very high it is already well-defended – with most or all access blocked by default. Because security and core networking are so intertwined, and every cloud application has its own virtual network (or networks), the first step toward security is to work with the application team and design it into the architecture. Here are some

Share:
Read Post

Pragmatic Security for Cloud and Hybrid Networks: Network Security Controls

This is the second post in a new series I’m posting for public feedback, licensed by Algosec. Well, that is if they like it – we are sticking to our Totally Transparent Research policy. I’m also live-writing the content on GitHub if you want to provide any feedback or suggestions. Click here for the first post in the series, and here for post two. Now that we’ve covered the basics of cloud networks, it’s time to focus on the available security controls. Keep in mind that all of this varies between providers and that cloud computing is rapidly evolving and new capabilities are constantly appearing. These fundamentals give you the background to get started, but you will still need to learn the ins and outs of whatever platforms you work with. What Cloud Providers Give You Not to sound like a broken record (those round things your parents listened to… no, not the small shiny ones with lasers), but all providers are different. The following options are relatively common across providers, but not necessarily ubiquitous. Perimeter security is traditional network security that the provider totally manages, invisibly to the customers. Firewalls, IPS, etc. are used to protect the provider’s infrastructure. The customer doesn’t control any of it.PRO: It’s free, effective, and always there. CON: You don’t control any of it, and it’s only useful for stopping background attacks. Security groups – Think of this is a tag you can apply to a network interface/instance (or certain other cloud objects, like a database or load balancer) that applies an associated set of network security rules. Security groups combine the best of network and host firewalls, since you get policies that can follow individual servers (or even network interfaces) like a host firewall but you manage them like a network firewall and protection is applied no matter what is running inside. You get the granularity of a host firewall with the manageability of a network firewall. These are critical to auto scaling – since you are now spreading your assets all over your virtual network – and, because instances appear and disappear on demand, you can’t rely on IP addresses to build your security rules. Here’s an example: You can create a “database” security group that only allows access to one specific database port and only from instances inside a “web server” security group, and only those web servers in that group can talk to the database servers in that group. Unlike a network firewall the database servers can’t talk to each other since they aren’t in the web server group (remember, the rules get applied on a per-server basis, not a subnet, although some providers support both). As new databases pop up, the right security is applied as long as they have the tag. Unlike host firewalls, you don’t need to log into servers to make changes, everything is much easier to manage. Not all providers use this term, but the concept of security rules as a policy set you can apply to instances is relatively consistent.Security groups do vary between providers. Amazon, for example, is default deny and only allows allow rules. Microsoft Azure, however, allows rules that more-closely resemble those of a traditional firewall, with both allow and block options.PRO: It’s free and it works hand in hand with auto scaling and default deny. It’s very granular but also very easy to manage. It’s the core of cloud network security. CON: They are usually allow rules only (you can’t explicitly deny), basic firewalling only and you can’t manage them using tools you are already used to. ACLs (Access Control Lists) – While security groups work on a per instance (or object) level, ACLs restrict communications between subnets in your virtual network. Not all providers offer them and they are more to handle legacy network configurations (when you need a restriction that matches what you might have in your existing data center) than “modern” cloud architectures (which typically ignore or avoid them). In some cases you can use them to get around the limitations of security groups, depending on your provider.PRO: ACLs can isolate traffic between virtual network segments and can create both allow or deny rules CON: They’re not great for auto scaling and don’t apply to specific instances. You also lose some powerful granularity.By default nearly all cloud providers launch your assets with default-deny on all inbound traffic. Some might automatically open a management port from your current location (based on IP address), but that’s about it. Some providers may use the term ACL to describe what we called a security group. Sorry, it’s confusing, but blame the vendors, not your friendly neighborhood analysts. Commercial Options There are a number of add-ons you can buy through your cloud provider, or buy and run yourself. Physical security appliances: The provider will provision an old-school piece of hardware to protect your assets. These are mostly just seen in VLAN-based providers and are considered pretty antiquated. They may also be used in private (on premise) clouds where you control and run the network yourself, which is out of scope for this research.PRO: They’re expensive, but they’re something you are used to managing. They keep your existing vendor happy? Look, it’s really all cons on this one unless you’re a cloud provider and in that case this paper isn’t for you. Virtual appliances are a virtual machine version of your friendly neighborhood security appliance and must be configured and tuned for the cloud platform you are working on. They can provide more advanced security – such as IPS, WAF, NGFW – than the cloud providers typically offer. They’re also useful for capturing network traffic, which providers tend not to support.PRO: They enable more-advanced network security and can manage the same as you do your on-premise versions of the tool. CON: Cost can be a concern, since these use resources like any other virtual server, constrains your architectures and they may not play well with auto scaling and other cloud-native features. Host security agents are software agents you build into your images that run in your

Share:
Read Post

Pragmatic Security for Cloud and Hybrid Networks: Cloud Networking 101

This is the second post in a new series I’m posting for public feedback, licensed by Algosec. Well, that is if they like it – we are sticking to our Totally Transparent Research policy. I’m also live-writing the content on GitHub if you want to provide any feedback or suggestions. Click here for the first post in the series. There isn’t one canonical cloud networking stack out there; each cloud service provider uses their own mix of technologies to wire everything up. Some of these might use known standards, tech, and frameworks, while others might be completely proprietary and so secret that you, as the customer, don’t ever know exactly what is going on under the hood. Building cloud scale networks is insanely complex, and the different providers clearly see networking capabilities as a competitive differentiator. So instead of trying to describe all the possible options, we’ll keep things at a relatively high level and focus on common building blocks we see relatively consistently on the different platforms. Types of Cloud Networks When you shop providers, cloud networks roughly fit into two buckets: Software Defined Networks (SDN) that fully decouple the virtual network from the underlying physical networking and routing. VLAN-based Networks that still rely on the underlying network for routing, lacking the full customization of an SDN. Most providers today offer full SDNs of different flavors, so we’ll focus more on those, but we do still encounter some VLAN architectures and need to cover them at a high level. Software Defined Networks As we mentioned, Software Defined Networks are a form of virtual networking that (usually) takes advantage of special features in routing hardware to fully abstract the virtual network you see from the underlying physical network. To your instance (virtual server) everything looks like a normal network. But instead of connecting to a normal network interface it connects to a virtual network interface which handles everything in software. SDNs don’t work the same as a physical network (or even an older virtual network). For example, in an SDN you can create two networks that use the same address spaces and run on the same physical hardware but never see each other. You can create an entirely new subnet not by adding hardware but with a single API call that “creates” the subnet in software. How do they work? Ask your cloud provider. Amazon Web Services, for example, intercepts every packet, wraps it and tags it, and uses a custom mapping service to figure out where to actually send the packet over the physical network with multiple security checks to ensure no customer ever sees someone else’s packet. (You can watch a video with great details at this link). Your instance never sees the real network and AWS skips a lot of the normal networking (like ARP requests/caching) within the SDN itself. SDN allows you to take all your networking hardware, abstract it, pool it together, and then allocate it however you want. On some cloud providers, for example, you can allocate an entire class B network with multiple subnets, routed to the Internet behind NAT, in just a few minutes or less. Different cloud providers use different underlying technologies and further complicate things since they all offer different ways of managing the network. Why make things so complicated? Actually, it makes management of your cloud network much easier, while allowing cloud providers to give customers a ton of flexibility to craft the virtual networks they need for different situations. The providers do the heavy lifting, and you, as the consumer, work in a simplified environment. Plus, it handles issues unique to cloud, like provisioning network resources faster than existing hardware can handle configuration changes (a very real problem), or multiple customers needing the same private IP address ranges to better integrate with their existing applications. Virtual LANs (VLANs) Although they do not offer the same flexibility as SDNs, a few providers still rely on VLANS. Customers must evaluate their own needs, but VLAN-based cloud services should be considered outdated compared to SDN-based cloud services. VLANs let you create segmentation on the network and can isolate and filter traffic, in effect just cutting off your own slice of the existing network rather than creating your own virtual environment. This means you can’t do SDN-level things like creating two networks on the same hardware with the same address range. VLANs don’t offer the same flexibility. You can create segmentation on the network and isolate and filter traffic, but can’t do SDN-level things like create two networks on the same hardware with the same address range. VLANs are built into standard networking hardware, which is why that’s where many people used to start. No special software needed. Customers don’t get to control their addresses and routing very well They can’t be trusted for security segmentation. Because VLANs are built into standard networking hardware, they used to be where most people started when creating cloud computing as no special software was required. But customers on VLANs don’t get to control their addresses and routing very well, and they scale and perform terribly when you plop a cloud on top of them. They are mostly being phased out of cloud computing due to these limitations. Defining and Managing Cloud Networks While we like to think of one big cloud out there, there is more than one kind of cloud network and several technologies that support them. Each provides different features and presents different customization options. Management can also vary between vendors, but there are certain basic characteristics that they exhibit. Different providers use different terminology, so we’ve tried out best to pick ones that will make sense once you look at particular offerings. Cloud Network Architectures An understanding of the types of cloud network architectures and the different technologies that enable them is essential to fitting your needs with the right solution. There are two basic types of cloud network architectures. Public cloud networks are Internet facing. You connect to your instances/servers via the public Internet and no special routing needed; every instance has a

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.