Rational Survivability

The Quandary Of the Cloud: Centralized Compute But Distributed Data

Here's a theme I've been banging around for quite some time as it relates to virtualization, cloud computing and security.  I've never really sat down and written about it, however.

As we trend towards consolidating and (re)centralizing our computing platforms -- both endpoints and servers -- using virtualization and cloud computing as enablers to do so, we're also simultaneously dealing with the decentralization and distributed data sets that come with technologies such as Web2.0, mobility and exposure of APIs from cloud platforms.*

So here we are all frothed up as virtualization and cloud computing have, in a sense, led us back to the resource-based consolidation of the mainframe model with all it's centralized splendor and client virtualization/thin clients/compartmentalized remote access is doing the same thing for endpoints. 

But the interesting thing is that with Moore's Law, the endpoints are also getting more and more powerful even though we're dumbing them down and trying to make their exposure more limited despite the fact that they can still efficiently process and store data locally.

These models, one could argue, are diametrically opposed when describing how to secure the platforms versus the information that resides on or is utilized by them.  As the cyclic waffling between centralized versus distributed continues, the timing of how and where we adapt to securing them always lags behind.  Which do we focus on securing and where?  The host, centralized server, network.

The unfortunate answer is always "yes."

Remember this (simplified) model of how/where we secure things?

If you juxtapose the image above mentally with how I represent the centralized <--> distributed trends in IT below, it's no wonder we're always behind the curve.  The computing model technology changes much more quickly than the security technology and processes do, thus the disconnect:

I need to update the diagram above to split out the "computing" layer into client and server as well as extend the data layer to reference storage modalities also, but it gets the job done.

At any rate, it's probably obvious and common sense, but when explaining to people why I spend my time pointing out gaps with security in virtualization and cloud models, I found this useful.

/Hoff

* It's important to note that while I refer to/group cloud computing models as centralized, I understand they have a distributed element to them, also.  I would ask you to think about the multiple cloud overlays as centralized resources, regardless of how intrinsically "distributed" in processing/load balancing they may be.

P.S. I just saw an awesome post titled "The Rise of the Stupid Endpoint" on the vinternals blog that shares many of the same points, although much more eloquently.  Check it out here.  Awesome!

CloudSQL - Accessing Datastores in the Sky using SQL...

Loading.....

I think this is definitely a precursor of things to come and introduces some really interesting security discussions to be had regarding the portability, privacy and security of datastores in the cloud.

Have you heard of Zoho?  No?  Zoho is a SaaS vendor that describe themselves thusly:

Zoho is a suite of online applications (services) that you sign up for and access from our Website. The applications are free for individuals and some have a subscription fee for organizations. Our vision is to provide our customers (individuals, students, educators, non-profits, small and medium sized businesses) with the most comprehensive set of applications available anywhere (breadth); and for those applications to have enough features (depth) to make your user experience worthwhile.

Today, Zoho announced the availability of CloudSQL which is middleware that allows customers who use Zoho's SaaS apps to "...access their data on Zoho SaaS applications using SQL queries." 

From their announcement:

Zoho CloudSQL is a technology that allows developers to interact with business data stored across Zoho Services using the familiar SQL language. In addition, JDBC and ODBC database drivers make writing code a snap – just use the language construct and syntax you would use with a local database instance. Using the latest Web technology no longer requires throwing away years of coding and learning.

Zoho CloudSQL allows businesses to connect and integrate the data and applications they have in Zoho with the data and applications they have in house, or even with other SaaS services. Unlike other methods for accessing data in the cloud, CloudSQL capitalizes on enterprise developers’ years of knowledge and experience with the widely‐used SQL language. This leads to faster deployments and easier (read: less expensive) integration projects.

Basically, CloudSQL is interposed between the suite of Zoho applications and the backend datastores and functions as an intermediary receiving SQL queries against the pooled data sets using standard SQL commands and dialects. Click on the diagram below for a better idea of what this looks like.

What's really interesting about allowing native SQL access is the ability to then allow much easier information interchange between apps/databases on an enterprises' "private cloud(s)" and the Zoho "public" cloud.

Further, it means that your data is more "portable" as it can be backed up, accessed, and processed by applications other than Zoho's.  Imagine if they were to extend the SQL exposure to other cloud/SaaS providers...this is where it will get really juicy. 

This sort of thing *will* happen.  Customers will see the absolute utility of exposing their cloud-based datastores and sharing them amongst business partners, much in the spirit of how it's done today, but with the datastores (or chunks of them) located off-premises.

That's all good and exciting, but obviously security questions/concerns immediately surface regarding such things as: authentication, encryption, access control, input sanitation, privacy and compliance...

Today our datastores typically live inside the fortress with multiple layers of security and proxied access from applications, shielded from direct access and yet we still have basic issues with attacks such as SQL injection.  Imagine how much fun we can have with this!

The best I could find regarding security and Zoho came from their FAQ which doesn't exactly inspire confidence given the fact that they address logical/software security by suggesting that anti-virus software is the best line of defense ffor protecting your data and that "data encryption" will soon be offered as an "option" and (implied) SSL will make you secure:

6. Is my data secured?

Many people ask us this question. And rightly so; Zoho has invested alot of time and money to ensure that your information is secure and private. We offer security on multiple levels including the physical, software and people/process levels; In fact your data is more secure than walking around with it on a laptop or even on your corporate desktops.

Physical: Zoho servers and infrastructure are located in the most secure types of data centers that have multiple levels of restrictions for access including: on-premise security guards, security cameras, biometric limited access systems, and no signage to indicate where the buildings are, bullet proof glass, earthquake ratings, etc.

Hardware: Zoho employs state of the art firewall protection on multiple levels eliminating the possibility of intrusion from outside attacks

Logical/software protection: Zoho deploys anti-virus software and scans all access 24 x7 for suspicious traffic and viruses or even inside attacks; All of this is managed and logged for auditing purposes.

Process: Very few Zoho staff have access to either the physical or logical levels of our infrastructure. Your data is therefore secure from inside access; Zoho performs regular vulnerability testing and is constantly enhancing its security at all levels. All data is backed up on multiple servers in multiple locations on a daily basis. This means that in the worst case, if one data center was compromised, your data could be restored from other locations with minimal disruption. We are also working on adding even more security; for example, you will soon be able to select a "data encryption" option to encrypt your data en route to our servers, so that in the unlikely event of your own computer getting hacked while using Zoho, your documents could be securely encrypted and inaccessible without a "certificate" which generally resides on the server away from your computer.

Fun times ahead, folks.

/Hoff

Security Will Not End Up In the Network...

It's not the destination, it's the journey, stupid.

You can't go a day without reading from the peanut gallery that it is "...inevitable that network security will eventually be subsumed into the network fabric."  I'm not picking on Rothman specifically, but he's been banging this drum loudly of late.

For such a far-reaching, profound and prophetic statement, claims like these are strangely myopic and inaccurate..and then they're exactly right.

Confused?

Firstly, it's sort of silly and obvious to trumpet that "network security" will end up in the "network."  Duh.  What's really meant is that "information security" will end up in the network, but that's sort of goofy, too. You'll even hear that "host-based security" will end up in the network...so let's just say that what's being angled at here is that security will end up in the network.

These statements are often framed within a temporal bracket that simply ignores the bigger picture and reads like a eulogy.  The reality is that historically we have come to accept that security and technology are cyclic and yet we continue to witness these terminal predictions defining an end state for security that has never arrived and never will.

Let me make plain my point: there is no final resting place for where and how security will "end up."

I'm visual, so let's reference a very basic representation of my point.  This graph represents the cyclic transition over time of where and how we invest in security.

We ultimately transition between host-based security, information-centric security and network security over time. 

We do this little shuffle based upon the effectiveness and maturity of technology, economics, cultural, societal and regulatory issues and the effects of disruptive innovation.  In reality, this isn't a smooth sine wave at all, it's actually more a classic dampened oscillation ala the punctuated equilibrium theory I've spoken about before, but it's easier to visualize this way.

Our investment strategy and where security is seen as being "positioned" reverses direction over time and continues ad infinitum.  This has proven itself time and time again yet we continue to be wowed by the prophetic utterances of people who on the one hand talk about these never-ending cycles and yet on the other pretend they don't exist by claiming the "death" of one approach over another. 
 

Why?

To answer that let's take a look at how the cyclic pendulum effect of our focus on security trends from the host to the information to the network and back again by analyzing the graph above. 

1. If we take a look at the arbitrary "starting" point indicated by the "You Are Here" dot on the sine wave above, I suggest that over the last 2-3 years or so we've actually headed away from the network as the source of all things security.   
   
   There are lots of reasons for this; economic, ideological, technological, regulatory and cultural.  If you want to learn more about this, check out my posts on how disruptive Innovation fuels strategic transience.
   
   In short, the network has not been able to (and never will) deliver the efficacy, capabilities or cost-effectiveness desired to secure us from evil, so instead we look at actually securing the information itself.  The security industry messaging of late is certainly bearing testimony to that fact.  Check out this year's RSA conference...
    
2. As we focus then on information centricity, we see the resurgence of ERM, governance and compliance come into focus.  As policies proliferate, we realize that this is really hard and we don't have effective and ubiquitous data classification, policy affinity and heterogeneous enforcement capabilities.  We shake our heads at the ineffectiveness of the technology we have and hear the cries of pundits everywhere that we need to focus on the things that really matter...
   
   In order to ensure that we effectively classify data at the point of creation, we recognize that we can't do this automagically and we don't have standardized schemas or metadata across structured and unstructured data, so we'll look at each other, scratch our heads and conclude that the applications and operating systems need modification to force fit policy, classification and enforcement.
   
   Rot roh.
    
3. Now that we have the concept of policies and classification, we need the teeth to ensure it, so we start to overlay emerging technology solutions on the host in applications and via the OS's that are unfortunately non-transparent and affect the users and their ability to get their work done.  This becomes labeled as a speed bump and we grapple with how to make this less impacting on the business since security has now slowed things down and we still have breaches because users have found creative ways of bypassing technology constraints in the name of agility and efficiency...
    
4. At this point, the network catches up in its ability to process closer to "line speed," and some of the data classification functionality from the host commoditizes into the "network" -- which by then is as much in the form of appliances as it is routers and switches -- and always will be.   So as we round this upturn focusing again on being "information centric," with the help of technology, we seek to use our network investment to offset impact on our users.
    
5. Ultimately, we get the latest round of "next generation" network solutions which promise to deliver us from our woes, but as we "pass go and collect $200" we realize we're really at the same point we were at point #1.

'Round and 'round we go.

So, there's no end state.  It's a continuum.  The budget and operational elements of who "owns" security and where it's implemented simply follow the same curve.  Throw in disruptive innovation such as virtualization, and the entire concept of the "host" and the "network" morphs and we simply realize that it's a shift in period on the same graph.

So all this pontification that it is "...inevitable that network security will eventually be subsumed into the network fabric" is only as accurate as what phase of the graph you reckon you're on.  Depending upon how many periods you've experienced, it's easy to see how some who have not seen these changes come and go could be fooled into not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Here's the reality we actually already know and should not come to you as a surprise if you've been reading my blog: we will always need a blended investment in technology, people and process in order to manage our risk effectively.  From a technology perspective, some of this will take the form of controls embedded in the information itself, some will come from the OS and applications and some will come from the network.

Anyone who tells you differently has something to sell you or simply needs a towel for the back of his or her ears...

/Hoff

Endpoint Security vs. DLP? That's Part Of the Problem...

Larry Walsh wrote something (Defining the Difference Between Endpoint Security and Data Loss Prevention) that sparked an interesting debate based upon a vendor presentation given to him on "endpoint security" by SanDisk.

SanDisk is bringing to market a set of high-capacity USB flash drives that feature built-in filesystem encryption as well as strong authentication and access control.  If the device gets lost with the data on it, it's "safe and secure" because it's encrypted.  They are positioning this as an "endpoint security" solution.

I'm not going to debate the merits/downsides of that approach because I haven't seen their pitch, but suffice it to say, I think it's missing a "couple" of pieces to solve anything other than a very specific set of business problems.

Larry's dilemma stems from the fact that he maintains that this capability and functionality is really about data loss protection and doesn't have much to do with "endpoint security" at all:

We debated that in my office for a few minutes. From my perspective, this solution seems more like a data loss prevention solution than endpoint security. Admittedly, there are many flavors of endpoint security. When I think of endpoint security, I think of network access control (NAC), configuration management, vulnerability management and security policy enforcement. While this solution is designed for the endpoint client, it doesn't do any of the above tasks. Rather, it forces users to use one type of portable media and transparently applies security protection to the data. To me, that's DLP.

In today's market taxonomy, I would agree with Larry.  However, what Larry is struggling with is not really the current state of DLP versus "endpoint security," but rather the future state of converged information-centric governance.  He's describing the problem that will drive the solution as well as the inevitable market consolidation to follow.

This is actually the whole reason Mogull and I are talking about the evolution of DLP as it exists today to a converged solution we call CMMP -- Content Management, Monitoring and Protection. {Yes, I just added another M for Management in there...}

What CMMP represents is the evolved and converged end-state technology integration of solutions that today provide a point solution but "tomorrow" will be combined/converged into a larger suite of services.

Off the cuff, I'd expect that we will see at a minimum the following technologies being integrated to deliver CMMP as a pervasive function across the information lifecycle and across platforms in flight/motion and at rest:

• Data leakage/loss protection (DLP)
• Identity and access management (IAM)
• Network Admission/Access Control (NAC)
• Digital rights/Enterprise rights management (DRM/ERM)
• Seamless encryption based upon "communities of interest"
• Information classification and profiling
• Metadata
• Deep Packet Inspection (DPI)
• Vulnerability Management
• Configuration Management
• Database Activity Monitoring (DAM)
• Application and Database Monitoring and Protection (ADMP)
• etc...

That's not to say they'll all end up as a single software install or network appliance, but rather a consolidated family of solutions from a few top-tier vendors who have coverage across the application, host and network space. 

If you were to look at any enterprise today struggling with this problem, they likely have or are planning to have most of the point solutions above anyway.  The difficulty is that they're all from different vendors.  In the future, we'll see larger suites from fewer vendors providing a more cohesive solution.

This really gives us the "cross domain information protection" that Rich talks about.

We may never achieve the end-state described above in its entirety, but it's safe to say that the more we focus on the "endpoint" rather than the "information on the endpoint," the bigger the problem we will have.

/Hoff

The Walls Are Collapsing Around Information Centricity

Since Mogull and I collaborate quite a bit on projects and share many thoughts and beliefs, I wanted to make a couple of comments on his last post on Information Centricity and remind the audience at home of a couple of really important points.

Rich's post was short and sweet regarding the need for Information-Centric solutions with some profound yet subtle guideposts:

For information-centric security to become a reality, in the long term it needs to follow the following principles:

1. Information (data) must be self describing and defending.
2. Policies and controls must account for business context.
3. Information must be protected as it moves from structured to unstructured, in and out of applications, and changing business context.
4. Policies must work consistently through the different defensive layers and technologies we implement.

I’m not convinced this is a complete list, but I’m trying to keep to my new philosophy of shorter and simpler. A key point that might not be obvious is that while we have self-defending data solutions, like DRM and label security, for success they must grow to account for business context. That’s when static data becomes usable information.

Mike Rothman gave an interesting review of Rich's post:

The Mogull just laid out your work for the next 10 years. You just probably don't know it yet. Yes, it's all about ensuring that the fundamental elements of your data are protected, however and wherever they are used. Rich has broken it up into 4 thoughts. The first one made my head explode: "Information (data) must be self-describing and defending."

Now I have to clean up the mess. Sure things like DRM are a bad start, and have tarnished how we think about information-centric security, but you do have to start somewhere. The reality is this is a really long term vision of a problem where I'm not sure how you get from Point A to Point B. We all talk about the lack of innovation in security. And how the market just isn't exciting anymore. What Rich lays out here is exciting. It's also a really really really big problem. If you want a view of what the next big security company does, it's those 4 things. And believe me, if I knew how to do it, I'd be doing it - not talking about the need to do it.

The comments I want to make are three-fold:

1. Rich is re-stating and Mike's head is exploding around the exact concepts that Information Survivability represents and the Jericho Forum trumpets in their Ten Commandments.  In fact, you can read all about that in a prior posts I made on the subjects of the Jericho Forum, re-perimeterization, information survivability and information centricity.  I like this post on a process I call ADAPT (Applied Data and Application Policy Tagging) a lot.
   
   For reference, here are the Jericho Forum's Ten Commandments. Please see #9:
   

   

2. As mike alluded, DRM/ERM has received a bad rap because of how it's implemented -- which has really left a sour taste in the mouths of the consumer consciousness.  As a business tool, it is the precursor of information centric policy and will become the lynchpin in how we will ultimately gain a foothold on solving the information resiliency/assurance/survivability problem.
3. As to the innovation and dialog that Mike suggests is lacking in this space, I'd suggest he's suffering from a bit of Shitake-ism (a-la mushroom-itis.)  The next generation of DLP solutions that are becoming CMP (Content Monitoring and Protection -- a term I coined) are evolving to deal with just this very thing.  It's happening.  Now.
   
   Further to that, I have been briefed by some very, very interesting companies that are in stealth mode who are looking to shake this space up as we speak.

So, prepare for Information Survivability, increased Information Resilience and assurance.  Coming to a solution near you...

/Hoff

Security Today == Shooting Arrows Through Sunroofs of Cars?

In this Dark Reading post, Peter Tippett, described as the inventor of what is now Norton Anti-virus, suggests that the bulk of InfoSec practices are "...outmoded or outdated concepts that don't apply to today's computing environments."

As I read through this piece, I found myself flip-flopping between violent agreement and incredulous eye-rolling from one paragraph to the next, caused somewhat by the overuse of hyperbole in some of his analogies.  This was disappointing, but overall, I enjoyed the piece.

Let's take a look at Peter's comments:

For example, today's security industry focuses way too much time on vulnerability research, testing, and patching, Tippett suggested. "Only 3 percent of the vulnerabilities that are discovered are ever exploited," he said. "Yet there is huge amount of attention given to vulnerability disclosure, patch management, and so forth."

I'd agree that the "industry" certainly focuses their efforts on these activities, but that's exactly the mission of the "industry" that he helped create.  We, as consumers of security kit, have perpetuated a supply-driven demand security economy.

There's a huge amount of attention paid to vulnerabilities, patching and prevention that doesn't prevent because at this point, that's all we've got.  Until we start focusing on the the root cause rather than the symptoms, this is a cycle we won't break.  See my post titled "Sacred Cows, Meatloaf, and Solving the Wrong Problems" for an example of what I mean.

Tippett compared vulnerability research with automobile safety research. "If I sat up in a window of a building, I might find that I could shoot an arrow through the sunroof of a Ford and kill the driver," he said. "It isn't very likely, but it's possible.

"If I disclose that vulnerability, shouldn't the automaker put in some sort of arrow deflection device to patch the problem? And then other researchers may find similar vulnerabilities in other makes and models," Tippett continued. "And because it's potentially fatal to the driver, I rate it as 'critical.' There's a lot of attention and effort there, but it isn't really helping auto safety very much."

What this really means and Peter doesn't really ever state, is that mitigating vulnerabilities in the absence of threat, impact or probability is a bad thing.  This is why I make such a fuss about managing risk instead of mitigating vulnerabilities.  If there were millions of malicious archers firing arrows through the sunroofs of unsuspecting Ford Escort drivers, then the 'critical' rating is relevant given the probability and impact of all those slings and arrows of thine enemies...

Tippett also suggested that many security pros waste time trying to buy or invent defenses that are 100 percent secure. "If a product can be cracked, it's sometimes thrown out and considered useless," he observed. "But automobile seatbelts only prevent fatalities about 50 percent of the time. Are they worthless? Security products don't have to be perfect to be helpful in your defense."

I like his analogy and the point he's trying to underscore.  What I find in many cases is that the binary evaluation of security efficacy -- in products and programs -- still exists.  In the absence of measuring the effective impact that something has in effecting one's risk posture, people revert to a non-gradient scale of 0% or 100% insecure or secure.  Is being "secure" really important or is managing to a level of risk that is acceptable -- with or without losses -- the really relevant measure of success?   

This concept also applies to security processes, Tippett said. "There's a notion out there that if I do certain processes flawlessly, such as vulnerability patching or updating my antivirus software, that my organization will be more secure. But studies have shown that there isn't necessarily a direct correlation between doing these processes well and the frequency or infrequency of security incidents.

"You can't always improve the security of something by doing it better," Tippett said. "If we made seatbelts out of titanium instead of nylon, they'd be a lot stronger. But there's no evidence to suggest that they'd really help improve passenger safety."

I would like to see these studies.  I think that companies who have rigorous, mature and transparent processes that they execute "flawlessly" may not be more "secure," (a measurement I'd love to see quantified) but are in a much better position to respond and recover when (not if) an event occurs.  Based upon the established corollary that we can't be 100% "secure" in the first place, we then know we're going to have incidents.

Being able to recover from them or continue to operate while under duress is more realistic and important in my view.  That's the point of information survivability.

Security teams need to rethink the way they spend their time, focusing on efforts that could potentially pay higher security dividends, Tippett suggested. "For example, only 8 percent of companies have enabled their routers to do 'default deny' on inbound traffic," he said. "Even fewer do it on outbound traffic. That's an example of a simple effort that could pay high dividends if more companies took the time to do it."

I agree.  Focusing on efforts that eliminate entire classes of problems based upon reducing risk is a more appropriate use of time, money and resources.

Security awareness programs also offer a high rate of return, Tippett said. "Employee training sometimes gets a bad rap because it doesn't alter the behavior of every employee who takes it," he said. "But if I can reduce the number of security incidents by 30 percent through a $10,000 security awareness program, doesn't that make more sense than spending $1 million on an antivirus upgrade that only reduces incidents by 2 percent?"

Nod.  That was the point of the portfolio evaluation process I gave in my disruptive innovation presentation:

24. Provide Transparency in portfolio effectiveness

I didn't invent this graph, but it's one of my favorite ways of visualizing my investment portfolio by measuring in three dimensions: business impact, security impact and monetized investment.  All of these definitions are subjective within your organization (as well as how you might measure them.)

The Y-axis represents the "security impact" that the solution provides.  The X-axis represents the "business impact" that the solution provides while the size of the dot represents the capex/opex investment made in the solution.

Each of the dots represents a specific solution in the portfolio.

If you have a solution that is a large dot toward the bottom-left of the graph, one has to question the reason for continued investment since it provides little in the way of perceived security and business value with high cost.   On the flipside, if a solution is represented by a small dot in the upper-right, the bang for the buck is high as is the impact it has on the organization.

The goal would be to get as many of your investments in your portfolio from the bottom-left to the top-right with the smallest dots possible.

This transparency and the process by which the portfolio is assessed is delivered as an output of the strategic innovation framework which is really comprised of part art and part science.

All in all, a good read from someone who helped create the monster and is now calling it ugly...

/Hoff

Thin Clients: Does This Laptop Make My Ass(ets) Look Fat?

Juicy Fat Assets, Ripe For the Picking...

So here's an interesting spin on de/re-perimeterization...if people think we cannot achieve and cannot afford to wait for secure operating systems, secure protocols and self-defending information-centric environments but need to "secure" their environments today, I have a simple question supported by a simple equation for illustration:

For the majority of mobile and internal users in a typical corporation who use the basic set of applications:

1. Assume a company that:
   ...fits within the 90% of those who still have data centers, isn't completely outsourced/off-shored for IT and supports a remote workforce that uses Microsoft OS and the usual suspect applications and doesn't plan on utilizing distributed grid computing and widespread third-party SaaS
2. Take the following:
   Data Breaches.  Lost Laptops.  Non-sanitized corporate hard drives on eBay.  Malware.  Non-compliant asset configurations.  Patching woes.  Hardware failures.  Device Failure.  Remote Backup issues.  Endpoint Security Software Sprawl.  Skyrocketing security/compliance costs.  Lost Customer Confidence.  Fines.  Lost Revenue.  Reduced budget.
   
3. Combine With:
   Cheap Bandwidth.  Lots of types of bandwidth/access modalities.  Centralized Applications and Data. Any Web-enabled Computing Platform.  SSL VPN.  Virtualization.  Centralized Encryption at Rest.  IAM.  DLP/CMP.  Lots of choices to provide thin-client/streaming desktop capability.  Offline-capable Web Apps.
4. Shake Well, Re-allocate Funding, Streamline Operations and "Security"...
5. You Get:
   Less Risk.  Less Cost.  Better Control Over Data.  More "Secure" Operations.  Better Resilience.  Assurance of Information.  Simplified Operations. Easier Backup.  One Version of the Truth (data.)

---

I really just don't get why we continue to deploy and are forced to support remote platforms we can't protect, allow our data to inhabit islands we can't control and at the same time admit the inevitability of disaster while continuing to spend our money on solutions that can't possibly solve the problems.

If we're going to be information centric, we should take the first rational and reasonable steps toward doing so. Until the operating systems are more secure, the data can self-describe and cause the compute and network stacks to "self-defend," why do we continue to focus on the endpoint which is a waste of time.

If we can isolate and reduce the number of avenues of access to data and leverage dumb presentation platforms to do it, why aren't we?

...I mean besides the fact that an entire industry has been leeching off this mess for decades...

---

I'll Gladly Pay You Tuesday For A Secure Solution Today...

The technology exists TODAY to centralize the bulk of our most important assets and allow our workforce to accomplish their goals and the business to function just as well (perhaps better) without the need for data to actually "leave" the data centers in whose security we have already invested so much money.

Many people are doing that with the servers already with the adoption of virtualization.  Now they need to do with their clients.

The only reason we're now going absolutely stupid and spending money on securing endpoints in their current state is because we're CAUSING (not just allowing) data to leave our enclaves.  In fact with all this blabla2.0 hype, we've convinced ourselves we must.

Hogwash.  I've posted on the consumerization of IT where companies are allowing their employees to use their own compute platforms.  How do you think many of them do this?

Relax, Dude...Keep Your Firewalls...

In the case of centralized computing and streamed desktops to dumb/thin clients, the "perimeter" still includes our data centers and security castles/moats, but also encapsulates a streamed, virtualized, encrypted, and authenticated thin-client session bubble.  Instead of worrying about the endpoint, it's nothing more than a flickering display with a keyboard/mouse.

Let your kid use Limewire.  Let Uncle Bob surf pr0n.  Let wifey download spyware.  If my data and applications don't live on the machine and all the clicks/mouseys are just screen updates, what do I care?

Yup, you can still use a screen scraper or a camera phone to use data inappropriately, but this is where balancing risk comes into play.  Let's keep the discussion within the 80% of reasonable factored arguments.  We'll never eliminate 100% and we don't have to in order to be successful.

Sure, there are exceptions and corner cases where data *does* need to leave our embrace, but we can eliminate an entire class of problem if we take advantage of what we have today and stop this endpoint madness.

This goes for internal corporate users who are chained to their desks and not just mobile users.

What's preventing you from doing this today?

/Hoff

Thinning the Herd & Chlorinating the Malware Gene Pool...

Alan Shimel pointed us to an interesting article written by Matt Hines in his post here regarding the "herd intelligence" approach toward security.  He followed it up here. 

All in all, I think both the original article that Andy Jaquith was quoted in as well as Alan's interpretations shed an interesting light on a problem solving perspective.

I've got a couple of comments on Matt and Alan's scribbles.

I like the notion of swarms/herds.  The picture to the right from Science News describes the notion of "rapid response," wherein "mathematical modeling is explaining how a school of fish can quickly change shape in reaction to a predator."  If you've ever seen this in the wild or even in film, it's an incredible thing to see in action.

It should then come as no surprise that I think that trying to solve the "security problem" is more efficiently performed (assuming one preserves the current construct of detection and prevention mechanisms) by distributing both functions and coordinating activity as part of an intelligent "groupthink" even when executed locally.  This is exactly what I was getting at in my "useful predictions" post for 2008:

Grid and distributed utility computing models will start to creep into security
A really interesting by-product of the "cloud compute" model is that as data, storage, networking, processing, etc. get distributed, so shall security.  In the grid model, one doesn't care where the actions take place so long as service levels are met and the experiential and business requirements are delivered.  Security should be thought of in exactly the same way. 

The notion that you can point to a physical box and say it performs function 'X' is so last Tuesday. Virtualization already tells us this.  So, imagine if your security processing isn't performed by a monolithic appliance but instead is contributed to in a self-organizing fashion wherein the entire ecosystem (network, hosts, platforms, etc.) all contribute in the identification of threats and vulnerabilities as well as function to contain, quarantine and remediate policy exceptions.

Sort of sounds like that "self-defending network" schpiel, but not focused on the network and with common telemetry and distributed processing of the problem.
Check out Red Lambda's cGrid technology for an interesting view of this model.

This basically means that we should distribute the sampling, detection and prevention functions across the entire networked ecosystem, not just to dedicated security appliances; each of the end nodes should communicate using a standard signaling and telemetry protocol so that common threat, vulnerability and effective disposition can be communicated up and downstream to one another and one or more management facilities.

This is what Andy was referring to when he said:

As part of the effort, security vendors may also need to begin sharing more of that information with their rivals to create a larger network effect for thwarting malware on a global basis, according to the expert.

It may be hard to convince rival vendors to work together because of the perception that it could lessen differentiation between their respective products and services, but if the process clearly aids on the process of quelling the rising tide of new malware strains, the software makers may have little choice other than to partner, he said.

Secondly, Andy suggested that basically every end-node would effectively become its own honeypot:

"By turning every endpoint into a malware collector, the herd network effectively turns into a giant honeypot that can see more than existing monitoring networks," said Jaquith. "Scale enables the herd to counter malware authors' strategy of spraying huge volumes of unique malware samples with, in essence, an Internet-sized sensor network."

I couldn't agree more!  This is the sort of thing that I was getting at back in August when I was chatting with Lance Spitzner regarding using VM's for honeypots on distributed end nodes:

I clarified that what I meant was actually integrating a HoneyPot running in a VM on a production host as part of a standardized deployment model for virtualized environments.  I suggested that this would integrate into the data collection and analysis models the same was as a "regular" physical HoneyPot machine, but could utilize some of the capabilities built into the VMM/HV's vSwitch to actually make the virtualization of a single HoneyPot across an entire collection of VM's on a single physical host.

Thirdly, the notion of information sharing across customers has been implemented cross-sectionally in industry verticals with the advent of the ISAC's such as the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center which seeks to inform and ultimately leverage distributed information gathering and sharing to protect it's subscribing members.  Generally-available services like Symantec's DeepSight have also tried to accomplish similar goals.

Unfortunately, these offerings generally lack the capacity to garner ubiquitous data gathering and real-time enforcement capabilities.

As Matt pointed out in his article, gaining actionable intelligence on the monstrous amount of telemetric data from participating end nodes means that there is a need to really prune for false positives.  This is the trade-off between simply collecting data and actually applying intelligence at the end-node and effecting disposition. 

This requires technology that we're starting to see emerge with a small enough footprint when paired with the compute power we have in endpoints today. 

Finally, as the "network" (which means the infrastructure as well as the "extrastructure" delivered by services in the cloud) gains more intelligence and information-centric granularity, it will pick up some of the slack -- at least from the perspective of sloughing off the low-hanging fruit by using similar concepts.

I am hopeful that as we gain more information-centric footholds, we shouldn't actually be worried about responding to every threat but rather only those that might impact the most important assets we seek to protect. 

Ultimately the end-node is really irrelevant from a protection perspective as it should really be little more than a presentation facility; the information is what matters.  As we continue to make progress toward more resilient operating systems leveraging encryption and mutual authentication within communities of interest/trust, we'll start to become more resilient and information assured.

The sharing of telemetry to allow these detective and preventative/protective capabilities to self-organize and perform intelligent offensive/evasive actions will evolve naturally as part of this process.

Mooooooo.

/Hoff

Understanding & Selecting a DLP Solution...Fantastic Advice But Wholesale Misery in 10,000 Words or More...

If you haven't been following Rich Mogull's amazing writeup on how to "Understand and Select a DLP Data Leakage Prevention Solution" you're missing one of the best combinatorial market studies, product dissection and consumer advice available on the topic from The Man who covered the space at Gartner.

Here's a link to the latest episode (part 7!) that you can use to work backwards from.

This is not a knock on the enormous amount of work Rich has done to educate us all, in fact it's probably one of the reasons he chose to write this opus magnum; this stuff is complicated which explains why we're still having trouble solving this problem... 

If it takes 7 large blog posts and over 10,000 words to enable someone to make a reasonably educated decision on how to consider approaching the purchase of one of these solutions, there are two possible reasons for this:

1. Rich is just a detail-oriented, anal-retentive ex-analyst who does a fantastic job of laying out everything you could ever want to know about this topic given his innate knowledge of the space, or
2. It's a pie that ain't quite baked.

I think the answer is "C - All of the above," and t's absolutely no wonder why this market feature has a cast of vendors who are shopping themselves to the highest bidder faster that you can say "TablusPortAuthorityOakelyOnigmaProvillaVontu."

Yesterday we saw the leader in this space (Vontu) finally submit to the giant Yellow Sausage Machine.

The sales cycle and adoption attach rate for this sort of product must be excruciating if one must be subjected to the equivalent of the Old Testament just to understand the definition and scope of the solution...as a consumer, I know I have a pain that needs amelioration in this category, but which one of these ointments is going to stop the itching?

I dig one of the first paragraphs in Part I which is probably the first clue we're going to hit a slippery slope: 

The first problem in understanding DLP is figuring out what we’re actually talking about. The following names are all being used to describe the same market:

• Data Loss Prevention/Protection
• Data Leak Prevention/Protection
• Information Loss Prevention/Protection
• Information Leak Prevention/Protection
• Extrusion Prevention
• Content Monitoring and Filtering
• Content Monitoring and Protection

And I’m sure I’m missing a few. DLP seems the most common term, and while I consider its life limited, I’ll generally use it for these posts for simplicity. You can read more about how I think of this progression of solutions here.

So you've got that goin' for ya... ;)

In the overall evolution of the solution landscape, I think that this iteration of the DLP/ILP/EP/CMF/CMP (!) solution sets raise the visibility of the need to make decisions on content in context and focus on information centricity (data-centric "security" for the technologists) instead  of the continued deployment of packet-filtering 5-tuple network colanders and host-based agent bloatscapes being foisted upon us.

More on the topic of Information Centricity and its relevance to Information Survivability soon.  I spent a fair amount of time talking about this as a source of disruptive innovation/technology during my keynote at the Information Security Decisions conference yesterday.

Great conversations were had afterwards with some *way* smart people on the topic, and I'm really excited to share them once I can digest the data and write it down.

/Hoff

(Image Credit: Stephen Montgomery)

On-Demand SaaS Vendors Able to Secure Assets Better than Customers?

I'm a big advocate of software as a service (SaaS) -- have been for years.  This evangelism started for me almost 5 years ago when I become a Qualys MSSP customer listening to Philippe Courtot espouse the benefits of SaaS for vulnerability management.  This was an opportunity to allow me to more efficiently, effectively and cheaply manage my VA problem.  They demonstrated how they were good custodians of the data (my data) that they housed and how I could expect they would protect it.

I did not, however, feel *more* secure because they housed my VA data.  I felt secure enough that how they housed it should not fall into the wrong hands.  It's called an assessment of risk and exposure.  I performed it and was satisfied it matched my company's appetite and business requirements.

Not one to appear unclear on where I stand, I maintain that the SaaS can bring utility, efficiency, cost effectiveness, enhanced capabilities and improved service levels to a corporation depending upon who, what, why, how, where and when the service is deployed.  Sometimes it can bring a higher level of security to an organization, but so can an armed squadron of pissed off armed Oompa Loompa's -- it's all a matter of perspective.

I suggest that attempting to qualify the benefits of SaaS by generalizing in any sense is, well, generally a risky thing to do.  It often turns what could be a valid point of interest into a point of contention.

Such is the case with a story I read in a UK edition of IT Week by Phil Muncaster titled "On Demand Security Issues Raised."  In this story, the author describes the methods in which the security posture of SaaS vendors may be measured, comparing the value, capabilities and capacity of the various options and the venue for evaluating an SaaS MSSP:  hire an external contractor or rely on the MSSP to furnish you the results of an internally generated assessment.

I think this is actually a very useful and valid discussion to have -- whom to trust and why?  In many cases, these vendors house sensitive and sometimes confidential data regarding an enterprise, so security is paramount.  One would suggest that anyone looking to engage an MSSP of any sort, especially one offering a critical SaaS, would perform due diligence in one form or another before signing on the dotted line.

That's not really what I wanted to discuss, however.

What I *did* want to address was the comment in the article coming from Andy Kellett, an analyst for Burton, that read thusly:

"Security is probably less a problem than in the end-user organisations because [on-demand app providers] are measured by the service they provide," Kellett argued.

I *think* I probably understand what he's saying here...that security is "less of a problem" for an MSSP because the pressures of the implied penalties associated with violating an SLA are so much more motivating to get security "right" that they can do it far more effectively, efficiently and better than a customer.

This is a selling point, I suppose?  Do you, dear reader, agree?  Does the implication of outsourcing security actually mean that you "feel" or can prove that you're more secure or better secured than you could do yourself by using a SaaS MSSP?

"I don't agree the end-user organisation's pen tester of choice should be doing the testing. The service provider should do it and make that information available."

Um, why?  I can understand not wanting hundreds of scans against my service in an unscheduled way, but what do you have to hide?  You want me to *trust* you that you're more secure or holding up your end of the bargain?  Um, no thanks.  It's clear that this person has never seen the results of an internally generated PenTest and how real threats can be rationalized away into nothingness...

Clarence So of Salesforce.com agreed, adding that most chief information officers today understand that software-as-a-service (SaaS) vendors are able to secure data more effectively than they can themselves.

Really!?  It's not just that they gave into budget pressures, agreed to transfer the risk and reduce OpEx and CapEx?  Care to generalize more thoroughly, Clarence?  Can you reference proof points for me here?  My last company used Salesforce.com, but as the person who inherited the relationship, I can tell you that I didn't feel at all more "secure" because SF was hosting my data.  In fact, I felt more exposed.

"I'm sure training companies have their own motives for advocating the need for in-house skills such as penetration testing," he argued. "But any suggestions the SaaS model is less secure than client-server software are well wide of the mark."

...and any suggestion that they are *more* secure is pure horsecock marketing at its finest.  Prove it.  And please don't send me your SAS-70 report as your example of security fu.

So just to be clear, I believe in SaaS.  I encourage its use if it makes good business sense.  I don't, however, agree that you will automagically be *more* secure.  You maybe just *as* secure, but it should be more cost-effective to deploy and manage.  There may very well be cases (I can even think of some) where one could be more or less secure, but I'm not into generalizations.

Whaddya think?

/Hoff

I see your "More on Data Centralization" & Raise You One "Need to Conduct Business..."

Bejtlich continues to make excellent points regarding his view on centralizing data within an enterprise.  He cites the increase in litigation regarding inadequate eDiscovery investment and the increasing pressures amassed from compliance.

All good points, but I'd like to bring the discussion back to the point I was trying to make initially and here's the perfect perch from which to do it.  Richard wrote:

Christopher Christofer Hoff used the term "agile" several times in his good blog post. I think "agile" is going to be thrown out the window when corporate management is staring at $50,000 per day fines for not being able to produce relevant documents during ediscovery. When a company loses a multi-million dollar lawsuits because the judge issued an adverse inference jury instruction, I guarantee data will be centralized from then forward. "

...how about when a company loses the ability to efficiently and effectively conduct business because they spend so much money and time on "insurance policies" against which a balanced view of risk has not been applied?  Oh, wait.  That's called "information security." ;)

Fear.  Uncertainty.  Doubt.  Compliance.  Ugh.  Rinse, later, repeat.

I'm not taking what you're proposing lightly, Richard, but the notion of agility, time to market, cost transformation and enhancing customer experience are being tossed out with the bathwater here. 

Believe it or not, we have to actually have a sustainable business in order to "secure" it. 

It's fine to be advocating Google Gears and all these other Web 2.0 applications and systems. There's one force in the universe that can slap all that down, and that's corporate lawyers. If you disagree, whom do you think has a greater influence on the CEO: the CTO or the corporate lawyer? When the lawyer is backed by stories of lost cases, fines, and maybe jail time, what hope does a CTO with plans for "agility" have?

But going back to one of your own mantras, if you bake security into your processes and SDLC in the first place, then the CEO/CTO/CIO and legal counsel will already have assessed the position the company has and balance the risk scorecard to ensure that they have exercised the appropriate due care in the first place. 

The uncertainty and horrors associated with the threat of punitive legal impacts have, are, and will always be there...and they will continue to be exploited by those in the security industry to buy more stuff and justify a paycheck.

Given the business we're in, it's not a surprise that the perspective presented is very, very siloed and focused on the potential "security" outcomes of what happens if we don't start centralizing data now; everything looks like a nail when you're a hammer.

However, you still didn't address the other two critical points I made previously:

1. The underlying technology associated with decentralization of data and applications is at complete odds with the "curl up in a fetal position and wait for the sky to fall" approach
2. The only reason we have security in the first place is to ensure survivability and availability of service -- and make sure that we stay in business.  That isn't really a technical issue at all, it's a business one.  I find it interesting that you referenced this issue as the CTO's problem and not the CIO.

As to your last point, I'm convinced that GE -- with the resources, money and time it has to bear on a problem -- can centralize its data and resources...they can probably get cold fusion out of a tuna fish can and a blow pop, but for the rest of us on planet Earth, we're going to have to struggle along trying to cram all the 'agility' and enablement we've just spent the last 10 years giving to users back into the compliance bottle.

/Hoff

Security Application Instrumentation: Reinventing the Wheel?

Two of my favorite bloggers engaged in a trackback love-fest lately on the topic of building security into applications; specifically, enabling applications as a service delivery function to be able to innately detect, respond to and report attacks.

Richard Bejtlich wrote a piece called Security Application Instrumentation and Gunnar Peterson chimed in with Building Coordinated Response In - Learning from the Anasazis.  As usual, these are two extremely well-written pieces and arrive at a well constructed conclusion that we need a standard methodology and protocol for this reporting.  I think that this exquisitely important point will be missed by most of the security industry -- specifically vendors.

While security vendor's hearts are in the right place (stop laughing,) the "security is the center of the universe" approach to telemetry and instrumentation will continue to fall on deaf ears because there are no widely-adopted standard ways of reporting across platforms, operating systems and applications that truly integrate into a balanced scorecard/dashboard that demonstrates security's contribution to service availability across the enterprise.   I know what you're thinking..."Oh God, he's going to talk about metrics!  Ack!"  No.  That's Andy's job and he does it much better than I.

This mess is exactly why the SEIM market emerged to clean up the cesspool of log dumps that spew forth from devices that are, by all approximation, utterly unaware of the rest of ecosystem in which they participate.  Take all these crappy log dumps via Syslog and SNMP (which can still be proprietary,) normalize if possible, correlate "stuff" and communicate that something "bad" or "abnormal" has occurred.

How does that communicate what this really means to the business, its ability to function, deliver servce and ultimately the impact on risk posture?  It doesn't because security reporting is the little kid wearing a dunce hat standing in the corner because it doesn't play well with others.

Gunnar stated this well:

Coordinated detection and response is the logical conclusion to defense in depth security architecture. I think the reason that we have standards for authentication, authorization, and encryption is because these are the things that people typically focus on at design time. Monitoring and auditing are seen as runtime operational acitivities, but if there were standards based ways to communicate security information and events, then there would be an opportunity for the tooling and processes to improve, which is ultimately what we need.

So, is the call for "security application instrumentation" doomed to fail because we in the security industry will try to reinvent the wheel with proprietary solutions and suggest that the current toolsets and frameworks which are available as part of a much larger enterprise management and reporting strategy not enough? 

Bejtlich remarked on the need for mechanisms that report application state must be built into the application and must report more than just performance:

Today we need to talk about applications defending themselves. When they are under attack they need to tell us, and when they are abused, subverted, or breached they would ideally also tell us

I would like to see the next innovation be security application instrumentation, where you devise your application to report not only performance and fault logging, but also security and compliance logging. Ideally the application will be self-defending as well, perhaps offering less vulnerability exposure as attacks increase (being aware of DoS conditions of course).

I would agree, but I get the feeling that without integrating this telemetry and the output metrics and folding it into response systems whose primary role is to talk about delivery and service levels -- of which "security" is a huge factor -- the relevance of this data within the visible single pane of glass of enterprise management is lost.

So, rather than reinvent the wheel and incrementally "innovate," why don't we take something like the Open Group's Application Response Measurement (ARM) standard, make sure we subscribe to a telemetry/instrumentation format that speaks to the real issues and enable these systems to massage our output in terms of the language of business (risk?) and work to extend what is already a well-defined and accepted enterprise response management toolset to include security?

To wit:

The Application Response Measurement (ARM) standard describes a common method for integrating enterprise applications as manageable entities. The ARM standard allows users to extend their enterprise management tools directly to applications creating a comprehensive end-to-end management capability that includes measuring application availability, application performance, application usage, and end-to-end transaction response time.

Or how about something like EMC's Smarts:

Maximize availability and performance of mission-critical IT resources—and the business services they support. EMC Smarts software provides powerful solutions for managing complex infrastructures end-to-end, across technologies, and from the network to the business level. With EMC Smarts innovative technology you can:

• Model components and their relationships across networks, applications, and storage to understand effect on services.
• Analyze data from multiple sources to pinpoint root cause problems—automatically, and in real time.
• Automate discovery, modeling, analysis, workflow, and updates for dramatically lower cost of ownership.

            

...add security into these and you've got a winner.   

There are already industry standards (or at least huge market momentum) around intelligent automated IT infrastructure, resource management and service level reporting. We should get behind a standard that elevates the perspective of how security contributes to service delivery (and dare I say risk management) instead of trying to reinvent the wheel...unless you happen to like the Hamster Wheel of Pain...

/Hoff

Does Centralized Data Governance Equal Centralized Data?

I've been trying to construct a palette of blog entries over the last few months which communicates the need for a holistic network, host and data-centric approach to information security and information survivability architectures. 

I've been paying close attention to the dynamics of the DLP/CMF market/feature positioning as well as what's going on in enterprise information architecture with the continued emergence of WebX.0 and SOA.

That's why I found this Computerworld article written by Jay Cline very interesting as it focused on the need for a centralized data governance function within an organization in order to manage risk associated with coping with the information management lifecycle (which includes security and survivability.)  The article went on to also discuss how the roles within the organization, namely the CIO/CTO, will also evolve in parallel.

The three primary indicators for this evolution were summarized as:

1. Convergence of information risk functions
2. Escalating risk of information compliance
3. Fundamental role of information.

Nothing terribly earth-shattering here, but the exclamation point of this article to enable a
centralized data governance  organization is a (gasp!) tricky combination of people, process
and technology:

"How does this all add up? Let me connect the dots: Data must soon become centralized,
its use must be strictly controlled within legal parameters, and information must drive the
business model. Companies that don’t put a single, C-level person in charge of making
this happen will face two brutal realities: lawsuits driving up costs and eroding trust in the
company, and competitive upstarts stealing revenues through more nimble use of centralized
information."

Let's deconstruct this a little because I totally get the essence of what is proposed, but
there's the insertion of some realities that must be discussed.  Working backwards:

• I agree that data and it's use must be strictly controlled within legal parameters.
• I agree that a single, C-level person needs to be accountable for the data lifecycle
• However, I think that whilst I don't disagree that it would be fantastic to centralize data,
  I think it's a nice theory but the wrong universe. 

Interesting, Richard Bejtlich focused his response to the article on this very notion, but I can't get past a couple of issues, some of them technical and some of them business-related.

There's a confusing mish-mash alluded to in Richard's blog of "second home" data repositories that maintain copies of data that somehow also magically enforce data control and protection schemes outside of this repository while simultaneously allowing the flexibility of data creation "locally."  The competing themes for me is that centralization of data is really irrelevant -- it's convenient -- but what you really need is the (and you'll excuse the lazy use of a politically-charged term) "DRM" functionality to work irrespective of where it's created, stored, or used.

Centralized storage is good (and selfishly so for someone like Richard) for performing forensics and auditing, but it's not necessarily technically or fiscally efficient and doesn't necessarily align to an agile business model.

The timeframe for the evolution of this data centralization was not really established,
but we don't have the most difficult part licked yet -- the application of either the accompanying
metadata describing the information assets we wish to protect OR the ability to uniformly classify and
enforce it's creation, distribution, utilization and destruction.

Now we're supposed to also be able to magically centralize all our data, too?  I know that large organizations have embraced the notion of data warehousing, but it's not the underlying data stores I'm truly worried about, it's the combination of data from multiple silos within the data warehouses that concerns me and its distribution to multi-dimensional analytic consumers. 

You may be able to protect a DB's table, row, column or a file, but how do you apply a policy to a distributed ETL function across multiple datasets and paths?

ATAMO?  (And Then A Miracle Occurs) 

What I find intriguing about this article is that this so-described pendulum effect of data centralization (data warehousing, BI/DI) and resource centralization (data center virtualization, WAN optimization/caching, thin client computing) seem to be on a direct  collision course with the way in which applications and data are being distributed with  Web2.0/Service Oriented architectures and delivery underpinnings such as rich(er) client side technologies such as mash-ups and AJAX...

So what I don't get is how one balances centralizing data when today's emerging infrastructure
and information architectures are constructed to do just the opposite; distribute data, processing
and data re-use/transformation across the Enterprise?  We've already let the data genie out of the bottle and now we're trying to cram it back in?  (*please see below for a perfect illustration)

I ask this again within the scope of deploying a centralized data governance organization and its associated technology and processes within an agile business environment. 

/Hoff

P.S. I expect that a certain analyst friend of mine will be emailing me in T-Minus 10, 9...

*Here's a perfect illustration of the futility of centrally storing "data."  Click on the image and notice the second bullet item...:

Really, There's More to Security than Admission/Access Control...

Dr. Joseph Tardo over at the Nevis Networks Illuminations blog composed a reasonably well-balanced commentary regarding one or more of my posts in which I was waxing on philosophically about about my beliefs regarding keeping the network plumbing dumb and overlaying security as a flexible, agile, open and extensible services layer.

It's clear he doesn't think this way, but I welcome the discourse.  So let me make something clear:

Realistically, and especially in non-segmented flat networks, I think there are certain low-level security functions that will do well by being served up by switching infrastructure as security functionality commoditizes, but I'm not quite sure for the most part how or where yet I draw the line between utility and intelligence.  I do, however, think that NAC is one of those utility services.

I'm also unconvinced that access-grade, wiring closet switches are architected to scale in either functionality, efficacy or performance to provide any more value or differentiation other than port density than the normal bolt-on appliances which continue to cause massive operational and capital expenditure due to continued forklifts over time.  Companies like Nevis and Consentry quietly admit this too, which is why they have both "secure switches" AND appliances that sit on top of the network...

Joseph suggested he was entering into a religious battle in which he summarized many of the approaches to security that I have blogged about previously and I pointed out to him on his blog that this is exactly why I practice polytheism ;) :

In case you aren’t following the religious wars going on in the security blogs and elsewhere, let me bring you up to date.

It goes like this. If you are in the client software business, then security has to be done in the endpoints and the network is just dumb “plumbing,” or rather, it might as well be because you can’t assume anything about it. If you sell appliances that sit here and there in the network, the network sprouts two layers, with the “plumbing” part separated from the “intelligence.” Makes sense, I guess. But if you sell switches and routers then the intelligence must be integrated in with the infrastructure. Now I get it. Or maybe I’m missing the point, what if you sell both appliances and infrastructure?

I believe that we're currently forced to deploy in defense in depth due to the shortcomings of solutions today.  I believe the "network" will not and cannot deliver all the security required.  I believe we're going to have to invest more in secure operating systems and protocols.  I further believe that we need to be data-centric in our application of security.  I do not believe in single-point product "appliances" that are fundamentally functionally handicapped.  As a delivery mechanism to deliver security that matters across network I believe in this.

Again, the most important difference between what I believe and what Joseph points out above is that the normal class of "appliances" he's trying to suggest I advocate simply aren't what I advocate at all.  In fact, one might surprisingly confuse the solutions I do support as "infrastructure" -- they look like high-powered switches with a virtualized blade architecture integrated into the solution.

It's not an access switch, it's not a single function appliance and it's not a blade server and it doesn't suffer from the closed proprietary single vendor's version of the truth.  To answer the question, if you sell and expect to produce both secure appliances and infrastructure, one of them will come up short.   There are alternatives, however.

So why leave your endpoints, the ones that have all those vulnerabilities that created the security industry in the first place, to be hit on by bots, “guests,” and anyone else that wants to? I don’t know about you, but I would want both something on the endpoint, knowing it won’t be 100% but better than nothing, and also something in the network to stop the nasty stuff, preferably before it even got in.

I have nothing to disagree with in the paragraph above -- short of the example of mixing active network defense with admission/access control in the same sentence; I think that's confusing two points.   Back to the religious debate as Joseph drops back to the "Nevis is going to replace all switches in the wiring closet" approach to security via network admission/access control:

Now, let’s talk about getting on the network. If the switches are just dumb plumbing they will blindly let anyone on, friend or foe, so you at least need to beef up the dumb plumbing with admission enforcement points. And you want to put malware sensors where they can be effective, ideally close to entry points, to minimize the risk of having the network infrastructure taken down. So, where do you want to put the intelligence, close to the entry enforcement points or someplace further in the bowels of the network where the dumb plumbing might have plugged-and-played a path around your expensive intelligent appliance?

That really depends upon what you're trying to protect; the end point, the network or the resources connected to it.  Also, I won't/can't argue about wanting to apply access/filtering (sounds like IPS in the above example) controls closest to the client at the network layer.  Good design philosophy.   However, depending upon how segmented your network is, the types, value and criticality of the hosts in these virtual/physical domains, one may choose to isolate by zone or VLAN and not invest in yet another switch replacement at the access layer.

If the appliance is to be effective, it has to sit at a choke point and really be and enforcement point. And it has to have some smarts of its own. Like the secure switch that we make.

Again, that depends upon your definition of enforcement and applicability.  I'd agree that in flat networks, you'd like to do it at the port/host level, though replacing access switches to do so is usually not feasible in large networks given investments in switching architectures.  Typical fixed configuration appliances overlaid don't scale, either.

Furthermore, depending upon your definition of what an enforcement zone and it's corresponding diameter is (port, VLAN, IP Subnet) you may not care.  So putting that "appliance" in place may not be as foreboding as you wager, especially if it overlays across these boundaries satisfactorily.

We will see how long before these new-fangled switch vendors that used to be SSL VPN's, that then became IPS appliances that have now "evolved" into NAC solutions, will become whatever the next buzzword/technology of tomorrow represents...especially now with Cisco's revitalized technology refresh for "secure" access switches in the wiring closets.  Caymas, Array, and Vernier (amongst many) are perfect examples.

When it comes down to it, in the markets Crossbeam serves -- and especially the largest enterprises -- they are happy with their switches, they just want the best security choice on top of it provided in a consolidated, agile and scalable architecture to support it.

Amen.

/Hoff

Profiling Data At the Network-Layer and Controlling It's Movement Is a Bad Thing?

I've been watching what appears like a car crash in slow-motion and for some strange reason I share some affinity and/or responsibility for what is unfolding in the debate between Rory and Rob.

What motivated me to comment on this on-going exploration of data-centric security was Rory's last post in which he appears to refer to some points I raised in my original post but still bent on the idea that the crux of my concept was tied to DRM:

So .. am I anti-security? Nope I'm extremely pro-security. My feeling is however that the best way to implement security is in ways which it's invisable to users. Every time you make ordinary business people think about security (eg, usernames/passwords) they try their darndest to bypass those requirements.

That's fine and I agree.  The concept of ADAPT is completely transparent to "users."  This doesn't obviate the fact that someone will have to be responsible for characterizing what is important and relevant to the business in terms of "assets/data," attaching weight/value to them, and setting some policies regarding how to mitigate impact and ultimately risk.

Personally I'm a great fan of network segregation and defence in depth at the network layer. I think that devices like the ones crossbeam produce are very useful in coming up with risk profiles, on a network by network basis rather than a data basis and managing traffic in that way. The reason for this is that then the segregation and protections can be applied without the intervention of end-users and without them (hopefully) having to know about what security is in place.

So I think you're still missing my point.  The example I gave of the X-Series using ADAPT takes a combination of best-of-breed security software components such as FW, IDP, WAF, XML, AV, etc. and provides you with segregation as you describe.  HOWEVER, the (r)evolutionary delta here is that the ADAPT profiling of content set by policies which are invisible to the user at the network layer allows one to make security decisions on content in context and control how data moves.

So to use the phrase that I've seen in other blogs on this subject, I think that the "zones of trust" are a great idea, but the zone's shouldn't be based on the data that flows over them, but the user/machine that are used. It's the idea of tagging all that data with the right tags and controlling it's flow that bugs me.

...and thus it's obvious that I completely and utterly disagree with this statement.  Without tying some sort of identity (pseudonymity) to the user/machine AND combining it with identifying the channels (applications) and the content (payload) you simply cannot make an informed decision as to the legitimacy of the movement/delivery of this data.

I used the case of being able to utilize client-side tagging as an extension to ADAPT, NOT as a dependency.  Go back and re-read the post; it's a network-based transparent tagging process that attaches the tag to the traffic as it moves around the network.  I don't understand why that would bug you?

So that's where my points in the previous post came from, and I still reckon their correct. Data tagging and parsing relies on the existance of standards and their uptake in the first instance and then users *actually using them* and personally I think that's not going to happen in general companies and therefore is not the best place to be focusing security effort...

Please explain this to me?  What standards need to exist in order to tag data -- unless of course you're talking about the heterogeneous exchange and integration of tagging data at the client side across platforms?  Not so if you do it at the network layer WITHIN the context of the architecture I outlined; the clients, switches, routers, etc. don't need to know a thing about the process as it's done transparently.

I wasn't arguing that this is the end-all-be-all of data-centric security, but it's worth exploring without deadweighting it to the negative baggage of DRM and the existing DLP/Extrusion Prevention technologies and methodologies that currently exist.

ADAPT is doable and real; stay tuned.

/Hoff

For Data to Survive, It Must ADAPT...

Now that I've annoyed you by suggesting that network security will over time become irrelevant given lost visibility due to advances in OS protocol transport and operation, allow me to give you another nudge towards the edge and further reinforce my theories with some additionally practical data-centric security perspectives. 

If any form of network-centric security solution is to succeed in adding value over time, the mechanics of applying policy and effecting disposition on flows as they traverse the network must be made on content in context.  That means we must get to a point where we can make "security" decisions based upon information and its "value" and classification as it moves about.

It's not good enough to only make decisions on how flows/data should be characterized and acted on with the criteria being focused on the 5-tupule (header,) signature-driven profiling or even behavioral analysis that doesn't characterize the content in context of where it's coming from, where it's going and who (machine, virtual machine and "user") or what (application, service) intends to access and consume it. 

In the best of worlds, we like to be able to classify data before it makes its way though the IP stack and enters the network and use this metadata as an attached descriptor of the 'type' of content that this data represents.  We could do this as the data is created by applications (thick or thin, rich or basic) either using the application itself or by using an agent (client-side) that profiles the data prior to storage or transmission.

Since I'm on my Jericho Forum kick lately, here's how they describe how data ought to be controlled:

Access to data should be controlled by security attributes of the data itself.

• Attributes can be held within the data (DRM/Metadata) or could be a separate system.
• Access / security could be implemented by encryption.
• Some data may have “public, non-confidential” attributes.
• Access and access rights have a temporal component.

You would probably need client-side software to provide this functionality.  As an example, we do this today with email compliance solutions that have primitive versions of this sort of capability that force users to declare the classification of an email before you can hit the send button or even the document info that can be created when one authors a Word document. 

There are a bunch of ERM/DRM solutions in play today that are bandied about being sold as "compliance" solutions, but there value goes much deeper than that.  IP Leakage/Extrusion prevention systems (with or without client-side tie-ins) try to do similar things also.

Ideally, this metadata would be used as a fixed descriptor of the content that permanently attaches itself and follows that content around so it can be used to decide what content should be "routed" based upon policy.

If we're not able to use this file-oriented static metadata, we'd like then for the "network" (or something in/on it) to be able to dynamically profile content at wirespeed and characterize the data as it moves around the network from origin to destination in the same way.

So, this is where Applied Data & Application Policy Tagging (ADAPT) comes in.  ADAPT is an approach that uses some new technology to profile and characterize content (by using signatures, regular expressions and behavioral analysis in hardware) to then apply policy-driven traffic "routing" functionality as flows traverse the network by applying an ADAPT tag-header as a descriptor to each flow as it moves around the network.

The ADAPT tag could be fed by interpreting metadata attached to the data itself (if in file form) or dynamically by on-the-fly profiling.

Think of it like a VLAN tag the describes the data within the packet/flow.

This ADAPT tag is user defined and can use any taxonomy that best suits the types of content that is interesting; one might use asset classification such as "confidential" or uses taxonomies such as "HIPAA" or "PCI" to describe what is contained in the flows.  One could combine and/or stack the tags, too.

Then, as data moves across the network and across what we call boundaries (zones) of trust, the policy tags are parsed and disposition effected based upon the language governing the rules.

Just like an ACL for IP addresses of VLAN policies, ADAPT does the same thing for content routing.

To enable this sort of functionality, either every switch/router in the network would need to be ADAPT enabled (which would be difficult since you'd need every network vendor to support the protocols) OR you could use an overlay UTM security services switch sitting on top of the network plumbing through which all traffic moving from one zone to another would be subject to the ADAPT policy.

Since the only device that needs to be ADAPT aware is this UTM security service switch, you can let the network do what it does best and utilize this solution to enforce the policy for you across these boundary transitions.  Said UTM security service switch needs to have an extremely high-speed content security engine that is able to characterize the data at wirespeed and add a tag to the frame as it moves through the switching fabric and processed prior to popping out onto the network.

I'm going to be self-serving here and demonstrate this "theoretical" solution using a Crossbeam X80 UTM security services switch plumbed into a very fast, reliable, and resilient L2/L3 Cisco infrastructure.  It just so happens to have a wire-speed content security engine installed in it.  The reason the X-Series can do this is because once the flow enters its switching fabric, I own the ultimate packet/frame/cell format and can prepend any header functionality I like onto the structure to determine how it gets "routed."

Take the example below where the X80 is connected to the layer-3 switches using 802.1q VLAN trunked interfaces.  I've made this an intentionally simple network using VLANs and L3 routing; you could envision a much more complex segmentation and routing environment, obviously.

This network is chopped up into 4 VLAN segments:

1. General Clients (VLAN A)
2. Finance & Accounting Clients (VLAN B)
3. Financial Servers (VLAN C)
4. HR Servers (VLAN D)

Each of the clients/servers in the respective VLANs default routes out to an IP address which belongs to the firewall cluster IP addresses which is proffered by the firewall application modules providing service in the X80. 

Thus, to get from one VLAN to another VLAN, one must pass through the X80 and profiled by this content security engine and whatever additional UTM services are installed in the chassis (such as firewall, IDP, AV, etc.)

Let's say then that a user in VLAN A (General Clients) attempts to access one or more resources in the VLAN D (HR Servers.) 

Using solely IP addresses and/or L2 VLANs, let's say the firewall and IPS policies allow this behavior as the clients in that VLAN have a legitimate need to access the HR Intranet server.  However, let's say that this user tries to access data that exists on the HR Intranet server but contains personally identifiable information that falls under the governance/compliance mandates of HIPAA.

Let us further suggest that the ADAPT policy states the following:

Rule  Source                Destination            ADAPT Descriptor           Action
==============================================================

1        VLAN A             VLAN D                    HIPAA, Confidential        Deny
          IP.1.1               IP.3.1

2        VLAN B             VLAN C                    PCI                                 Allow
          IP.2.1             IP.4.1

Using rule 1 above, as the client makes the request, he transits from VLAN A to VLAN D.  The reply containing the requested information is profiled by the content security engine which is able to  characterize the data as containing information that matches our definition of either "HIPAA or Confidential" (purely arbitrary for the sake of this example.) 

This could be done by reading the metadata if it exists as an attachment to the content's file structure, in cooperation with an extrusion prevention application running in the chassis, or in the case of ad-hoc web-based applications/services, done dynamically.

According to the ADAPT policy above, this data would then be either silently dropped, depending upon what "deny" means, or perhaps the user would be redirected to a webpage that informs them of a policy violation.

Rule 2 above would allow authorized IP's in VLANs to access PCI-classified data.

You can imagine how one could integrate IAM and extend the policies to include pseudonymity/identity as a function of access, also.  Or, one could profile the requesting application (browser, for example) to define whether or not this is an authorized application.  You could extend the actions to lots of stuff, too.

In fact, I alluded to it in the first paragraph, but if we back up a step and look at where consolidation of functions/services are being driven with virtualization, one could also use the principles of ADAPT to extend the ACL functionality that exists in switching environments to control/segment/zone access to/from virtual machines (VMs) of different asset/data/classification/security zones.

What this translates to is a workflow/policy instantiation that would use the same logic to prevent VM1 from communicating with VM2 if there was a "zone" mis-match; as we add data classification in context, you could have various levels of granularity that defines access based not only on VM but VM and data trafficked by them.

Furthermore, assuming this service was deployed internally and you could establish a trusted CA with certs that would support transparent MITM SSL decrypts, you could do this (with appropriate scale) with encrypted traffic also.

This is data-centric security that uses the network when needed, the host when it can and the notion of both static and dynamic network-borne data classification to enforce policy in real-time.

/Hoff

[Comments/Blogs on this entry you might be interested in but have no trackbacks set:

MCWResearch Blog

Rob Newby's Blog

Alex Hutton's Blog

Security Retentive Blog