Securosis

Research

The SIXTH Annual Disaster Recovery Breakfast (with 100% less boycott)

Holy crap, time flies! Especially when you mark years by making the annual pilgrimage to San Francisco for the RSA Conference. Once again we are hosting our RSA Conference Disaster Recovery Breakfast. It has been six frickin’ years! That’s hard to believe but reinforces that we are not spring chickens anymore. We are grateful that so many of our friends, clients, and colleagues enjoy a couple hours away from the glitzy show floor and club scene that dominates the first couple days of the conference. By Thursday you will probably be a disaster like us and ready to kick back, have some conversations at a normal decibel level, and grab a nice breakfast. And with the continued support of MSLGROUP and Kulesa Faul, we are happy to provide an oasis in a morass of hyperbole, booth babes, and tchotchke hunters. As always, the breakfast will be Thursday morning from 8-11 at Jillian’s in the Metreon. It’s an open door – come and leave as you want. We will have food, beverages, and assorted recovery items to ease your day (non-prescription only). Yes, the bar will be open because Mike doesn’t like to drink alone. Remember what the DR Breakfast is all about. No marketing, no spin, just a quiet place to relax and have muddled conversations with folks you know, or maybe even go out on a limb and meet someone new. After three nights of RSA Conference shenanigans we are pretty confident you will enjoy the DRB as much as we do. See you there. To help us estimate numbers, please RSVP to rsvp (at) securosis (dot) com. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Summary: Mmm. Beer.

I realize this will shock many of you, but I hated beer in high school and the first couple years of college. I know, I know, this destroys your image of me, but it’s the truth. I blame it on orange soda. My parents weren’t big soda drinkers, so I wasn’t really exposed to it. The first time I tried an orange soda at a birthday party in elementary school, the carbonation freaked me out and that was the end. My anti-carbonation stance carried over when we started on beer in high school (don’t tell the cops). Plus, beer back then sucked. I was still a young male and would drink beer when nothing else was around, but I tended towards kamikazes. Until the night I got so drunk that when my friends dropped me off at home I freaked out over someone stealing my car. You know, the one I drove to the bar earlier that night and (wisely) left there. The hangover lasted three days – so much for the immunity of youth. But then I discovered Buff Gold. In 1990 the Walnut Brewery, the first brew pub in Boulder, opened up. Shortly afterwards I was hired as a 19 year old 140 lb (wet) bouncer. It was a mellow crowd. I couldn’t drink there as an underage employee, but a couple other bars owned by the same guy carried the beer. Buffalo Gold was the first ale I ever tried, and started me down a path of refined malty (and responsible) consumption. As a side note, Frank Day, the owner, later opened the first Rock Bottom brewery in Denver (same franchise, different name). He also started the Old Chicago’s chain. Rock Bottom is all over the place, and merged with Gordon Beirsch a few years ago, which also owns Big River Brewery, the only brew pub at Disney World (on the Boardwalk). I keep showing my Walnut Brewery nametag at Disney, but they still make me pay for my beers. When they let me in the door. Anyhoo… after Buff Gold came Fat Tire, which migrated down from Fort Collins an hour north of Boulder. Then all sorts of craft beers exploded, which explains why the American Homebrewers Association offices were around the corner from my old Boulder condo. Turns out I didn’t hate beer, I just hated bad beer. After I moved to Phoenix a Yard House opened up near us and my (now) wife and I started spending most Friday happy hours there. That’s when I met The Bastard. Arrogant Bastard, if you are being formal, and it is about as serious a beer as you can find. After that anything short of an IPA seemed almost tasteless, and I became obsessed with California hops. I also loved the naming and marketing used by the Stone Brewing company. Beers like Ruination and Sublimely Self Righteous. Tag lines like, “You’re Not Worthy” and “you probably won’t like this beer”. When my wife was pregnant with our first child she deigned to take the Stone Brewery tour when we were out in San Diego, despite being unable to drink. That’s when I realized the marketing genius of their aggressive, no-nonsense approach. After… a few pints… I emailed Adrian and informed him I had our new corporate branding. “No B.S. Research”, “If you want to feel good about yourself, call your mom. If you want a security program, call us”, and the rest of our site and attitude. It has been five years since that trip, and our distinct divergence from traditional professionalism. And you know what? People like honesty. And the ones who don’t aren’t the sorts we want to work with anyway. It’s a nice filter that drives the kinds of clients and engagements that make this such an awesome job, and save us from endless piles of lapdogging and paperwork. And it all started with a beer. Like anything else worth a damn. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian quoted on DBaaS. Dave Lewis in The Atlantic: This Little House in Wyoming Didn’t Just Get Flooded With Web Traffic From China. Favorite Securosis Posts Adrian Lane: The Catalyst. Someone sent me the book this week. Care to guess who? Rich: The SIXTH Annual Disaster Recovery Breakfast (with 100% less boycott). Yes, it’s a repost, but RSVP anyway. Other Securosis Posts Mindfulness Works. Firestarter: Target and Antivirus. Eliminate Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing [New Paper]. Favorite Outside Posts Adrian Lane: Metadata for beginners 😉. My favorite of the week was not a post, but a tweet. It only takes a couple fat-fingered cell calls from a ‘suspect’ to make you part of their social circle. Chris Pepper: More security is always better, right? Domain registrar auto-enrolls customers into $1,850 security service. Er. Dave Lewis: The death of Windows XP. Rich: Increased Cyber Security Can Save Global Economy Trillions. Funny numbers, but once again we see security hitting the mainstream. Research Reports and Presentations Eliminate Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing. What CISOs Need to Know about Cloud Computing. Defending Against Application Denial of Service Attacks. Executive Guide to Pragmatic Network Security Management. Security Awareness Training Evolution. Firewall Management Essentials. A Practical Example of Software Defined Security. Continuous Security Monitoring. API Gateways: Where Security Enables Innovation. Identity and Access Management for Cloud Services. Top News and Posts Chinese Internet Traffic Redirected to Small Wyoming House. Huh. Notes from Shmoocon 2014. Office.com Defaced by Syrian Electronic Army. RootCloak Hides Root Access From Specific Applications. Chrome hack lets websites keep listening after you close the tab. “70,000 healthcare.gov records hacked” claim turns out to be Google results. Oops; press fail. Again. Blog Comment of the Week This week’s best comment goes to DS, in response to A Very Telling Antivirus Metric. “We stop 0 day* attacks” *in this sense 0 indicates the number of attacks we successfully stop. Always gotta read the fine print. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 1/22/2014: The Catalyst

I was on the phone last week with Jen Minella, preparing for a podcast on our Neuro-Hacking talk at this year’s RSA Conference, when she asked what my story is. We had never really discussed how we each came to start mindfulness practices. So we shared our stories, and then I realized that given everything else I share on the Incite, I should tell it here as well. Simply put, I was angry and needed to change. Back in 2006 I decided I wanted to live past 50, so I starting taking better care of myself physically. But being more physically fit is only half the equation. I needed to find a way to deal with the stress in my life. I had 3 young children, was starting an independent research boutique, and my wife needed me to help around the house. In hindsight I call that period my Atlas Phase. I took the weight of the world on my shoulders, and many days it was hard to bear. My responsibilities were crushing. So my anger frequently got the best of me. I went for an introductory session with a life coach midway through 2007. After a short discussion she asked a poignant question. She wondered if my kids were scared of me. That one question forced me to look in the mirror and realize who I really was. I had to acknowledge they were scared at times. That was the catalyst I needed. I wasn’t going to be a lunatic father. I need to change. The coach suggested meditation as a way to start becoming more aware of my feelings, and to even out the peaks and valleys of my emotions. A few weeks later I went to visit my Dad. He had been fighting a pretty serious illness using unconventional tactics for a few years at that point. I mentioned meditation to him and he jumped out of his chair and disappeared for a few minutes. He came back with 8 Minute Meditation, and then described how meditation was a key part of his plan to get healthy. He told me to try it. It was only 8 minutes. And it was the beginning of a life-long journey. These practices have had a profound impact on my life. 6 years later it’s pretty rare for me to get angry. I am human and do get annoyed and frustrated. But it doesn’t turn into true anger. Or I guess I don’t let it become anger. When I do get angry it’s very unsettling, but I’m very aware of it now and it doesn’t last long, which I know my wife and kids appreciate. I do too. Everyone has a different story. Everyone has a different approach to dealing with things. There is no right or wrong. I’ll continue to describe my approach and detail the little victories and the small setbacks. Mostly because this is a weekly journal I use to leave myself breadcrumbs on my journey, so I remember where I have been and how far I have come. And maybe some of you appreciate it as well. –Mike Photo credit: “Scared Pandas” originally uploaded by Brian Bennett 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, where you can get all our content in its unabridged glory. And you can get all our research papers too. Reducing Attack Surface with Application Control Use Cases and Selection Criteria The Double Edged Sword Security Management 2.5: You Buy a New SIEM Yet? Negotiation Selection Process The Decision Process Evaluating the Incumbent Revisiting Requirements Platform Evolution Changing Needs Introduction Advanced Endpoint and Server Protection Assessment Introduction Newly Published Papers Eliminating Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing What CISOs Need to Know about Cloud Computing Defending Against Application Denial of Service Security Awareness Training Evolution Firewall Management Essentials Continuous Security Monitoring API Gateways Threat Intelligence for Ecosystem Risk Management Dealing with Database Denial of Service Identity and Access Management for Cloud Services Incite 4 U SGO: Standard Government Obscurity: The Target hack was pretty bad, and it seems clear it may only be the tip of the iceberg. Late last week the government released a report with more details of the attack so companies could protect themselves. Er, sort of. The report by iSIGHT Partners was only released to select retailers. As usual, the government isn’t talking much, so iSIGHT went and released the report on their own. A CNN article states, “The U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not make the government’s report public and provided little on its contents. iSIGHT Partners provided CNNMoney a copy of its findings.” Typical. If I were a retailer I would keep reading Brian Krebs to learn what’s going on. The feds are focused on catching the bad guys – you are on your own to stop them until the cuffs go on. – RM Unrealistic expectations are on YOU! Good post on the Tripwire blog about dealing with unrealistic security expectations. Especially because it seems very close to the approach I have advocated via the Pragmatic CSO for years. I like going after a quick win and making sure to prioritize activities. But my point with the title is that if senior management has unrealistic expectations, it’s because your communications strategies are not effective. You can blame them all you want for being unreasonable, but if they have been in the loop as you built the program, enlisted support, and started executing on initiatives, nothing should be a surprise to them. – MR Other people’s stuff: The recent Threatpost article ‘Starbucks App Stores User Information, Passwords in Clear Text’ is a bit misleading, as they don’t mention that the leaky bit of code is actually in the included Crashylitics utility. The real lesson here is not about potential harm from passwords in log files, which is a real problem, with

Share:
Read Post

Mindfulness Works

Back in November I learned I will be giving a talk on Neuro-Hacking at RSA with Jennifer Minella. We will be discussing how mindfulness practices can favorably impact the way you view things, basically allowing you to hack your brain. But I am pretty sure you can’t sell my synapses on an Eastern European carder forum. Over the last few months Jen and I have been doing a lot of research to substantiate the personal experience we have both had with mindfulness practices. We know security folks tend to be tough customers and reasonably skeptical about pretty much everything – unless there is data to back up any position. The good news is that there is plenty of data about how mindfulness can impact stress, job performance, and work/life balance. And big companies are jumping on board – Aetna is the latest to provide a series of Evidence-based Mind-Body Stress Management Programs based on mindfulness meditation and yoga. Meditation and yoga are becoming a big business (yoga pants FTW), so it is logical for big companies to jump on the bandwagon. The difference here, and the reason I don’t believe this is a fad, is the data. That release references a recent study in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. That’s got to be legitimate, right? Participants in the mind-body stress reduction treatment groups (mindfulness and Viniyoga) showed significant improvements in perceived stress with 36 and 33 percent decreases in stress levels respectively, as compared to an 18 percent reduction for the control group as measured with the Perceived Stress Scale. Participants in the mind-body interventions also saw significant improvements in various heart rate measurements, suggesting that their bodies were better able to manage stress. The focus of our talk is going to be solutions and demystifying some of these practices. It’s not about how security people are grumpy. We all know that. We will focus on how to start and develop a sustainable practice. Mindfulness doesn’t need to be hard or take a long time. In as little as 5-15 minutes a day you can dramatically impact your ability to deal with life. Seriously. But don’t take our word for it. Show up for the session and draw your own conclusions. We just recorded a podcast for the RSA folks, and I’ll link to it once it’s available, later this week. Jen and I will also be posting more mindfulness stuff on our respective blogs in the lead up to the conference (much to Rich’s chagrin). Photo credit: “6 Instant Ways To Stress Less And Smile More – Flip Your Perspective” originally uploaded by UrbaneWomenMag Share:

Share:
Read Post

Firestarter: Target and Antivirus

In this week’s Firestarter Rich, Mike, and Adrian discuss the latest in the Target relevations and whether over-reliance on antivirus is to blame once again. We aren’t out to blame the victim. We also pick our top prevention strategies for this sort of attack. Ain’t hindsight great? Share:

Share:
Read Post

Eliminate Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing [New Paper]

We have always been fans of making sure applications and infrastructure are ready for prime time before letting them loose on the world. It’s important not to just use basic scanner functions either – your adversaries are unlikely to limit their tactics to things you find in an open source scanner. Security Assurance and Testing enables organizations to limit the unpleasant surprises that happen when launching new stuff or upgrading infrastructure. Adversaries continue to innovate and improve their tactics at an alarming rate. They have clear missions, typically involving exfiltrating critical information or impacting the availability of your technology resources. They have the patience and resources to achieve their missions by any means necessary. And it’s your job to make sure deployment of new IT resources doesn’t introduce unnecessary risk. In our Eliminating Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing paper, we talk about the need for a comprehensive process to identify issues – before hackers do it for you. We list a number of critical tactics and programs to test in a consistent and repeatable manner, and finally go through a couple use cases to show how the process would work at both the infrastructure and application levels. To avoid surprise we suggest a security assurance and testing process to ensure the environment is ready to cope with real traffic and real attacks. This goes well beyond what development organizations typically do to ‘test’ their applications, or ops does to ‘test’ their stacks. It also is different from a risk assessment or a manual penetration test. Those “point in time” assessments aren’t necessarily comprehensive. The testers may find a bunch of issues but they will miss some. So remediation decisions are made with incomplete information about the true attack surface of infrastructure and applications. We would like to thank our friends at Ixia for licensing this content. Without the support of our clients, our open research model wouldn’t be possible. Direct Download (PDF): Eliminate Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing Share:

Share:
Read Post

A Very Telling Antivirus Metric

From Brian Krebs’ awesome reporting on the Target breach (emphasis added): The source close to the Target investigation said that at the time this POS malware was installed in Target’s environment (sometime prior to Nov. 27, 2013), none of the 40-plus commercial antivirus tools used to scan malware at virustotal.com flagged the POS malware (or any related hacking tools that were used in the intrusion) as malicious. “They were customized to avoid detection and for use in specific environments,” the source said. That source and one other involved in the investigation who also asked not to be named said the POS malware appears to be nearly identical to a piece of code sold on cybercrime forums called BlackPOS, a relatively crude but effective crimeware product. BlackPOS is a specialized piece of malware designed to be installed on POS devices and record all data from credit and debit cards swiped through the infected system. I swear I’ve been briefed by a large percentage of those vendors on how their products stop 0-day attacks. Let me go find my notes… Share:

Share:
Read Post

Apple’s Very Different BYOD Philosophy

I am currently polishing off the first draft of my Data Security for iOS 7 paper, and reached one fascinating conclusion during the research which I want to push out early. Apple’ approach is implementing is very different from the way we normally view BYOD. Apple’s focus is on providing a consistent, non-degraded user experience while still allowing enterprise control. Apple enforces this by taking an active role in mediating mobile device management between the user and the enterprise, treating both as equals. We haven’t really seen this before – even when companies like Blackberry handle aspects of security and MDM, they don’t simultaneously treat the device as something the user owns. Enough blather – here you go… Apple has a very clear vision of the role of iOS devices in the enterprise. There is BYOD, and there are enterprise-owned devices, with nearly completely different models for each. The owner of the device defines the security and management model. In Apple’s BYOD model users own their devices, enterprises own enterprise data and apps on devices, and the user experience never suffers. No dual personas. No virtual machines. A seamless experience, with data and apps intermingled but sandboxed. The model is far from perfect today, with one major gap, but iOS 7 is the clearest expression of this direction yet, and only the foolish would expect Apple to change any time soon. Enterprise-owned devices support absolute control by IT, down to the new-device provisioning experience. Organizations can degrade features as much as they want and need, but the devices will, as much as allowed, still provide the complete iOS experience. In the first case users allow the enterprise space on their device, while the enterprise allows users access to enterprise resources; in the second model the enterprise owns everything. The split is so clear that it is actually difficult for the enterprise to implement supervised mode on an employee-owned device. We will explain the specifics as we go along, but here are a few examples to highlight the different models. On employee owned devices: The enterprise sends a configuration profile that the user can choose to accept or decline. If the user accepts it, certain minimal security can be required, such as passcode settings. The user gains access to their corporate email, but cannot move messages to other email accounts without permission. The enterprise can install managed apps, which can be set to only allow data to flow between them and managed accounts (email). These may be enterprise apps or enterprise licenses for other commercial apps. If the enterprise pays for it, they own it. The user otherwise controls all their personal accounts, apps, and information on the device. All this is done without exposing any user data (like the user’s iTunes Store account) to the enterprise. If the user opts out of enterprise control (which they can do whenever they want) they lose access to all enterprise features, accounts, and apps. The enterprise can also erase their ‘footprint’ remotely whenever they want. The device is still tied to the user’s iCloud account, including Activation Lock to prevent anyone, even the enterprise, from taking the device and using it without permission. On enterprise owned devices: The enterprise controls the entire provisioning process, from before the box is even opened. When the user first opens the box and starts their assigned device, the entire experience is managed by the enterprise, down to which setup screens display. The enterprise controls all apps, settings, and features of the device, down to disabling the camera and restricting network settings. The device can never be associated with a user’s iCloud account for Activation Lock; the enterprise owns it. This model is quite different from the way security and management were handled on iOS 6, and runs deeper than most people realize. While there are gaps, especially in the BYOD controls, it is safe to assume these will slowly be cleaned up over time following Apple’s usual normal improvement process. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Friday Summary: January 17, 2014

Today I am going to write about tokenization. Four separate people have sent me a questions about tokenization in the last week. As a security paranoiac I figured there was some kind of conspiracy or social engineering going on – this whole NSA/Snowden/RSA thingy has me spooked. But after I calmed down and realized that these are ‘random’ events, I recognized that the questions are good and relevant to a wider audience, so I will answer a couple of them here on the blog. In no particular order: “What is throttling tokenization?” and “How common is the ‘PCI tokenization throttle function’ in tokenization products and services?” I first heard about “throttling tokenization systems” and “rate limiting functions” from the card brands as a secondary security service. As I understand the intention, it is to provide, in case a payment gateway is compromised or an attacker gains access to a token service, a failsafe so someone couldn’t siphon off the entire token database. My assumption was that this rate monitor/throttle would only be provided on de-tokenization requests or vault inquiries that return cardholder information. Maybe that’s smart because you’d have a built-in failsafe to limit information leakage. Part of me thinks this is more misguided guidance, as the rate limiting feature does not appear to be in response to any reasonable threat model – de-tokenization requests should be locked down and not available through general APIs in the first place!!! Perhaps I am not clever enough to come up with a compromise that would warrant such a response, but everything I can think of would (should) be handled in a different manner. But still, as I understand from conversations with people who are building tokenization platforms, the throttling functions are a) a DDoS protection and b) a defense against someone who figures out how to request all tokens in a database. And is it common? Not so far as I know – I don’t know of any token service or product that builds this in; instead the function is provided by other fraud and threat analytics at the network and application layers. Honestly, I don’t have inside information on this topic, and one of the people who asked this question should have had better information than I do. Do you still write about tokenization? Yes. Are you aware of any guidance in use of vault-less solutions? Are there any proof points or third-party validations of their security? For the audience, vault-less tokenization solutions do not store a database of generated tokens – they use a mathematical formula to generate them, so no need to store that which can be easily derived. And to answer the question, No, I am not aware of any. That does not mean no third-party validation exists, but I don’t follow these sorts of proofs closely. What’s more, because the basic design of these solutions closely resemble a one-time pad or similar, conceptually they are very secure. The proof is always in the implementation, so if you need this type of validation have your vendor provide a third-party validation by people qualified for that type of analysis. Why is “token distinguishability” discussed as a best practice? What is it and which vendors provide it? Because PCI auditors need a way to determine whether a database is full of real credit cards or just tokens. This is a hard problem – tokens can and should be very close to the real thing. The goal for tokens is to make them as real as possible so you can use them in payment systems, but they will not be accepted as actual payment instruments. All the vendors potentially do this. I am unaware of any vendor offering a tool to differentiate real vs. tokenized values, but hope some vendors will step forward to help out. Have you seen a copy of the tokenization framework Visa/Mastercard/etc.? announced a few months back? No. As far as I know that framework was never published, and my requests for copies were met with complete and total silence. I did get snippets of information from half a dozen different people in product management or development roles – off the record – at Visa and Mastercard. It appears their intention was to define a tokenization platform that could be used across all merchants, acquirers, issuers, and related third parties. But this would be a platform offered by the brands to make tokenization an industry standard. On a side note I really did think, from the way the PR announcement was phrased, that the card brands were shooting for a cloud identity platform to issue transaction tokens after a user self-identified to the brands. It looked like they wanted a one-to-one relationship with the buyer to disintermediate merchants out of the payment card relationship. That could be a very slick cloud services play, but apparently I was on drugs – according to my contacts there is no such effort. And don’t forget to RSVP for the 6th annual (really, the 6th? How time flies ….) Securosis Disaster Recovery Breakfast during the RSA Conference. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian quoted in DBaaS article. Rich talks with Dennis Fisher about the Target breach (podcast). Favorite Securosis Posts Rich: Security Management 2.5: Negotiation. I hate negotiating. Some people live for it, but I can’t be bothered. On that note, I need to go buy a car. David Mortman: Firestarter: Crisis Communications. Mike Rothman: Security Management 2.5: Negotiation. This is a great post. A solid plan for buying any big-ticket item. Adrian Lane: Apple’s Very Different BYOD Philosophy. Nobody else has covered this to my knowledge, but Rich describes it very clearly. Enterprise-owned devices are simpler, but iOS almost seamlessly handles the division between enterprise and user domains on BYOD gear. Not very dramatic but simple and effective. Other Securosis Posts A Very Telling Antivirus Metric. Reducing Attack Surface with Application Control: Use Cases and Selection Criteria. Incite 1/15/2014: Declutter. Advanced Endpoint and Server Protection:

Share:
Read Post

Reducing Attack Surface with Application Control: Use Cases and Selection Criteria

In the first post in our Application Control series we discussed why it is hard to protect endpoints, and some of the emerging alternative technologies that promise to help us do better. Mostly because it is probably impossible do a worse job of protecting endpoints, right? We described Application Control (also known as Application Whitelisting), one of these alternatives, while being candid about the perception and reality of this technology after years of use. Our conclusion was that Application Control makes a lot of sense in a variety of use cases, and can work in more general situations, if the organization is willing to make some tradeoffs. This post describes the “good fit” use cases and mentions some of the features & functions that can make a huge difference to security and usability. Use Cases Given the breadth of ways computing devices are used in a typical enterprise, trying to use a generic set of security controls for every device doesn’t make much sense. So first you spend some time profiling the main use models of these devices and defining some standard ‘profiles’, for which you can then design appropriate defenses. There are quite a few attributes you can use to define these use cases, but here are the main ones we usually see: Operating System: You protect Windows devices differently than Macs than Linux servers, because each has a different security model and different available controls. When deciding how to protect a device, operating system is a fundamental factor. Usage Model: Next look at how the device is used. Is it a desktop, kiosk, server, laptop, or mobile device? We protect personal desktops differently than kiosks, even if the hardware and operating system are the same. Application variability: Consider what kind of applications run on the device, as well as how often they change and are updated. Geographic distribution: Where is the device located? Do you have dedicated IT and/or security staff there? What is the culture and do you have the ability to monitor and lock it down? Some countries don’t allow device monitoring and some security controls require permission from government organizations, so this must be a consideration as well. Access to sensitive data: Do the users of these devices have access to sensitive and/or protected data? If so you may need to protect them differently. Likewise, a public device in an open area, with no access to corporate networks, may be able to do with much looser security controls. Using these types of attributes you should be able to define a handful (or two) of use cases, which you can use to determine the most appropriate means of protecting each device, trading off security against usability. Let’s list a few of the key use cases where application control fits well. OS Lockdown When an operating system is at the end of its life and no longer receiving security updates, it is a sitting duck. Attackers have free rein to continue finding exploitable defects with no fear of patches to ruin their plans. Windows XP security updates officially end April 2014 – after that organizations still using XP are out of luck. (Like luck has anything to do with it…) We know you wonder why on Earth any organization serious about security – or even not so serious – would still use XP. It is a legitimate question, with reasonable answers. For one, some legacy applications still only run on XP. It may not be worth the investment – or even possible, depending on legal/ownership issues – to migrate to a modern operating system, so on XP they stay. A similar situation arises with compliance requirements to have applications qualified by a government agency. We see this a lot in healthcare, where the OS cannot even be patched without going through a lengthy and painful qualification process. That doesn’t happen, so on XP it stays. Despite Microsoft’s best efforts, XP isn’t going away any time soon. Unfortunately that means XP will still be a common target for attackers, and organizations will have little choice but to protect vulnerable devices somehow. Locking them down may be one of the few viable options. In this situation using application control in default-deny mode, allowing only authorized applications to run, works well. Fixed Function Devices Another use case we see frequently for application control is fixed function devices, such as kiosks running embedded operating systems. Think an ATM or payment station, where you don’t see the underlying operating system. These devices only run a select few applications, built specifically for the device. In this scenario there is no reason for any software besides authorized applications to run. Customers shouldn’t be browsing the Internet on an ATM machine. So application control works well to lock down kiosks. Similarly, some desktop computers in places like call centers and factory floors only run very stable and small sets of applications. Locking them down to run provides protection both from malware and employees loading unauthorized software or stealing data. In both this use case and OS lockdown you will get little to no pushback from employees about their inability to load software. Nothing in their job description indicates they should be loading software or accessing anything but the applications they need to do their jobs. In these scenarios application control is an excellent fit. Servers Another clear use case for application control is on server devices. Servers tend to be dedicated to a handful of functions, so they can be locked down to those specific applications. Servers don’t call the Help Desk to request access to iTunes, and admins can be expected to understand and navigate the validation process when they have a legitimate need for new software. Locking down servers can work very well – especially appealing because servers, as the repository of most sensitive data, are the ultimate target of most attacks. General Purpose Devices There has always been a desire to lock down general-purpose devices, which are among the most frequently compromised.

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

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.