Securosis

Research

Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Incident Response/Management [Final Paper]

We continue to investigate the practical use of Threat Intelligence (TI) within your security program. After tackling how to Leverage Threat Intel in Security Monitoring, we now turn our attention to Incident Response and Management. In this paper we go deep into how your existing incident response and management processes can (and should) integrate adversary analysis and other threat intelligence sources, to help narrow down the scope of your investigations. We have also put together a snappy process map depicting how IR/M looks when you factor in external data. To really respond faster you need to streamline investigations and make the most of your resources. That starts with an understanding of what information would interest attackers. From there you can identify potential adversaries and gather threat intelligence to anticipate their targets and tactics. With that information you can protect yourself, monitor for indicators of compromise, and streamline your response when an attack is (inevitably) successful. You will have incidents. If you can respond to them faster and more effectively that’s a good thing, right? Integrating Threat Intel into the IR process is one way to do that. We’d like to thank Cisco and Bit9 + Carbon Black for licensing the content in this paper. We are grateful that our clients see the value of supporting objective research to educate the industry. Without forward-looking organizations you would be on your own… or paying up to get behind the paywall of big research. Check out the paper’s landing page, or download it directly: Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Incident Response/Management (PDF). Share:

Share:
Read Post

New Research Paper: Secure Agile Development

Security teams are tightly focused on bringing security to applications, and meeting compliance requirements in the delivery of applications and services. On the other hand job #1 for software developers is to deliver code faster and more efficiently, with security a distant second. Security professionals and developers often share responsibility for security, but finding the best way to embed security into the software development lifecycle (SDLC) is not an easy challenge. Agile frameworks have become the new foundation for code development, with an internal focus on ruthlessly rooting out tools and techniques that don’t fit this type of development. This means secure development practices, just like every other facet of development, must fit within the Agile framework – not the other way around. This paper offers an outline for security folks to understand development teams’ priorities and methodologies, and practical ways to work together within the Agile methodology. Here is an excerpt: Over the past 15 years, the way we develop software has changed completely. Development processes evolved from Waterfall, to rapid development, to extreme programing, to Agile, to Agile with Scrum, to our current darling: DevOps. Each evolutionary step was taken to build better software by improving the software building process. And each step embraced changes in tools, languages, and systems to encourage increasingly agile processes, while discouraging slower and more cumbersome processes. The fast flux of development evolution gradually deprecated everything that impeded agility … including security. Agile had an uneasy relationship with security because its facets which promoted better software development (in general) broke existing techniques for building security into code. Agile frameworks are the new foundation for code development, with an internal focus on ruthlessly rooting out tools and techniques that don’t fit the model. So secure development practices, just like every other facet of development, must fit within the Agile framework – not the other way around. We are also proud that Veracode has asked to license this content; without support like this we could not bring this quality research to you free of charge without registration. As with all our research, if you have questions or comments we encourage you to comment on the blog so open discussion can help the community. For a copy of the research download the PDF, or get a copy from our research library page on Secure Agile Development. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Summary: Comic Book Guy

Rich here. I only consistently read comic books for a relatively short period of my life. I always enjoyed them as a kid but didn’t really collect them until sometime around high school. Before that I didn’t have the money to buy them month to month. I kept up a little in college, but I probably had less free capital as a freshman than in elementary school. Gas money and cheap dates add up crazy fast. Much to my surprise, at the ripe old age of forty-something, I find myself back in the world of comics. It all started thanks to my kids and Netflix. Netflix has quite the back catalog of animated shows, including my all-time favorite, Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends. You know: Iceman and Firestar. I really loved that show as a kid, and from age three to four it was my middle daughter’s absolute favorite. Better yet, my kids also found Super Hero Squad; a weird and wonderful stylized comedy take on Marvel comics that ran for two seasons. It was one of those rare shows loaded with jokes targeting adults while also appealing to kids. It hooked both my girls, who then moved on to the more serious Avengers Assemble, which covered a bunch of the major comics events – including Secret Invasion, which ran as a season-long story arc. My girls love all the comics characters and stories. Mostly Marvel, which is what I know, but you can’t really avoid DC. Especially Wonder Woman. Their favorite race is the Super Hero Run where we all dress in costumes and run a 5K (I run, they ride in the Helicarrier, which civilians call a “jog stroller”). When it comes to ComiCon, my oldest will gut me with a Barbie if I don’t take her. The there are the movies. The kids are too young to see them all (mostly just Avengers), but I am stunned that the biggest movies today are all expressions of my childhood dreams. Good comic book movies? With plot lines that extend a decade or more? And make a metric ton of cash? Yes, decades. In case you hadn’t heard, Disney/Marvel announced their lineup through 2019. 2-3 films per year, with interlocking television shows on ABC and Netflix, all leading to a 2-film version of the Infinity Wars. My daughter wasn’t born when Iron Man came out, and she will be 10 when the final Avengers (announced so far) is released. Which is why I am back on the comics. Because I am **Dad*, and while I may screw up everything else, I will sure as hell make sure I can explain who the Skrull are, and why Thanos wants the Infinity Gems. I am even learning more about the Flash, and please forgive me, Aquaman. There are few things as awesome as sharing what you love with your kids, and them sharing it right back. I didn’t force this on my kids – they discovered comics on their own, and I merely encouraged their exploration. The exact same thing is happening with Star Wars, and in a year I will get to take my kids to see the first new film with Luke, Leia, and Han since I was a kid. My oldest will even be the same age I was when my father took me to Star Wars for the first time. No, those aren’t tears. I have allergies. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Rich in SC Magazine on Apple Security. Adrian will be discussing Enterprise App Security on the 19th. Webcast with Intel/Mashery November 18th on Data Centric Security. Favorite Securosis Posts Mike Rothman: Friday Summary: Halloween. Adrian and Emily get (yet) another dog. 😉 Rich: We are still low on posts, so I will leave it at that and tell you to read all of them this week 🙂 Other Securosis Posts Building an Enterprise Application Security Program: Security Gaps. Incite 11/5/2014: Be Like Water. Monitoring the Hybrid Cloud: Evolving to the CloudSOC [New Series]. Favorite Outside Posts Mike Rothman: Don’t Get Old. I like a lot of the stuff Daniel Miessler writes. I don’t like the term ‘old’ in this case because that implies age. I think he is talking more about being ‘stuck’, which isn’t really a matter of age. Rich: How an Agile Development Process Fits into the Security User Story. This is something I continue to struggle with as I dig deeper into Agile and DevOps. There is definitely room for more research into how to integrate security into user stories, and tying that to threat modeling. Maybe a project I should take up over the holidays. Adrian Lane: Facebook, Google, and the Rise of Open Source Security Software. It’s interesting that Facebook is building this in-house. And contributing to the open source community. But remember they bought PrivateCore last year too. So the focus on examining in-memory processes and protecting memory indicates their feelings on security. Oh, and Rich is quoted in this too! Research Reports and Presentations Trends in Data Centric Security White Paper. Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Incident Response/Management. Pragmatic WAF Management: Giving Web Apps a Fighting Chance. The Security Pro’s Guide to Cloud File Storage and Collaboration. The 2015 Endpoint and Mobile Security Buyer’s Guide. Analysis of the 2014 Open Source Development and Application Security Survey. Defending Against Network-based Distributed Denial of Service Attacks. Reducing Attack Surface with Application Control. Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Security Monitoring. The Future of Security: The Trends and Technologies Transforming Security. Top News and Posts FBI and Homeland Security shut down Silk Road 2, arrest alleged operator Apple comments on ‘Wirelurker’ malware, infected apps already blocked Accuvant and FishNet Security merging. That’s one BIG security VAR/services company. NSA Director Says Agency Shares Vast Majority of Bugs it Finds. They have said a lot of things lately – hopefully this one is true. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Building an Enterprise Application Security Program: Security Gaps

This post will discuss the common security domains with enterprise applications, areas where generalized security tools lack the depth to address application and database specific issues, and some advice on how to fill in the gaps. But first I want to announce that Onapsis has asked to license the content of this research series. As always, we are pleased when people like what we write well enough to get behind our work, and encourage our Totally Transparent Research style. With that, on with today’s post! Enterprise applications typically address a specific business function: supply chain management, customer relations management, inventory management, general ledger, business performance management, and so on. They may support thousands of users, tie into many other application platforms, but these are specialized applications with very high complexity. To understand the nuances of these systems, the functional components that comprise an application, how they are configured, and what a transaction looks like to that application takes years of study. Security tools also often specialize as well, focusing on a specific type of analysis – such as malware detection – and applying it in particular scenarios such as network flow data, log files, or binary files. They are generally designed to address threats across IT infrastructure at large; very few move up the (OSI) stack to look at generic presentation or application layer threats. And fewer still actually have any knowledge of specific application functions to understand a complex platform like Oracle’s Peoplesoft of SAP’s ERP systems. Security vendors pay lip service to understanding the application layer, but their competence typically ends at the network service port. Generic events and configuration data outside applications may be covered; internals generally are not. Let’s dig into specific examples: Understanding Application Usage The biggest gap and most pressing need is that most monitoring systems do not understand enterprise applications. To continuously monitor enterprise applications you need to collect the appropriate data and then make sense of it. This is a huge problem because data collection points vary by application, and each platform speaks a slightly different ‘language’. For example platforms like SAP speak in codes. To monitor SAP you need to understand SAP operation codes such as T-codes, and there are a lot of different codes. Second you need to know where to collect these requests – application and database log files generally do not provide the necessary information. As another example most Oracle applications rely heavily on stored procedures to efficiently process data within the database. Monitoring tools may see a procedure name and a set of variables in the user request, but unless you know what operation that procedure performs, you have no idea what is happening. Again you need to monitor the connection between the application platform and the database because audit logs do not provide a complete picture of events; then you need to figure out what the query, code, or procedure request means. Vendors who claim “deep packet inspection” for application security skirt understanding how the application actually works. Many use metadata (including time of day, user, application, and geolocation) collected from the network, possibly in conjunction with something like an SAP code, to evaluate user requests. They essentially monitor daily traffic to develop an understanding of ‘normal’, then attempt to detect fraud or inappropriate access without understanding the task being requested. This is certainly helpful for compliance and change management use cases, but not particularly effective for fraud or misuse detection. And it tends to generate false positive alerts. Products designed to monitor applications and databases actually understand their targeted application, and provide much more precise detection and enforcement. Building application specific monitoring tools is difficult and specialized work. But when you understand the application request you can focus your analysis on specific actions – order entry, for example – where insider fraud is most prevalent. This speeds up detection, lessens the burden of data collection, and makes security operations teams’ job easier. Application Composition Throughout this research we use the term ‘database’ a lot. Databases provide the core storage, search, and data management features for applications. Every enterprise application relies on a database of some sort. In fact databases are complex applications themselves. To address enterprise application security and compliance you must address many issues and requirements for both the and the application platforms. Application Deployments We seldom see two instances of the same application deployed the same. They are tailored to each company’s needs, with configuration and user provisioning to support specific requirements. This complicates configuration and vulnerability scanning considerably. What’s more, application and database assessment scans are very different from typical OS and network assessments, requiring different evaluation criteria to assess suitability. The differences lie in both how information is collected, and the depth and breadth of the rule set. All assessment products examine software revision levels, but generic assessment tools stop at list vulnerabilities and known issues, based exclusively on software versions. Understanding an application’s real issues requires a deeper look. For example test and sample applications often introduce back doors into applications, which attackers then exploit. Software revision level cannot tell you what risks are posed by vulnerable modules; only a thorough analysis of a full software manifest can do that. Separation of duties between application, database, and IT administrators cannot be determined by scanning a network port or even hooking into LDAP – it requires interrogation of applications and persistent data storage. Network configuration deficiencies, weak passwords and public accounts, all easily spotted by traditional scanners – provided they have a suitable policy to check – but scanners do not discover data ownership rights, user roles, whether auditing is enabled, unsafe file access rights, or dozens of other well-known issues. Data collection is the other major difference. Most assessment scans offer a basic network port scanner – for cases where agents are inappropriate – to interrogate the application. This provides a quick, non-invasive way to discover basic patch information. Application assessment scanners look for application specific settings, both on disk

Share:
Read Post

Incite 11/5/2014: Be Like Water

You want it and you want it now. So do I. Whatever it is. We live in an age of instant gratification. You don’t need to wait for the mailman to deliver letters – you get them via email. If you can’t wait the 2 days for Amazon Prime shipping, you order it online and pick it up at one of the few remaining brick and mortar stores. Record stores? Ha! Book stores? Double ha!! We live in the download age. You want it, you buy it (or not), and you download it. You have it within seconds. But what happens when you don’t get what you want or (egads!) when you have to wait? You are disappointed. We all are. We get locked into that thing. It’s the only outcome we can see. Maybe it’s a thing, maybe it’s an activity. Maybe it’s a reaction from someone, or more money, or a promotion. It could be anything, but you want it and you get pissy when you don’t get it – now! The problem comes down to attachment. Disappointment happens when you don’t get the desired outcome in the timeframe you want. Disappointment leads to unhappiness, which leads to sickness, and so it goes. I have made a concerted effort to stop attaching myself to specific outcomes. Sure, there are goals I have and things I want to achieve. But I no longer give myself a hard time when I don’t attain them. I don’t consider myself a failure when things don’t go exactly as I plan. At least I try not to… But I was struggling to find an analogy to rely on for this philosophy, until earlier this week. I was in a discussion in a private Facebook group, and I figured out the concept in a way I can easily remember and rely on when my mind starts running amok. I think many of us fall into the trap of seeing a desirable outcome and getting attached to that. I know I do. I’m trying to flow like water. Water doesn’t care where it ends up. It goes along the path the provides the least resistance at any given time. Not that we don’t need resistance from time to time to grow, rather we need to be flexible to adapt to the reality of the moment. Be like water. Water takes the shape of whatever vessel it’s in. Water flows. Water has no predetermined goal and can change form as needed. As the waves crash they show the awesome power of harnessed water. The analogy also works for me because I like being by the water, and the sound of water calms me. But I am not the only one who likes the water. Bruce Lee figured this out way before me and talked about it in this classic interview. Maybe the concept works for you, and maybe it doesn’t. It’s fine either way for me – I’m not attached to a particular outcome… –Mike Photo credit: “The soothing sound of flowing water” originally uploaded by Ib Aarmo The fine folks at the RSA Conference posted the talk Jennifer Minella and I did on mindfulness at the conference this year. You can check it out on YouTube. Take an hour and check it out. Your emails, alerts and Twitter timeline will be there when you get back. Securosis Firestarter Have you checked out our new video podcast? Rich, Adrian, and Mike get into a Google Hangout and.. hang out. We talk a bit about security as well. We try to keep these to 15 minutes or less, and usually fail. October 27 – It’s All in the Cloud October 6 – Hulk Bash September 16 – Apple Pay August 18 – You Can’t Handle the Gartner July 22 – Hacker Summer Camp July 14 – China and Career Advancement June 30 – G Who Shall Not Be Named June 17 – Apple and Privacy May 19 – Wanted Posters and SleepyCon May 12 – Another 3 for 5: McAfee/OSVDB, XP Not Dead, CEO head rolling Heavy Research We are back at work on a variety of blog series, so here is a list of the research currently underway. Remember you can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, with our content in all its unabridged glory. And you can get all our research papers too. Monitoring the Hybrid Cloud: Evolving to the CloudSOC Introduction Building an Enterprise Application Security Program Introduction Use Cases Security and Privacy on the Encrypted Network The Future is Encrypted Secure Agile Development Deployment Pipelines and DevOps Building a Security Tool Chain Process Adjustments Working with Development Agile and Agile Trends Introduction Newly Published Papers Trends in Data Centric Security Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Incident Response/Management The Security Pro’s Guide to Cloud File Storage and Collaboration The 2015 Endpoint and Mobile Security Buyer’s Guide Open Source Development and Application Security Analysis Advanced Endpoint and Server Protection Defending Against Network-based DDoS Attacks The Future of Security Incite 4 U Shiny attack maps for everyone: I hand it to Bob Rudis and Alex Pinto for lampooning vendors’ attack maps. They have issued an open source attack map called IPew, which allows you to build your own shiny map to impress your friends and family. As they describe it, ‘IPew is an open source “live attack map” simulation built with D3 (Datamaps) that puts global cyberwar just a URL or git clone away for anyone wanting to display these good-for-only-eye-candy maps on your site.’ Humor aside, visualization is a key skill, and playing around with their tool may provide ideas for how you can present data in a more compelling way within your own shop. So it’s not all fun and games, but if you do need some time to decompress, set IPew to show the Internet having a bad day… War Games FTW. – MR Not for what you think: Occasionally we need to call BS on a post, and Antone Gonsalves on Fraudster Protection

Share:
Read Post

Monitoring the Hybrid Cloud: Evolving to the CloudSOC [New Series]

As we wrote in The Future of Security, we believe the collision of cloud computing and mobility will disrupt and transform security. We started documenting the initial stages of the transformation, so we now turn our attention to how controls will be implemented as the technology space moves to an automated and abstracted reality. That may sound like science fiction, but these technologies are here now, and it is only beginning to become apparent how automation and abstraction will ripple outward, transforming the technology environment. Change is hard, and we face a distinct lack of control over a number of areas, which is enough to give most security folks a panic attack. From an access standpoint IT can no longer assume ownership and/or the ability to control devices. Consumption occurs on user-owned devices, everywhere, and often not through corporate-controlled networks. This truly democratizes access to critical information. IT organizations must accept no longer controlling the infrastructure either. In fact they don’t even know how the underlying systems are constructed – servers and networks are virtual. Compute, storage, and networking now reside outside the direct control of staff. You cannot just walk down to the data center to figure out what’s going on. As these two megatrends collide, security folks are caught in the middle. The ways we used to monitor devices and infrastructure no longer work. Not to the same degree, anyway. There are no tap points, and it is now prohibitively inefficient to route traffic through central choke points for inspection. Security monitoring needs to change fundamentally to stay relevant in the cloud age. Our new blog series, Monitoring the Hybrid Cloud: Evolving to the CloudSOC, we will dig into the new use cases you will need to factor into your security monitoring strategy, and discuss the emerging technologies that can help you cope. Finally we will discuss migration, because you will be dealing with legacy infrastructure for years to come, so your environment will truly be a hybrid. The Cloud Is Different For context on this disruptive innovation we borrow from our Future of Security paper to describe how and why the cloud is different. And just in case you think these changes don’t apply to you, forget it. Every major enterprise we talk with today uses cloud services. Even some of the most sensitive and highly regulated industries, including financial services, are exploring more extensive use of public cloud computing. We see no technical, economic, or even regulatory issues seriously slowing this shift. The financial and operational advantages are simply too strong. Defining ‘Cloud’: Cloud computing is a radically different technology model – it is not simply the latest flavor of outsourcing. The cloud uses a combination of abstraction and automation to achieve previously impossible levels of efficiency and elasticity. This, in turn, creates new business models and alters the economics of technology delivery and consumption. Cloud computing fundamentally disrupts traditional infrastructure because it is more responsive, more efficient, and potentially more resilient and cost effective than the status quo. Public cloud computing is even more disruptive because it enables organizations to consume only what they need without overhead, while still rapidly adapting to changing needs at effectively infinite scale. Losing Physical Control: Many of today’s security controls rely on knowing and managing the physical resources that underpin our technology services. This is especially true for security monitoring, but let’s not put the cart before the horse. The cloud breaks this model by virtualizing resources (including entire applications) into resource pools managed over the network. We give up physical control to standard network interfaces, effectively creating a new management plane. The good news is that centralized control is built into the model. The bad news is this is likely to destroy the traditional security controls you rely on. At minimum most of your existing operational processes will change fundamentally. A New Emphasis on Automation: The cloud enables extreme agility, such as servers that exist only for minutes – automatically provisioned, configured, and destroyed without human interaction. Entire data centers can be spun up and operational with just a few lines of code. Scripts can automate what used to take IT staff weeks to set up physically. Application developers can check in a piece of code, which then runs through a dozen automated checks and is pushed into production on a self-configuring platform that scales to meet demand. Security can leverage these same advantages, but the old bottlenecks and fixed inspection points – including mandated human checks – are gone because a) they cannot keep up and b) architecting them in would slow everthing else down. The cloud’s elasticity and agility also enable new operational models such as DevOps, which blurs the lines between development and operations, to consolidate historically segregated management functions, in orer to improve efficiency and responsiveness. Developers take a stronger role in managing their own infrastructure through heavy use of programming and automation through easily accessible APIs. DevOps is incredibly agile and powerful, but it contains the seeds of possible disaster for both security and availability, because DevOps condenses and eliminates many application development and operations check points. Legacy Problems Fade: Some security issues which have plagued practitioners for decades are no longer issues in the cloud. The dynamic nature of cloud servers can reduce the need for traditional patching – you can launch a new fully up-to-date server and shift live traffic to and from it with API calls. Network segmentation becomes the default, as all new instances are in fixed security groups. Centralizing resources improves our ability to audit and control, while still offering ubiquitous access. Monitoring Needs to Change The entire concept of monitoring depends on seeing things. We need the ability to pull logs and events from the network and security devices protecting your environment. What happens when you don’t have access to those devices? Or they don’t work like the devices you are familiar with in your traditional data center? You need to reconsider your approach to security monitoring.

Share:
Read Post

Building an Enterprise Application Security Program: Use Cases

This post will discuss security and compliance use cases for an enterprise application security program. The following are the main issues enterprises need to address with enterprise application management, in no particular order. None of these drivers are likely to surprise you. But skimming the top-line does not do the requirements justice – you also need to understand why enterprise applications offer different challenges for data collection and analysis, to fully appreciate why off-the-shelf security tools leave coverage gaps. Compliance Compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley and the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) remain the primary drivers for security controls for enterprise applications. Most compliance requirements focus on baselining ‘in-scope’ applications – essentially configuration assessments – to ensure known problem areas are periodically verified as compliant. Compliance controls typically focus on issues of privileged user entitlements (what they can access), segregation of duties, prompt application of security patches, configuring the application to promote security, and consistency across application instances. These assessment scans demonstrate that each potential issue has a documented policy, that the policy is regularly tested, and that the company can produce a report history to show compliance over time. The audience for this data is typically the internal audit team, and possibly third-party auditors. Change management & policy enforcement Beyond external compliance requirements enterprises adopt their own policies to reduce risk, improve application reliability, and reduce potential for fraud. These policies ensure that system and IT administrators perform their jobs – both to catch mistakes and to help detect administrative abuse of assigned privileges. Examples include removal of unneeded modules which contain known vulnerabilities, tracking all administrative changes, alerting on – and possibly blocking – use of inappropriate management tools, disabling IT administrators’ access to application data, and detecting users or permissions which could provide ‘backdoor’ access to the system. All of which means these policies are specific to an individual organization, are more complex, and require a great deal more than application assessment to verify. Effective enforcement requires a combination of assessment, continuous monitoring, and log file analysis. And let’s not beat around the bush – these policies are established to keep administrators – of IT, databases, and applications – honest. The audience for these reports is typically internal audit, senior IT management, automated change management systems, and the security group. Security A debate has raged for 15 years about whether the greatest threat to IT is external attackers or malicious insiders. For enterprise applications the distinction is less than helpful – both groups pose serious threats. Further muddying the waters, external parties seek privileged access, so they may be functioning as privileged insiders even when that is an impersonation. Beyond attack detection, common security use cases include quarterly ‘reconciliation’ review, watching for ad hoc operations, requests for sensitive data at inappropriate times or from suspicious locations, and even general “what the heck is going on?” visibility into operations. These operations are commonly performed by users or application administrators. Of all the use cases we have listed, identifying suspicious acts in a sea of millions of normal transactions is the most difficult. More to the point, while compliance and policy enforcement are preventive operations, security is the domain of monitoring usage in near-real time. These features are not offered within the application or supporting database platform, but provided through external tools – often from the platform vendor. Transaction verification As more enterprise applications serve external users through web interfaces, the problem of fraud growing. Every web-facing service faces spoofing, tampering, and non-repudiation attacks, and often (and worst) SQL injection. When successful these attacks can create bogus transactions, take partial control of the supporting database, and cause errors. But unlike general security issues, these attacks are designed to create fraudulent transactions and constructed to look like legitimate traffic. How companies detect these situation varies – some firms have custom macros or procedures that look for errors after the fact, while others use third-party monitoring and threat intelligence services to detect attacks as they occur. These tools are designed to detect users who attempt to make the application behave in an unusual manner – relying on metadata, heuristics, and user/device attributes to uncover misuse by application users. Use of sensitive information Most enterprises monitor the use of sensitive information. This may be for compliance, as with payment data access or sensitive personal information, or it may be part of a general security policy. Typical policies cover IT administrators accessing data files, users issuing ad hoc queries, retrieval of “too much” information, or any examination of restricted data elements such as credit card numbers. All the other listed use cases are typically targeted at specific user or administrative roles, but policies for information usage apply to all user groups. They are constructed to define uses cases which are not acceptable, and alert or block them. These controls may exist as part of the application logic, but are typically embedded into the database logic (such as through stored procedures), or provided by a third-party monitoring/masking tool deployed as a reverse proxy for the database. The next post will detail how enterprise applications differ from other platforms, and how those differences create security gaps for off-the-shelf tools. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Apple Security and Privacy Updates

I realize I have been slacking off posting here at Securosis, but thanks to a string of big event thingies, I thought I should link to a bunch of recent Apple security and privacy articles I posted over at TidBITS (mostly) and Macworld. I do probably need to write up the bit where local apps that are iCloud enabled seem to save document drafts on iCloud once you start writing, as opposed to when you save the documents in iCloud. This means any open drafts, in many text editors, load data into the cloud even if you only want to save them locally. Apple states they remove this data once you save the file to your local drive, but it is a bizarre design decision from a company that has made so many security and privacy improvements recently. So, um, don’t open up a TextEdit window and paste your temporary (or permanent!) passwords in it, unless you save the file someplace local first. Now on to the articles: First is an older Macworld article, Why Apple Really Cares About Your Privacy. This one predated Apple’s big public privacy push, and is the key piece that ties the rest of these together. Basically, Apple is using privacy against Google (and to a lesser degree certain other competitors) because the differences in business models makes it difficult for anyone else to differentiate on privacy to the same degree. This is an excellent alignment of economics to improve security and privacy, and I expect it to define a lot of what we see in the coming years. The next three articles show how Apple is following through on its privacy messaging within products: To start Apple dramatically improved the data security of iOS, much to the chagrin of folks in law enforcement. You likely read this all over the place, but this piece ties together a lot of context I didn’t see in other articles. Also, as an emergency responder, my arguments cannot be dismissed with the “if you only saw what we see” argument. I have seen more than my fair share of horrible things, including horrible things happening to children, so I get it. But that is no excuse to sacrifice fundamental civil liberties. Part of the problem is that some people in law enforcement are so used to getting access to whatever they need for an investigation that they see it as a legal right, and don’t understand that today’s technologies cannot include lawful access capabilities without deeply compromising security. Next up I wrote a piece detailing how Spotlight Suggestions handles privacy. While less of a big picture issue, this highlights the steps Apple is taking to harden their pro-privacy stance down to low-level feature design. Not that they always get it right – as illustrated by that iCloud issue. This next piece also relates to privacy, but is more about the business landscape Apple is working within. I discussed the real reason some merchants are blocking Apple Pay. Many of you understand the reasons merchants hate credit card companies (Hello, PCI!), and Apple is merely caught in the middle. For the record, I wish we would get half as many comments on Securosis articles as on this one! One last article ties the series up (even though it wasn’t the last one published) and serves as a good bookend to the privacy piece: The last piece is the most important for the long term. You Are Apple’s Greatest Security Challenge. Yes, Apple made mistakes with the celebrity photo thefts. Mistakes that those of us in cloud security are very familiar with. But, to their credit, they also deal with a scale and scope very few organizations need to consider. Including some key differences from Google, who has been doing a better job on this front. It is a very nuanced issue, and the decisions Apple makes here will have profound repercussions for the ecosystem. That’s it for now. It seems there is Apple-related security news every week. A lot of the headlines are total BS, like the article a few years back claiming a major security flaw in iPhones, when it was really a problem in every GSM phone on the planet. But that doesn’t get page views, and Apple security has become the “if it bleeds, it leads” of the tech world. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Friday Summary; October 31, 2014

I was at Intel’s Focus conference earlier this week. Intel basically held a McAfee coming-out party, and announced that the security practices of both firms will henceforth be run under the single umbrella of Intel Security. Not much to report on that, but I spoke to more customers at this event than at any other vendor event. And they were chatty, which is nice. But something is troubling me. Do you know what they did not mention as a problem? Mobile. Nope. The biggest surprise of the week was hearing security practitioners and CISOs talk about the threat of the IoT (Internet of Things), without even mentioning mobile. I am still surprised, because a) mobile is really here, b) security of mobile data is a problem on most devices, c) mobile app controls and spotty authentication are still an issue, and d) the market has yet to embrace a good model for control. IoT does not even feel real yet, but the security practitioners I heard speak are currently dealing with threats to Point of Sale terminals, medical devices, cars, and a whole bunch of devices we have used for a long time, but where the current generation includes sophisticated processors and Internet connectivity. Still, IoT is your biggest concern? Really? This will be the one of the shorter Friday Summaries I have written because … it’s here. The puppy I predicted would be landing in my home has arrived. Early, in fact. I am sure it’s because the breeder was exhausted by him. He is slightly ornery, possessed of limitless energy, and fearless. Which means he is into everything all the time. Say hello to ‘Satchmo’: I don’t usually talk about my pets much on this blog, but it has been years since we had a new puppy in the house, and you forget all the lifestyle changes that come with a new puppy. Plus he’s very cute, and seems to get along with everyone great. He has only been here a short time but he’s worn me out. And my wife. And my adult Boston. And everything else that lives here … except the Boxer. Boxers never get tired, so I think the rest of us are going to take a nap while those two play. Happy Halloween all! Halloween on a Friday is the best, so have fun! On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian and Chris Eng will talk integrating security into Agile next week. Favorite Securosis Posts Adrian Lane: Incite 10/29/2014: Short Memory. I am actually FAV-ing my “Card of the Sith” Incite in this week’s post. Rich: [Building an Enterprise Application Security Program New Series. Ho boy, is this a big topic. Adrian jumps into one of the most painful issues for enterprises to deal with: internal apps. Mike Rothman: Firestarter: It’s All in the Cloud. I had fun recording this week’s Firestarter. Though we did miss Adrian. There was no one to keep Rich and me on track! Other Securosis Posts Building an Enterprise Application Security Program: Use Cases. Apple Security and Privacy Updates. New Research Paper: Trends in Data Centric Security. Old School (Computer). Favorite Outside Posts Adrian Lane: Challenges With Randomness In Multi-tenant Linux Container Platforms. Containers seem to have caught fire, and I expect them to be the ‘struts’ of this generation. But stressing any hot new approach turns up systemic flaws. A good discussion by James Bayer. Rich: Facebook Open Sources Host Monitoring Tool, Increases Internet Defense Prize. This is interesting. I did an interview on the tool, based on a high-level description (trust me – I warned the reporter I would need to see it working for a real assessment). It sounds like a Chef/Puppet competitor. But this gathers different information, which is more security relevant, and then enables you to query it like a database. That is very interesting. Might have to play with it! Mike Rothman: SHE’S A WRECK. What a courageous post by aloria, baring her issues with brutal honesty and candor. Thankfully she made it through, but understand that her bipolar disorder is a daily battle. Rarely do we get to see the people behind the avatars, the unvarnished challenge of being imperfect and human. as we all are. Pepper: AT&T, Verizon Using ‘Perma-Cookies’ to Track Customer Web Activity. I didn’t think I needed a VPN but I am now considering paying for Cloak. Research Reports and Presentations Trends in Data Centric Security White Paper. Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Incident Response/Management. Pragmatic WAF Management: Giving Web Apps a Fighting Chance. The Security Pro’s Guide to Cloud File Storage and Collaboration. The 2015 Endpoint and Mobile Security Buyer’s Guide. Analysis of the 2014 Open Source Development and Application Security Survey. Defending Against Network-based Distributed Denial of Service Attacks. Reducing Attack Surface with Application Control. Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Security Monitoring. The Future of Security: The Trends and Technologies Transforming Security. Top News and Posts UPnP Devices Used in DDoS Attacks Chip & PIN vs. Chip & Signature Adobe’s e-book reader sends your reading logs back to Adobe–in plain text. *sigh* Automated NoSQL exploitation with NoSQLMap CurrentC for mobile payments and exclusivity CurrentC site hacked Alleged Dropbox hack underlines danger of reusing passwords Blog Comment of the Week This week’s best comment goes to Pat Bitton, in response to Old School. I always hark back to the operating code for dBase II and WordStar both fitting on a single 360K floppy. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 10/29/2014: Short Memory

Sometimes a short memory is very helpful. Of course as you get older, it may not be a choice. But old guy issues aside, there are times you need to forget what just happened and move on to the next thing. Maybe it’s a deal you lost, or a project you couldn’t get funded, or a bungled response to an incident. If you live to fight another day then you need to learn, put it in the past, and move forward. The Boy learned that lesson a few weeks back playing tennis. He’s a decent player and was teamed with his friend in a doubles match. The other kids were pretty good but our team sprinted out to a 7-2 lead. The first to 8 wins. He has it in the bag, right? They dropped the next game, so it was 7-3. Not a problem. Then it was 7-5 and the Boy started to panic. I could see it. He was on the verge of breaking down. And the thing about tennis is that coaches (and parents) cannot get involved during the match. So besides a few hand signals I sent his way to calm down, there wasn’t anything I could do other than see him come apart at the seams. His partner was panicking as well, especially as the score went to 7-6, and then ultimately 7-7. You could see the Boy and his partner were broken. They dropped 5 games in a row and lost their confidence. It was hard to watch. Really hard. For a guy used to controlling most of his environment, it was brutal to be so powerless. But this wasn’t about me. It’s about him. The Boy served in that next game and held serve. He hit a couple of winners and got his mojo back. You could see the confidence return. They dropped the next game and went into a tiebreaker. The first to 7 would win the match. They split the first two points on the opponents’ serve, so that was a mini break. The Boy then held their serve, so it was 3-1. Then they broke again. 5-1. The other team scrapped and they had a few good rallies, but the Boy and his partner prevailed 7-3. He was happy but could only shake his head about blowing such a huge lead. I pulled him aside and said this illustrates a number of very important lessons. First about fighting through. They didn’t give up, and they persevered to get the win. I was very proud of them for that. But the real lesson I wanted to communicate was the importance of having a short memory. The fact that he hit a bad shot doesn’t mean he’s a bad player. He needs to trust his training and the work he put in. He can’t lose confidence, and needs to just move on to the next thing. It is not productive to get lost in his own head – he needs to understand the battle is less important than the war, and to know the difference. Of course the lesson wasn’t about tennis. It was about life. But I don’t need to tell him that. Not yet, anyway… –Mike Photo credit: “The Bryan Brothers” originally uploaded by Boss Tweed The fine folks at the RSA Conference posted the talk Jennifer Minella and I did on mindfulness at the conference this year. You can check it out on YouTube. Take an hour and check it out. Your emails, alerts and Twitter timeline will be there when you get back. Securosis Firestarter Have you checked out our new video podcast? Rich, Adrian, and Mike get into a Google Hangout and.. hang out. We talk a bit about security as well. We try to keep these to 15 minutes or less, and usually fail. October 27 – It’s All in the Cloud October 6 – Hulk Bash September 16 – Apple Pay August 18 – You Can’t Handle the Gartner July 22 – Hacker Summer Camp July 14 – China and Career Advancement June 30 – G Who Shall Not Be Named June 17 – Apple and Privacy May 19 – Wanted Posters and SleepyCon May 12 – Another 3 for 5: McAfee/OSVDB, XP Not Dead, CEO head rolling Heavy Research We are back at work on a variety of blog series, so here is a list of the research currently underway. Remember you can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, with our content in all its unabridged glory. And you can get all our research papers too. Building an Enterprise Application Security Program Introduction Security and Privacy on the Encrypted Network The Future is Encrypted Secure Agile Development Deployment Pipelines and DevOps Building a Security Tool Chain Process Adjustments Working with Development Agile and Agile Trends Introduction Newly Published Papers Trends in Data Centric Security The Security Pro’s Guide to Cloud File Storage and Collaboration The 2015 Endpoint and Mobile Security Buyer’s Guide Open Source Development and Application Security Analysis Advanced Endpoint and Server Protection Defending Against Network-based DDoS Attacks Reducing Attack Surface with Application Control Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Security Monitoring The Future of Security Incite 4 U Card of the Sith: Thanks to Chris Pepper for pointing out CurrentC Is The Big Retailers’ Clunky Attempt To Kill Apple Pay And Credit Card Fees. In a nutshell, a large group of merchants – including Rite Aid, CVS, Walmart, Target, K-Mart, and Kohl’s – are putting together a “mobile payment” app to avoid paying credit card processing fees. Rather than extend a small loan like a credit card, CurrentC will pull money directly and immediately from your bank account. Yes, those very same firms who vigorously market your personal data – and keep getting breached by hackers – now want to build their own payment system and on top of direct access to your bank account. What could possibly go wrong? The biggest issue is one of the very real benefits of credit cards: limited

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.