Research

I want to announce a couple webcasts I’ll be on this week regarding tokenization: one will focus on the grey areas of compliance with tokenization, and the other will offer buyers a list of key evaluation criteria. The first will be Tuesday March 20th, Selecting a Tokenization Solution – a Tokenization Buyer’s Guide. This is the last of a three-part series, and I will focus on all the questions you need to ask vendors. As with most security technologies, there are plenty of little ‘gotchas’ to look out for, and pricing options that are not always apparent. There will be a ton of content – some covered in the research paper, some completely new. On Thursday March 22nd, it will be What the Task Force Did Not Say, focusing on critical compliance issues which the PCI Council’s Tokenization Guidelines skirted. I will highlight key issues left dangling by the council, as well as specific areas merchants need to consider when using tokenization for PCI scope reduction. I will include advice on how to comply and address the most common questions I get from merchants considering tokenization. And bring your questions – we’ll leave time for your specific inquires about the official Guidance or the white paper. Share:

Sorry, folks, I wrote the Summary yesterday and got so caught up in CU beating UNLV for our first NCAA Tournament win in 15 years that I forgot to actually post this. Rich here. I’m going to pull a Rothman this week and go a little personal. I have not only been a competitive athlete my entire life, but most of you have probably noticed that I have a somewhat competitive and achievement-oriented personality overall. Life may not be a video game, but I’m sure going to grab as many power ups as I can just in case. From a certain perspective it’s selfish, because it’s all about what I can achieve, but for me it has always been more about exploring and challenging myself than beating others. I don’t mind losing as long as I played a good game. But I despise losing or doing poorly because I failed to perform. I have tempered a bit with age, but I’m still a competitive SOB. Almost always against the unrealistic goals I set for myself. But earlier this week that all went out the window. My daughter turned 3 recently, which meant it was time for her to move up to the next swimming class. Phoenix is loaded with pools and open water, and childhood drownings are a big problem. We started her in swimming lessons when she was a little over a year old, and for the past 18+ months I have dutifully taken her (and later our younger daughter) to the insanely chlorinated pool where I jumped in, carried her around, and sang all the kiddie songs while she tried to drown herself when I wasn’t looking. Until they’re 3, the parents are in the water with the kids. I really don’t want to think too much about why that pool has more chlorine in it than a chemical weapons plant. I was a bit nervous this past week as I took her in for her first class where she wouldn’t have me in the water with her. You know how kids get attached to patterns, and this was certainly a big break. I dropped her off with the instructor and sat on the other side of the pool in the parent’s seats. Holy crap did she kick ass. Aside from listening better to the instructor than she ever does to me (annoying), it took all of 15 minutes for them to get her to jump in, roll over, and float on her back without help. I assumed I’d be bored out of my mind while she crawled along the edge of the pool for 30 minutes, but I sat there and couldn’t stop watching. Nearly 2 years of training (and play) came together all at once. She probably won’t be in that class very long. And I figure by the time she’s 8 she will easily destroy my pathetic swim times. When the kids pass major milestones they announce it to the entire school at the end of class and hand them ribbons for the achievements. Riley walked away with 3 that night. And as I tried to avoid tearing up, I realized those 3 ribbons meant more to me than nearly anything I have achieved in my own life. For someone who is kind of an antisocial, competitive a-hole… that was entirely unexpected. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian’s Token Buyer’s Guide, next week. Rich quoted in the New York Times on protecting tax documents. A small quote from Rich on Anonymous hacking Panda security. Favorite Securosis Posts Adrian Lane: Defending Enterprise Data on iOS: Introduction. This is starting out to be a very good series. Mike Rothman: Mr. Market Says Security is Winning. Love being a contrarian, and Rich goes contrary to most convention (read echo chamber) thinking in this post… Mike’s Watching the Watchers post. Start of a new series on Privileged User Management, which is warming up. Other Securosis Posts Defending Enterprise Data on iOS: Introduction. Defending iOS Data: iOS Security and Data Protection. Data Flow on iOS. Incite 3/14/2012: My Kind of People. Mr. Market Says Security Is Winning. Favorite Outside Posts Adrian Lane: Let’s look these gift horses in the mouth. The “ungrateful bastard” who wrote this and I agree on many things, this one included. But where I keep my mouth shut and simply accept what I get, Jack does the right thing and points to where we need to be. Mike Rothman: My Networking Beliefs. As an old networking guy, I definitely appreciate this post by Greg Ferro. Lots of truth in here. Rich: Mozilla knew of Pwn2Own bug before CanSecWest. This is really funny, in a terribly geeky way. Research Reports and Presentations Network-Based Malware Detection: Filling the Gaps of AV. Tokenization Guidance Analysis: Jan 2012. Applied Network Security Analysis: Moving from Data to Information. Tokenization Guidance. Security Management 2.0: Time to Replace Your SIEM? Fact-Based Network Security: Metrics and the Pursuit of Prioritization. Tokenization vs. Encryption: Options for Compliance. Top News and Posts Patch Windows NOW!!! Major wormable vulnerability out. BBC attacked by Iran? How MAPP may help bad guys (due to lazy vendors). TSA Pre-Check lets you travel like it’s the year 2000. Talk about the ultimate proof that it’s all security theater. Someone leaked proof of concept code for the Microsoft RDP vulnerability. Windows Azure Outage. Blog Comment of the Week Remember, for every comment selected, Securosis makes a $25 donation to Hackers for Charity. This week’s best comment goes to Rory and Dre (they both contributed so much), in response to Defending iOS Data: iOS Security and Data Protection . @dre so it sounds like we’re talking about the difference between practical and theoretical here. I’d agree that theoretically iPad2/3/iPhone 4S are vulnerable to a DFU mode exploit if one is found but that currently there is no publicly available DFU mode exploit for iOS 5 running on an A5 based device (iPad 2/iPhone 4S) and that current publicly available jailbreaks can’t be done from a locked/powered off device. @ Rory: Yes, but the EMF and Dkey keys are

Continuing our series on iOS data security, we need to take some time to understand how data moves onto and around iOS devices before delving into security and management options. Data on iOS devices falls into one of a few categories, each with different data protection properties. For this discussion we assume that Data Protection is enabled, because otherwise iOS provides no real data security. Emails and email attachments. Calendars, contacts, and other non-email user information. Application data When the iOS Mail app downloads mail, message contents and attachments are stored securely and encrypted using Data Protection (under the user’s passphrase). If the user doesn’t set a passcode, the data is stored along with all the rest of user data, and only encrypted with the device key. Reports from forensics firms indicate that Data Protection on an iPad 2 or iPhone 4S (or later, we presume) running iOS 5 cannot currently be cracked, by other than brute force. Data Protection on earlier devices can be cracked. Assuming the user properly uses Data Protection, mail attachments viewed with the built-in viewer app are also safe. But once a user uses “Open In…”, the document/file is moved into the target application’s storage sandbox, and may thus be exposed. When a user downloads an email and an attachment, and views them in the Mail app, both are encrypted twice (once by the underlying FDE and once by Dat Protection). But when the user opens the document with Pages to edit it, a copy stored in the Pages store, which does not use Data Protection – and the data can be exposed. This workflow is specific to email – calendars, contacts, photos, and other system-accessible user information is not similarly protected, and is generally recoverable by a reasonably sophisticated attacker who has physical possession of the device. Data in these apps is also available system-wide to any application. It is a special class of iOS data using a shared store, unlike third-party app data. Other (third party) application data may or may not utilize Data Protection – this is up to the app developer – and is always sandboxed in the application’s private store. Data in each application’s local store is encrypted with the user’s passcode. This data may include whatever the programmer chooses – which means some data may be exposed, although documents are nearly always protected when Data Protection is enabled. The programmer can also restrict what other apps a given document is allowed to open in, although this is generally an all or nothing affair. If Data Protection isn’t enabled, all data is protected only with the device’s default hardware encryption. But sandboxing stil prevents apps from accessing each other’s data. The only exception is files stored in a shared service like Dropbox. Apps which access dropbox still store their local copies in their own private document stores, but other apps can access the same data from the online service to retrieve their own (private) copies. So application data (files) may be exposed despite Data Protection if the app supports “Open In…”. Otherwise data in applications is well protected. If a network storage service is used, the data is still protected and isolated within the app, but becomes accessible to other compatible apps once it is stored on a server. This isn’t really a fault of iOS, but this possibility needs to be considered when looking at the big picture. Especially if a document is opened in a Data Protection enabled app (where it’s secure), but then saved to a storage service that allows insecure apps to access it and store unencrypted copies. Thus iOS provides both protected and unprotected data flows. A protected data flow places content in a Data Protection encrypted container and only allows it to move to other encrypted containers (apps). An unprotected flow allows data to move into unencrypted apps. Some kinds of data (iOS system calendars, contacts, photos, etc.) cannot be protected and are always exposed. On top of this, some apps use their own internal encryption, which isn’t tied to the device hardware or the user’s passcode. Depending on implementation, this could be more or less secure than using the Data Protection APIs. The key, from a security perspective, is to understand how enterprise data moves onto the device (what app pulls it in), whether that app uses Data Protection or some other form of encryption, and what other apps that data can move into. If the data ever moves into an app that doesn’t encrypt, it is exposed. I can already see I will need some diagrams for the paper! But no time for that now – I need to get to work on the next post, where we start digging into data security options… Share:

We are happy to announce a new series, where for the first time we will research and document the issues around privileged user management (PUM). It may not sound as exciting as cloud anything, or iOS data protection, but it’s something you overlook at your own risk. Because administrators (those privileged users) have the keys to your kingdom. A sysadmin with malicious intent can cause a very bad day for you and your organization. And no, this isn’t just another recycled attempt to bring the insider threat back into vogue – much to the chagrin of the DLP vendors, who drove their first wave of growth based on the nebulous insider threat. First of all, privileged users (P-users) don’t necessarily need to be insiders. And most insiders have limited access and authorization entitlements, while administrators can basically giving themselves access to do whatever they want. That old privilege escalation thing. That’s why we are calling this series Watching the Watchers – because if not properly managed, administrators are Above the Law. Business Imperatives Changing Privileges We live in a brave new world of technology. What used to be within your site, in your data center, or running on your big iron, now may or may not be in any or all of those places. Even if your stuff runs in your data center you might not know exactly where and it may not be in your control. It may or may not be running on an operating system you understand. You may or may not control the pipes that lead to that data. And you certainly can’t tell business users and/or business partners that they need to go back to the old model, where you had visibility from the bare metal all the way to the data layer. Times have changed. Even better, you might not even know who is responsible for managing those specific systems. With layers of virtualization abstracting pretty much all physical networks, storage, and servers, there are many different folks responsible for managing the pieces of what we call an application. Even the term ‘application’ is really a misnomer – applications can be almost anything, processing anywhere, accessing data from anywhere, and presenting information to anyone, anywhere. Times sure have changed. So let’s start by defining what a privileged user is. Privileged User: Anyone with admin (or root) access to a device. Based on that definition, every user is a privileged user to some device. That’s a bit broad, so we’ll restrict our discussion (and this research) to users who manage critical devices – running applications, hosting databases, or pushing packets to the places they need to be. Sure, it’s problematic if the P-user in charge of the receptionist’s device (the receptionist) is compromised. But it’s much more serious if someone who can administer the device hosting your customer database gets owned. Let’s get a bit more specific about the business drivers and the impact on privileged users: Reduce Cost – Virtualization/Cloud: Many organizations are under dramatic pressure to continue reducing costs wherever possible. That means embracing technologies like virtualization to make better use of physical hardware, and cloud computing to make better use of data center real estate. The impact of this driver is scale. Now you have a lot more things to manage and they can be spun up and torn down at the click of a button or via script. Throw in the unbounded number of instances that can be run in the public cloud, and the only thing you can be sure of is a massive change management headache. Reduce Cost – Outsource: While data centers are virtualizing, organizations are contracting with (lower) cost management to do their (alleged) commodity work. You know, like managing databases and email. All kidding aside, it’s common to see third parties manage wide swaths of an organizations’ IT infrastructure – providing nameless, faceless folks (perhaps on the other end of a SAML link) with access to critical stuff. Agility – New Apps: If you think about a typical web app, it’s more ‘assembled’ nowadays than built from the ground up. And parts may be yours, they could be pieces you got from someone else, or they might include data from somewhere else, integrated into your environment via a foreign API. It’s hard to know what an application is nowadays. And if we don’t know what it is it’s generally difficult to manage. Yes, there are more business drivers, but you get the picture. Anyone with access to manage a device that runs something important (or is a component of something important) is a privileged user, and the change management issues inherent in this escalating complexity requires that administrators continue to become more efficient and leveraged. Which can result in errors, shortcuts, and general violation of good operational practices. Now let’s look at some specific threats these privileged users present. P-User Risk Assessment Yeah, we’re old school. We still like to assess risk, or at least run through a quick mental exercise to figure out how many ways we can get killed. So let’s do that with this explosion of devices managed by privileged users. Of course this isn’t an exhaustive list – more a back of the envelope exercise to uncover some of the biggest threats to our environment if these privileged users are compromised. And while we are at it, let’s define a new term, PUPwnage, for a compromised privileged user. Just rolls off the tongue, right? Compromised devices: This one is obvious. If a privileged user is compromised (PUPwned), the attackers gain access to any device they manage, and then the fun begins. Data leakage: PUPwnage can result in any and all data being stolen from the devices they control. Create accounts: PUPwnage allows attackers to create both user and admin accounts on devices, and to pivot through the environment, moving from one compromised device to another – stealing data thefts as they march along. Pollute applications and/or data: PUPwnage also results in application attacks, such as changing code to break functionality, creating backdoor access, deleting or changing data, or otherwise breaking your applications.

Before we delve into management options we need time to understand the iOS security and data protection models. These are the controls built into the platform – many utilized in the various enterprise options we will discuss in this series. We are focused on data but will also cover iOS security basics, as they play an important role in data security, and for those of you who aren’t familiar with the specifics. The short version is that iOS is quite secure – far more secure than a general-purpose computer. The downside is that Apple supports only limited third-party security management options. Note: We are only discussing iOS 5 or later (as of this writing 5.1 is the current version of the iOS operating system – for iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch). We do not recommend supporting previous versions of the OS. Device and OS Security No computing device is ever completely secure, but iOS has an excellent track record. There has never been any widespread remote attack or malware used against (non-jailbroken) iOS devices, although we have seen proof of concept attacks and plenty of reported vulnerabilities. This is thanks to a series of anti-exploitation features built into the OS, some of which are tied to the hardware. Devices may be vulnerable to local exploitation if the attacker has physical access (using the same techniques as jailbreakers). This is increasingly difficult on newer iOS devices (the iPhone 4S and iPad 2, and later), and basic precautions can protect data even if you lose physical control. Let’s quickly review the built-in security controls. Operating System Hardening Five key features of iOS are designed to minimize the chances of successful exploitation, even if there is an unpatched vulnerability on the device: Data Execution Protection (DEP): DEP is an operating system security feature that marks memory locations as non-executable, which is then enforced by the CPU itself. This reduces the opportunity for successful memory corruption attacks. Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR): ASLR randomizes the memory locations of system components to make it extremely difficult for an attacker to complete exploitation and run their own code, even if they do find and take advantage of a vulnerability. Randomizing the locations of system components makes it difficult for attackers to know exactly where to hook their code, in order to take over the system. Code Signing: All applications on iOS must be cryptographically signed. Better yet, they must be signed using an official Apple digital certificate,or an official enterprise certificate installed on the device for custom enterprise applications – more on this later. This prevents unsigned code from running on the device, including exploit code. Apple only signs applications sold through the App Store, minimizing the danger of malicious apps. Sandboxing: All applications are highly compartmentalized from each other, with no central document/file store. Applications can’t influence each other’s behavior or access shared data unless both applications explicitly allow and support such communication. The App Store: For consumers, only applications distributed by Apple through the App Store can be installed on iOS. Enterprises can develop and distribute custom applications, but this uses a model similar to the App Store, and such applications only work on devices with the corresponding enterprise digital certificate installed. All App Store apps undergo code review by Apple – this isn’t perfect but dramatically reduces the chance of malicious applications ending up on a device. There are, of course, techniques to circumvent DEP and ASLR, but it is extremely difficult to circumvent a proper implementation of them working together. Throw in code signing and additional software and hardware security beyond the scope of our discussion, and iOS is very difficult to exploit. Again, it isn’t impossible, and we have seen exploits (especially local attacks such as tethered jailbreaks), but their rarity, in light of the popularity of these devices, makes clear that these security controls work well enough to thwart widespread attacks. Specifically, we have yet to see any malware spread among un-jailbroken iPhones or iPads. Security Features In addition to its inherent security controls, iOS also includes some basic security features that users can either configure themselves or employers can manage through policies: Device PIN or Passcode: The most basic security for any device, iOS supports either a simple 4-digit PIN or full (longer) alphanumeric passphrases. Either way, they tie into the data protection and device wipe features. Passcode Wipe: When a PIN or passphrase is set, if the code is entered incorrectly enough many times the device erases all user data (this is tied to encryption features discussed in the next section). Remote Wipe: iOS supports remote wipe commands via Find My iPhone and through Exchange ActiveSync. Of course the device must be accessible across the Internet to execute the wipe remotely. Geolocation: The device’s physical location can be tracked using location services, which are part of Find My iPhone and can be incorporated into third-party applications. VPN and on-demand VPN: Virtual private networks can be activated manually or automatically when the device accesses any network service. (Not all VPNs support on-demand connection and this is VPN-provider specific). Configuration Profiles: Many of the security features, especially those used in enterprise environments, can be managed using profiles installed on the device. These include options far beyond those available to consumers configuring iOS personally, such as restricting which applications and activities the user can access on the phone or tablet. These are the core features we will build on as we start discussing enterprise management options. But iOS also includes data protection features that are the cornerstone of most iOS data security strategies. Data Protection Although it was nearly impossible to protect data on early iPhones, modern devices use a combination of hardware and software to provide data security: Hardware Encryption: The iPhone 3GS and later, and all iPads, support built-in hardware encryption. All user data can be automatically encrypted in hardware at all times. This is used primarily for wiping the device, rather than to stop attacks. Rather than slowly erasing the entire flash storage, wiping works by immediately destroying the encryption key, which makes user data

The numbers alone don’t tell the story. In 2011 Apple sold 315 million iOS devices (62 million in the fourth quarter alone). There are over 100 million iCloud users – using a service less than a year old. And these numbers are for Apple alone – never mind all the other mobile devices. Apple calls this the dawn of the “post-PC era”, and with numbers like those it’s hard to argue. Even Microsoft is in the midst of what is shaping up to be the largest change in their platform strategy since Windows, in an attempt to address this market. These devices aren’t confined to the home. Survey after survey shows growing enterprise adoption of iOS, including major migrations off RIM BlackBerry and other business-centric smartphones – even aside from the tidal wave called iPad. The phrase “the consumerization of IT” appeared before the release of the iPhone, but no other vendor is doing as much to drive the adoption of consumer technologies into the enterprise as Apple. In years past we in IT security served as the gatekeepers of new technologies in the enterprise. As much as we like to say we’re the last to find out about new tools and toys, mobility is one area where we have held tight control by limiting access to the network. But in the post-PC consumerization world we are losing our ability to stop the adoption of consumer technologies, even when they don’t support all our enterprise needs. In a recent session at the RSA Security Conference I asked a group of 150 operational security professionals how many were under pressure to support non-BlackBerry devices. Nearly every hand in the room went up, almost universally to support iOS, and only a relatively small percentage had technical capabilities or policies in place to manage this transition. And while there was some concern about the impact of these devices on the network, the universal concern was the safety of data. The question is no longer if or when to allow these devices, but how to support non-PC computing platforms while safely protecting enterprise data. To stay focused, this series will lay out options for protecting enterprise data on iOS, rather than talking about the myriad of other issues around mobile device management. Why iOS and Not Android Of course Apple isn’t single-handedly driving the consumerization of IT concept, but the numbers above (and a quick glance around the office) show that the company from Cupertino is clearly a major force. They have done more to alter the landscape of the smartphone and tablet markets than any other single provider. And, not coincidentally, we are asked more about securing iOS for the enterprise than any other platform. Until recently BlackBerry was the dominant platform – largely because it was designed specifically to address enterprise needs. As a result most organizations are comfortable securing these tools. Some organizations also supported Microsoft and perhaps Palm, but one of those companies no longer exists and the other completely tossed out its platform to start fresh. The real activity is with iOS and Google’s Android. But for a variety of reasons enterprises face more pressure to support iOS. Android-based tablets are not yet competitive or in wide use, and the fractured nature of Android phones and software versions makes it far easier to justify restricting those devices. From a security perspective, iOS is also a stronger platform. While nothing is invulnerable, there is essentially no iOS malware and few known security breaches. The software ties strongly to the hardware and current versions are very difficult to hack. Android, by its more open nature, represents a greater security risk – as demonstrated by ongoing malware issues (still lower than PC levels, but much higher than iOS). The main problem is that Apple provides limited tools for enterprise management of iOS. There is no ability to run background security applications, so we need to rely on policy management and a spectrum of security architectures. We will focus on iOS because: You already know how to manage BlackBerry. Android isn’t mature or safe enough for us to endorse for enterprise use, and the fractured operating system levels make strategic management difficult. Windows Mobile is not in widespread use and the Metro tablet platform is still in development. Clients tell us they are under pressure to support iOS more than other platforms – especially the iPad. Most of the options we will discuss also apply to other platforms – especially the latest version of Android (Ice Cream Sandwich, which isn’t widely available). Information-Centric Security We are focusing on data for this series, so we will take an information-centric approach. We won’t talk about network management or device restrictions that aren’t relevant to protecting data. But we will discuss managing the data even before it hits the device. Previously I wrote the following principles of information-centric security: Information (data) must be self describing and defending. Policies and controls must account for business context. Information must be protected as it moves from structured to unstructured, in and out of applications, and changing business contexts. Policies must work consistently through the different defensive layers and technologies we implement. These sound a bit like the usual analyst mumbo-jumbo, but we do actually have the technologies to implement much of this today. In terms of managing data for mobility and iOS we can hit every one of those points except movement between structured and unstructured data. Through the rest of this series we will show how to manage what data ends up on devices, how to protect it once it’s there, and how to build and manage policies to enable users without violating risk tolerances. To do this we will present a spectrum of options designed to satisfy different organizational needs; all of which are supported by existing products (some of which you probably already have). Before we dig into the management options we need to spend a little time understanding how iOS works… which will be the next post. And yes, this is the opening to a new

Like everyone else, I have a bunch of jobs. There is the day job and then my job at home. Well, it’s not really a job, it’s more a responsibility – to be a good husband and to teach my kids to be properly functioning adults. As most of you know, I take the parenting responsibility very seriously. I am constantly stressing hard work and best effort. Making the point constantly to my kids that the only thing they can truly control is their own effort. But ultimately I am flawed, like everyone else, and I worry my flaws will be passed on to my kids. We get each kid’s schoolwork back on Thursday. Usually they do very well but sometimes they blow a test or quiz. The Boss spends a lot of time going through their mistakes to make sure they don’t make the same ones again. I peruse the papers and try to celebrate the good scores on the math quiz or the spelling test. But it’s hard. I’m on to the next thing already. What’s next on the list? No time to celebrate – too much to do. That’s how I’m wired. But all the accomplishments and all the tasks checked off the task list pale in comparison to trying to teach the kids to be good people. To be nice and supportive and good friends. To be empathetic about other folks’ challenges, and to appreciate the charmed life they lead. Part of that process is sending them to sleepaway camp each summer. There they need to function as part of a group, without the Boss and me to tell them exactly what to do. Before we know it they’ll be out in the nasty, unforgiving world, so we hope they can learn some important lessons in a safe environment before it’s real. Another aspect of their real life training is to show that everyone has their own challenges, and they can choose to make every situation either better or worse. USA Network recently aired a show called NFL Characters Unite, which provided a great opportunity to teach the kids about the importance of empathy and being kind. The show takes some NFL heavy hitters (Hines Ward, Jimmy Graham, Tony Gonzalez, and Tony Dungy) and tells their stories of suffering racism, bullying, and abandonment. A 6’5” and 250 lb guy, being bullied? Amazingly enough, yes. It showed how these guys overcame those challenges, and showed them each mentoring a kid in a similar position. The show was really awesome. Not because it humanized the players, which it did. But it (hopefully) taught my kids a few things. First the impact of being unkind. They could see how bullying and meanness impact a kid. I also hope they learned not to judge a book by its cover. You’d never think NFL stars could be bullied or suffer racism. These guys are invincible, right? Not so much. The kids shouldn’t draw conclusions, but instead get to know folks and make up their own minds. Finally, perhaps they can appreciate how lucky they are to have a supportive family. Maybe, just maybe, when they get into a situation where they can choose to be kind or unkind, they’ll choose correctly. We hope they will reject peer pressure to go for the quick laugh, and stand up for someone who may not be able to stand up for themselves. Ultimately, in 10 years, when all our kids are loose on the world, I can only hope they’ll be kind people. The kind of people I’ll be proud to know. –Mike Photo credits: “In the end, only kindness matters” originally uploaded by SweetOnVeg Lazy Deal Analysis: Dell goes SuperSonic(WALL) Dell made news a year ago shelling out big bucks for SecureWorks, and now they are at it again, spending a reported $1-1.5 billion to acquire SonicWALL from the clutches of private equity. We actually like this deal – not only because it reinforces that Mr. Market Says Security Is Winning. But additionally, SonicWALL’s traditional business in the mid-market is a good fit with Dell’s distribution engine, and dovetails nicely with the SecureWorks services offering. But this deal is all about IBM and HP envy. Do you think it will be long before Dell formally moves all their security stuff into a separate business unit? They want to compete with the big boys, and large enterprise wants security from their major IT providers. Both SecureWorks (via the VeriSign MSS deal) and SonicWALL (with its SuperMassive NGFW) have increasingly focused on the enterprise. We expect Dell to continue investing in services folks to wrap the integration layer around the products and services. We have been hearing speculation about Dell acquiring Fortinet, but this deal seems like a much better option. It’s much cheaper, provides functionally comparable technology, and brings on less infrastructure to worry about integrating – especially at the enterprise level. And don’t forget about the biggest winners here: Thoma Bravo, the private equity fund that took SonicWALL private about 18 months ago for $717 million. Perhaps doubling in that time period is a huge win. But as Rich said in Mr. Market: the bankers always win. Incite 4 U Leaving an Anonymous Trail of Bits: We all talk about how as a good guy you need to always be right, while the bad guys only need to be right once. It turns out that no one can be wrong, ever, as our buddies at Threatpost detail by showing how some Anons left a trail, and the FBI (and other law enforcement folks) are getting much better at following such trails. Sabu forgot to Tor a few times and got bagged. Rob G talked a bit about it. And finally Nigel Perry talks a bit about how Sabu turning turncoat was obvious, in hindsight anyway – given his attempts to get his buddies to do bad stuff. I recently saw the movie Drive, and the bad guy says to the good guy that he can walk away, but he’ll always be looking over his shoulder. I guess that’s a universal truth

Today Dell announced its intention to acquire SonicWALL from private equity firm Thoma Bravo. This is less than two years after Thoma Bravo took SonicWALL private in a screaming deal, and with a deal size rumored up to $1.5 billion I think we can safely assume the bankers win again. As always. At some point I think Mike, Adrian, and I need to write up some post-acquisition boilerplate. Something including, “customers should talk to their sales reps/brain drain/happy bankers/watch this space/blah blah blah”. This is probably good for Dell because it will help address needs in their core SMB market, and SonicWALL cost less than a quarter what it would have to nab Fortinet. If the SecureWorks brains can feed the right intel into product development, things will probably work out just fine. Besides, with razor-thin hardware margins Dell needs to move into software and services, and security assets such as SonicWALL enhance both. But that isn’t what I want to talk about today. There is a bigger, more important issue at play. The simple fact that this deal went down, now, combined with some other indicators, is good evidence that the security market is succeeding despite ongoing headlines and opinions to the contrary. We’re going mainstream, baby! Acquisitions As Indicators Over the past year we have seen accelerating interest in security from mainstream IT vendors. Powerhouses like IBM, HP, and Dell are buying up security companies left and right. Even Intel got into the action with their purchase of McAfee, and Juniper with Mykonos. An even more specific indicator is the big vendors assembling all their assets into dedicated security business units. Some GM or SVP has a quota to sell security products. And it’s a high quota. Random acquisitions are nothing new, but all these companies are both talking about and building security portfolios on a larger scale than before, and devoting the resources to back them up. These big companies are hiring security folks (both product and services) like mad, and they have hundreds of sales folks pushing security products. Actually, only Cisco seems to be screwing up and moving in the other direction by talking about embedding security into everything. Reading between the lines, that means they no longer want to compete on the merits of their products. And talk about a brain drain. But that’s another story for another day. The Plural of Anecdote Big IT companies have been dabbling in security for years. The difference now is the growth in scale and the tone of the conversations. Every single one of these companies is citing direct customer demand and (off the record) competitive concerns. I don’t have numbers to back this up, and anecdote isn’t necessarily data, but enough anecdotes usually point to a trend which must be heeded. So we have multiple non-security vendors simultaneously making significant investments in security tools and services to offer their customers. Companies like IBM and HP that already have a lot of security products are each reorganizing their internal groups – all at the same time. Draw your own conclusions, but we see the writing on the wall. Big companies move slowly and are risk averse. They don’t need to innovate because they have a distribution machine that moves billions in products and services every quarter. They don’t move unless they feel forced. They are defensive, and acquire to protect markets, not to create them. Multiple, large, non-security companies all acquiring and reorganizing at the same time is a lagging indicator. Customers continue to struggle with security, and they demand better solutions from the folks who sell them millions of dollars of gear each year. They are tired of dealing with an armada of small start-ups to solve niche problems. They want the problem to go away, and the big guys are all worried that if they don’t at least address the problem they will lose their ability to milk the enterprise cash cows. #Winning There has been a lot of talk about us losing the battle. In a recent Incite, Mike talked about having a little perspective about what winning really means for a security professional. But if you want to be somewhat optimistic, maybe we need to look at winning in a different context. Maybe we are ‘winning’ because all the non-security people who we always claim “don’t get it” are driving dinosaurs (like IBM, HP, and Dell) to change direction and start taking security more seriously. These big companies are voting with their dollars, and there is no better indicator of seriousness. Security is in demand and clearly not being ignored within the upper echelon of IT companies. As Mike likes to say, Mr. Market is talking, and for once he’s saying ‘security’. Share:

By Adrian Lane: I learned something from the e10+ session during RSA. Usually it’s my least favorite event but this year was different – it was most favorite, and not just because Rich and Mike were instrumental in putting it together. The consumerization presentation was really informative – the audience responses surprised me – but the breach victim “fireside chat” was awesome. The only way we could mimic the human stress angle in a preparedness drill is to set part of your office on fire during a press conference, or taze IT personnel as they rummage through logs. Don’t discount the stress factor in breach planning. Around the time of the RSA conference I have had a few discussions with VCs about technology acquisition. We discussed market trends, total market revenue estimates, sales opportunities, how products should be sold, and what changes in the ‘go-to-market’ strategy were needed to turn the company around. At the end of the day, the investment was a non-starter. Not because of the market, or the value of the technology, but because of the level of trust in the management team. They simply got “a bad feeling” they could not overcome. People not trusting people. I know several other bloggers have mentioned the exotic cars this year in vendor booths on the conference floor. What’s the connection with security? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. But they sure pulled in the crowds. Cars and booth babes with matching attire. I admit the first time I swung by Fortinet’s booth was to see the Ferrari. Sure, it was an unapologetic lure. And it worked. I even took a photo, I was so impressed with the beauty of its engineering. Nice, huh? It’s too easy to be dispassionate about security, especially when talking about cryptography or key management. Heck, I have seen presentations on social engineering that had the sex appeal of paint brushes. How many of you have seen the “blinky light phenomena”, where buyers prefer hardware over software because there was a very cool looking (read: tangible) representation of their investment? But security users – or should I say security buyers – are motivated by human factors like everyone else. Too many CTOs I speak with talk about what we should be doing in security, or the right way to solve security problems. They fail to empathize with IT guys who are trying to get multiple jobs done without much fanfare. And many of them don’t want to talk about it – they want to get out of their cubicles for a day, walk around some shiny cars, have someone listen to their security issues and bring some tchochkes back to their desks. Human behavior is not just an exploit vector – it’s also part of the solution space. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Mike quoted on Bank Info Security. Adrian’s DR article on Deleting Databases. Rich quoted on Daring Fireball about OS X Gatekeeper. Adrian talks Tokenization at RSA Conference. Adrian quoted in CSO on Big Data. Favorite Securosis Posts Mike Rothman: Burnout. This is a great post by Rich. Read. it. now. Adrian Lane: Bringing Sexy back (to Security): Mike’s RSAC 2012 Wrap-up. Rich: Lazy Deal Analysis in this week’s Incite Other Securosis Posts Incite 3/7/2012: Perspective. Upcoming Cloud Security Training Courses. Objectivity Matters. Implementing DLP: Ongoing Management. Implementing DLP: Deploy. The Securosis Guide to RSA 2012. The Last Friday before the 2012 RSA Conference. RSA Conference 2012 Guide: Cloud Security. RSA Conference 2012 Guide: Data Security. RSA Conference 2012 Guide: Security Management and Compliance. Favorite Outside Posts Rich: How’s that secrecy working out? The bad guys talk. We don’t. Guess who has the advantage? Dave Lewis: Researchers find MYSTERY programming language in Duqu Trojan. It shows both skill and dedication to create your own language to write malware. But why? Anti-reverse engineering? Sounds spook-y! Mike Rothman: Heartland 2011. Gunnar revisits the impact of the breach Heartland’s on business operations. Some folks will use this as proof that a high-profile breach is nothing but brief event. Heartland clearly responded effectively and got their business back on a nice growth path. But don’t make the mistake that correlation = causation. It’s a data point, nothing more nor less. Adrian Lane: The Ruby/GitHub hack: translated. The only lucid discussion of the GitHub incident I’ve seen, and a nice breakdown of the issue. Project Quant Posts Malware Analysis Quant: Metrics–Monitor for Reinfection. Malware Analysis Quant: Metrics–Remediate. Malware Analysis Quant: Metrics–Find Infected Devices. Malware Analysis Quant: Metrics–Define Rules and Search Queries. Research Reports and Presentations Network-Based Malware Detection: Filling the Gaps of AV. Tokenization Guidance Analysis: Jan 2012. Applied Network Security Analysis: Moving from Data to Information. Tokenization Guidance. Security Management 2.0: Time to Replace Your SIEM? Fact-Based Network Security: Metrics and the Pursuit of Prioritization. Tokenization vs. Encryption: Options for Compliance. Top News and Posts We Need to Talk About Android. The practical side of app security. East Villager is ID’d as leading hacker with Anonymous group. Consumerization is not BYOD, and what that means for security. Head of Lulzsec Arrested. TSA Pooh-Poohs Video Purporting to Defeat Airport Body Scanners The video is a ‘must see’. Adobe patches critical flaws. Feels like I write that sentence every week. Tips for NOT getting Hacked on the Web. I would have said “for the common man”, and I would included a recommendation to not click email links, but solid advice for basic user protection! Fake AV attack targets WordPress users. Apparently some people we know have experienced this. Apple releases Configurator app for Mac. With all the hoopla surrounding the new iPad and Apple TV releases, you might have missed this important iDevice management tool. Still Life With Anonymous. In case you missed it, just before the RSA Conference, Imperva launched a report containing their findings on Anonymous. Mitt Romney or Mr. Burns? OK, it’s political, but it’s really funny. Hackers grab Michael Jackson songs from Sony. Google Pay Out $47,500 in bug bounties. This program is working, people! Take note. Blog Comment of the Week Remember, for every comment selected, Securosis makes a

In our previous post on DSP components we outlined the evolution of Database Activity Monitoring into Database Security Platforms. One of its central aspects is the evolution of event collection mechanisms from native audit, to monitoring network activity, to agent-based activity monitoring. These are all database-specific information sources. The evolution of DAM has been framed by these different methods of data collection. That’s important, because what you can do is highly dependent on the data you can collect. For example, the big reason agents are the dominant collection model is that you need them to monitor administrators – network monitoring can’t do that (and is quite difficult in distributed environments). The development of DAM into DSP also entails examination of a broader set of application-related events. By augmenting the data collection agents we can examine other applications in addition to databases – even including file activity. This means that it has become possible to monitor SAP and Oracle application events – in real time. It’s possible to monitor user activity in a Microsoft SharePoint environment, regardless of how data is stored. We can even monitor file-based non-relational databases. We can perform OS, application, and database assessments through the same system. A slight increase in the scope of data collection means much broader application-layer support. Not that you necessarily need it – sometimes you want a narrow database focus, while other times you will need to cast a wider net. We will describe all the options to help you decide which best meets your needs. Let’s take a look at some of the core data collection methods used by customers today: Event Sources Local OS/Protocol Stack Agents: A software ‘agent’ is installed on the database server to capture SQL statements as they are sent to the databases. The events captured are returned to the remote Database Security Platform. Events may optionally be inspected locally by the agent for real-time analysis and response. The agents are either deployed into the host’s network protocol stack or embedded into the operating system, to capture communications to and from the database. They see all external SQL queries sent to the database, including their parameters, as well as query results. Most critically, they should capture administrative activity from the console that does not come through normal network connections. Some agents provide an option to block malicious activity – either by dropping the query rather than transmitting it to the database, or by resetting the suspect user’s database connection. Most agents embed into the OS in order to gain full session visibility, and so require a system reboot during installation. Early implementations struggled with reliability and platform support problems, causing system hangs, but these issues are now fortunately rare. Current implementations tend to be reliable, with low overhead and good visibility into database activity. Agents are a basic requirement for any DSP solution, as they are a relatively low-impact way of capturing all SQL statements – including those originating from the console and arriving via encrypted network connections. Performance impact these days is very limited, but you will still want to test before deploying into production. Network Monitoring: An exceptionally low-impact method of monitoring SQL statements sent to the database. By monitoring the subnet (via network mirror ports or taps) statements intended for a database platform are ‘sniffed’ directly from the network. This method captures the original statement, the parameters, the returned status code, and any data returned as part of the query operation. All collected events are returned to a server for analysis. Network monitoring has the least impact on the database platform and remains popular for monitoring less critical databases, where capturing console activity is not required. Lately the line between network monitoring capabilities and local agents has blurred. Network monitoring is now commonly deployed via a local agent monitoring network traffic on the database server itself, thereby enabling monitoring of encrypted traffic. Some of these ‘network’ monitors still miss console activity – specifically privileged user activity. On a positive note, installation as a user process does not require a system reboot or cause adverse system-wide side effects if the monitor crashes unexpectedly. Users still need to verify that the monitor is collecting database response codes, and should determine exactly which local events are captured, during the evaluation process. Memory Scanning: Memory scanners read the active memory structures of a database engine, monitoring new queries as they are processed. Deployed as an agent on the database platform, the memory scanning agent activates at pre-determined intervals to scan for SQL statements. Most memory scanners immediately analyze queries for policy violations – even blocking malicious queries – before returning results to a central management server. There are numerous advantages to memory scanning, as these tools see every database operation, including all stored procedure execution. Additionally, they do not interfere with database operations. You’ll need to be careful when selecting a memory scanning product – the quality of the various products varies. Most vendors only support memory scanning on select Oracle platforms – and do not support IBM, Microsoft, or Sybase. Some vendors don’t capture query variables – only the query structure – limiting the usefulness of their data. And some vendors still struggle with performance, occasionally missing queries. But other memory scanners are excellent enterprise-ready options for monitoring events and enforcing policy. Database Audit Logs: Database Audit Logs are still commonly used to collect database events. Most databases have native auditing features built in; they can be configured to generate an audit trail that includes system events, transactional events, user events, and other data definitions not available from any other sources. The stream of data is typically sent to one or more locations assigned by the database platform, either in a file or within the database itself. Logging can be implemented through an agent, or logs can be queried remotely from the DSP platform using SQL. Audit logs are preferred by some organization because they provide a series of database events from the perspective of the database. The audit trail reconciles database rollbacks, errors, and uncommitted statements – producing an accurate representation of changes