[SecurityRatty] tag: competitive

The "A"

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:57:00 +0000

Information Security sits in a strange area somewhere between Business and IT in a little space that really hasn't been properly defined. It is exciting here.

Generally, most people in Information Security today did not start out as pure Information Security people, they evolved. And where they evolved from gives one a clue as to their mindset and how they see themselves.

Some come from an Audit background and you'll recognise these guys from their love of lists and frameworks - they dream of Cobit controls and little boxes that are waiting for ticks. Somehow they have tons of documentation and they know it all and can find it all. They generally drive Volvo's and like order.

But most InfoSec guys come from an IT background and it shows. I guess that, having said that, most hackers come from an IT background too. And it shows.

Now, lets consider the C-I-A triangle thingum. Quick lesson for those who don't know it - there are three aspects of information that Information Security wishes to preserve - the Confidentiality, the Integrity and the Availability. From my experience, most IT people are governed by Availability - the "A". In fact, when an IT contract is drawn up - there is no SLI or SLC but there will always be an SLA. With very specific terms, measurements and penalties.

If the Firewall crashes and has to be rebuilt. What will the IT manager be most interested in? The A - how fast can you get the traffic moving again?

So we have tools to measure uptime in 99.999999999999999s and such and anything that can cause network downtime (or if the network is up and the services such as mail are down - same difference) is taken care of. Spam, worms, viruses etc.

I guess that hackers (those that define what we do) are also IT background people. They seem to be more concerned with big-bang, widely deployed DoS attacks and stealing IT resources. At least, they used to be, until they discovered that they could make money from stealing information. Actually, I may be naive but I don't believe that the hackers we have today are the same as those we had in the past... I believe that we have a new generation of hackers - criminals who merely use the Internet to steal money because that it where the money is easiest to steal.

The problem is that we were lucky in a way that our old tools worked against the threats that we had - firewalls, antiviruses, etc etc. They don't work against people breaking into our networks and stealing information. For that we need a new generation of Information Security people (or the old generation to update their game)...

Here is a quick poll to see which generation you are in:

1. What is the one piece of information on your network that your competitors would love to see?
2. What is the percentage of mails coming into your network that are spam?
3. What mail is going to competitors?
4. What is the process for someone to order a pencil?
5. What is a blog?
6. Who in your organisation uses facebook for business?
7. How many of your PCs have up-to-date antivirus?
8. What is the worst virus out at the moment?
9. Do you believe that your Firewall is configured correctly?

The answers are as follows:
1. This is ESSENTIAL to know if you want to be in the next generation. And you can't guess this. You may think that it is something financial but most financial information can be guessed by your competitors anyhow. You may think it is a recipe or special way of doing something but any established company has had their recipe ripped off anyhow and can beat any new competitor by competitive pricing. It may be new product information. It may be staff information. It may be the CEO's contact list. Don't guess - find out.

2. Who cares? Certainly not the CEO. Maybe the CIO. "We are saving you x amount of bandwidth and your users x amount of time" is nice but won't save the business from closing down due to data loss. Operationalise this and get on with your job.

3. Good to know. I'm sure that if you told your CEO/CIO "Last week we detected 5 large emails going to our competitors from inside our R&D department" you'd have his full attention.

4. Good to know. Who does the ordering? Who does the okaying? Who does the paying? If you know all of this then you know how business works. And when things go wrong - you'll be able to help.

5. And do you want your staff to use them? And if they do, what can they put on them? What are they puting on them?

6. This is an interesting question because Facebook is usually an issue of "The A" (productivity). But it can be an issue of C and I.

7. Who cares? Again, this is an operational issue. Viruses that jump onto your radar are usually ones that attack "the A" but its the ones that are pushing information out of your organisation that are sneaky enough not to have sgnatures and not to be discovered. You will have PCs without up-to-date antivirus and you will have viruses. The trick is not to let your information be stolen by viruses. Also, keep backups so if a PC does get wiped out - you can get the information back again (but this is an operational issue again).

8. Trick question - the answer is - the one you don't know about. Old generation InfoSec guys can rattle off names of viruses that are all in the top 10 at the moment.. New generation viruses are targetted and usually do their worst before a pattern is out.

9. Old generation answer - yes. New generation answer - who cares? Information flows all over including in and out of the Firewall. Firewalls also usually rely on port security but most everything runs on port 80 anyhow so the Firewall should be configured but it doesn't kep us safe - more work needs to be done for that.

I find that it is not very easy to move from old generation to new generation InfoSec. The main difference is that old generation was very technical and appealed to the technical nature of computer geeks. The new generation is business oriented and requires more interaction with people, more meetings, more time with people. Ouch.

There will always be a place for technical people in Information Security but as the tools mature and "just work" there is less demand. And a background in technology is very useful when the technical guys try to "BS" you.

And "the A" is very important too. Protecting your network from being brought down. Protecting information from disappearing. Stopping viruses. Etc. But the new generation will need to consider "the I" and "the C" as well because the attacks against these and the importance of protecting information against disclosure or manipulation will increase.

This post was done to add my voice to what Rich says so quickly and concisely in the securosis blog.

Blurring the Lines Between Managed Service Provider and Cloud Computing

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:20:47 +0000

VMware made big announcements at their VMworld conference back in September, talking about adding on a slew of virtualization management functionality to a revamped vCenter and extending into the “cloud” with vCloud services. Like most people, I had a lot of skepticism about what vCloud really meant; was this just more hype trying to take advantage of the cloud computing buzz? Certainly CEO Paul Maritz came from this world and virtualization itself (and especially vMotion) is an enabling technology for cloud computing. But how ready were VMware and its ecosystem of partner vendors to actually fulfill on the promise?

So I was very interested when I heard that Opus Interactive, a customer of ours, had “joined the VMware vCloud initiative as a VMware Service Provider”. I talked to Eric Hulbert, CTO of Opus Interactive, to get some details directly from the source.

Eric shared our own caution about making “cloud-ready” announcements. There have simply been too many companies talking about cloud solutions that lack any substance – usually based on definitions of cloud computing that are hazy or just too broad. The backlash against the cloud hype is often quite justified. But in Opus’ case, there are real components that if they don’t add up to a “full” cloud computing solution just yet, are well on their way – and enabled by VMware’s program for service providers (VSPP).

Opus Interactive is serious about virtualization, which is an indispensable tool in their stated goal of creating a high-density micro-data center with the smallest footprint possible. They are 100% wind-powered and have already virtualized much of their data center, reducing the amount of hardware necessary to run the business and driving down costs to produce even more competitive advantage in a crowded marketplace.

VSPP for vCloud provides a rental model of VMware licenses – e.g., for Enterprise ESX or VDI. VMware Service Providers report on their customers’ virtual machines (vm) and pay only for what is actually used. This model lets Opus Interactive quickly spin up a vm to get a new customer up and running in about an hour and stay very cost competitive at the same time; Opus offers their vClustr entry-level virtual server for only $99.

Cost-effective, rapidly scalable computing “on-demand” based on shared resources, managed by “expert” third-parties, enabled by virtualization technology and pay-per-use vm licenses. Cloud computing? Instead of thinking about a single definition of cloud computing, perhaps it’s more relevant as the market matures to think about a continuum of cloud computing. And by that definition, Opus Interactive is providing cloud services, enabled by VMware’s VSP program. Next on the schedule, automated provisioning and perhaps in the future, API’s that make it even easier for application developers to test and deploy apps on Opus Interactive’s cloud platform – which, by the way, uses EM7 for its core management solution.

No one gets fired for banning IM

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:00:00 +0000

The argument for security that enables business risk where the risk brings a compelling ROI or competitive differentiation

The Economics of Finding and Fixing Vulnerabilities in Distributed Systems

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:47:55 +0000

The Economics of Finding and Fixing Vulnerabilities in Distributed Systems

Quality of Protection Keynote

Alexandria, VA

October 27. 2008

Gunnar Peterson

Managing Principal, Arctec Group

Blog: http://1raindrop.typepad.com

When Andy Ozment asked me over the summer to do this talk at QoP, I knew back in August that the topic I wanted to address was security and economics. So to that end I would like to start by thanking all of our friends on Wall Street and here in Washington DC for providing such a rich tapestry of recent events that I can speak to.

Like many people in this industry, my focus on security was fundamentally altered by Dan Geer's speech "Risk Management is Where the Money Is"[1], there are not many people who can call a ten year shot in the technology business, but Dan Geer did. The talk revolutionized the security industry. Since that speech, the security market, the vendors, consultants, and everyone else has realized that security is really about risk management.

Of course, saying that you are managing risk and actually managing risk are two different things. Warren Buffett started off his 2007 shareholder letter [2] talking about financial institutions' ability to deal with the subprime mess in the housing market saying, "You don't know who is swimming naked until the tide goes out." In our world, we don't know whose systems are running naked, with no controls, until they are attacked. Of course, by then it is too late.

So the security industry understands enough about risk management that the language of risk has permeated almost every product, presentation, and security project for the last ten years. However, a friend of mine who works at a bank recently attended a workshop on security metrics, and came away with the following observation - "All these people are talking about risk, but they don't have any assets." You can't do risk management if you don't know your assets.

Risk management requires that you know your assets, that on some level you understand the vulnerabilities surrounding your assets, the threats against those, and efficacy of the countermeasures you would like to use to separate the threat from the asset. But it starts with assets. Unfortunately, in the digital world these turn out to be devilishly hard to identify and value.

Recent events have taught us again, that in the financial world, Warren Buffett has few peers as a risk manager. I would like to take the first two parts of this talk looking at his career as a way to understand risk management and what we can infer for our digital assets.

Warren Buffett's evolution as an investor can be broken up into two parts. He began his career very much influenced by Ben Graham, who sought to buy "cheap stocks", comparing the price of the stock to value of the company's assets, and placing many, diversified bets on companies whose share price was below the total assets. Note that the businesses may have been of unremarkable quality, but when the price was right Graham would buy in, wait for it to rise and then sell. This was the dawn of value investing.

Buffett's later career departed from Graham's strict, statistical measures, where he sought to buy into companies that were selling at a fair price, but were also high quality businesses. We will examine high quality in Part 2 of this talk, but first we go to Part 1 which is asset value.

Why does a talk on finding and fixing vulnerabilities start with valuing assets? The reason is that vulnerabilities are everywhere, we are literally marinating in them. Interesting vulnerabilities are attached to high value assets. In a world that quite literally presents us with too much information, we need screens to sift out what is worth paying attention to. You can run your vulnerability assessment tool of choice on your system, and come back with hundreds or thousands of vulnerabilities, but which ones should you pay attention to and act on? The first part of answering this question is asset value.

When Warren Buffett was 19 years old studying at the University of Nebraska, he read Ben Graham's book "The Intelligent Investor", Buffett said he thought it was the best book on investing he has ever read and still feels that way today. In the Intelligent Investor Graham lays out the framework of value investing. Specifically, Graham talks about three concepts - Mr. Market, a stock is a piece of a business, and Margin of Safety.

Mr. Market is a fictional, teaching device invented by Graham. You imagine that you have a somewhat manic depressive business partner called Mr. Market. Every day, Mr. Market comes into the office and offers you quotes on companies, some days he is in a good mood and the prices are high, other days he is gloomy and prices are low. The market is a quote machine, for quoting prices, not a value assessment machine. Your job is to wait for the right price, and you are free to take as many passes and be as patient as you would like, Mr. Market will just show up the next day and throw out a new price.

Graham used Mr. Market to teach us the separation between a price of a stock, and the value of a company. The second big concept from Intelligent Investor is that buying a stock is buying a small piece of the underlying business. You are not buying a roulette chip, or a number that fluctuates in the newspaper every day, rather you are buying a piece of the company's existing and future cash flow. What the stock market says General Electric is worth yesterday, today or tomorrow is separate from GE's actual ability to generate cash flow.

The last big concept in "The Intelligent Investor" and the one seemingly most applicable to information security is the Margin of Safety. Graham's margin of safety involved calculating the intrinsic value of a business and then buying stock where the market cap of a company is less than its intrinsic value. So if a company has $100 million in assets and a market capitalization of $75 million, then an investor would get a 25% margin of safety. Ideally, Graham wanted to buy stocks that were selling for one half of their book value, i.e. with a 50% margin of safety. Graham said that buying stocks without a margin of safety, above their book value, speculation, not investing.

So price is readily available, but how do we calculate intrinsic value so that we can ascertain the margin of safety? Graham used quantitative statistical measures, relying heavily on the company's book value, like its hard assets. What would it take for a competitor to reproduce the company's assets - its factories, distribution system, and so on. The difference between the book value of the assets and market cap is the margin of safety.

What can we learn in information security from this quantitative approach? Where price and value are readily ascertainable we should build countermeasures and eliminate on vulnerabilities that give our assets a wide margin of safety. Since budgets are not unlimited we should prefer vulnerabilities that are cheap to find, cheap to fix.

First to the asset question, information security budgets like all IT budgets are crufty, they are not a reflection of today's top issues and priorities so much as an accumulating snowball of decisions, legacy contracts, and solution attempts to yesteryear's problems. Today the normal Information Security budget is just a legacy artifact from bygone years when the network was the purported greatest vulnerability. If you were around in 1995, you remember the great gnashing of gears as the enterprises opened up their networks, connected their back ends to the Web and began to transact business in the giant virtual space.

The security people huffed and puffed that it was dangerous but there was simply too much money to be made, so businesses went ahead. The security people would not go down without a fight and insisted on countermeasures. They got two - the network firewall and SSL. The firewall was used to separate the average Fortune 500s network of hundreds of thousands of machines, employees, consultants, and partners from the web at large. SSL was used to protect the network channel between the web server and the client browser. so the network firewall separated the network segments, and SSL in effect encrypted the last mile of many million complex transactions and computations.

In 1995, this seemed like a good security architecture. When we built out these security architectures, the eCommerce market was derided as a toy. Amazon famously lost money for years - losing a little on every transaction but making it up in volume. When the market is nascent, a quaint security architecture offers cost effective protection. But what about 2008? Those cute little eCommerce buggers have grown they even make profits now - market caps measured in the tens of billions, accumulating large cash hordes, no debt, and the largest ones are in better financial shape than the financial services players that kicked sand in their face in the dotcom era.

And its not just eCommerce, the "real" economy Fortune 500 types are all connected as well. Directly and indirectly the Web is seeping into all businesses. Major changes from when the security architecture of the web was built out. But has the security architecture changed to reflect these new business realities? Not a bit of it!

We can use the book value of the IT budget investments and the book value of the Information Security investments to see what kind of Margins of Safety Information Security groups are engineering.

Let's look at some market data, Gary McGraw reviewed the numbers [2] in software security for 2007, breaking down software security sectors like tools and services. Here is a summary of his findings on software security tools:

"One of the most important developments in the software security market can be seen in the tools space which, combined, almost doubled to $150-180 million. Top of list are two major acquisitions that closed in 2007: Watchfire's purchase by IBM (somewhere in the range of $120-150 million on 2006 revenue of $26 million) and SPI Dynamics's purchase by HP (for around $100 million on 2006 revenue of $21.2 million).

...

The black box space was flat in 2007, with IBM/Watchfire checking in at $24.1 million and HP/SPI Dynamics earning $22.3 million. Smaller companies in the space, including Cenzic, Codenomicon, WhiteHat and the like had combined revenues around $12.5 million (a growth of 25%, though Cenzic grew 16% and WhiteHat 52%). Most of the growth "hiccup" in the black box market can be attributed to the serious challenges posed by any acquisition. So far 2008 looks to be back on track from a growth perspective in the black box testing space. The global reach that IBM and HP offer are already making a big difference.

On a more positive note, static analysis tools for code review grew at a healthy clip in 2007 into a $91.9 million dollar market. Fortify was up 83% to $29.2 million. Klocwork grew over 60% to $26 million. Coverity grew over 50% to $27.2 million. Ounce Labs tripled their revenue to $9.5 million."

These are very nice growth numbers, what company doesn't want 83% growth? However, the let's look at the total picture and compare the software security countermeasures against other security mechanisms. Gary McGraw's estimate shows the software security space coming in at $150 Million total, yet we see a company like Checkpoint that won the network security war in 1995 with earnings of around $900 Million! One single network security vendor is 6 times bigger than the entire software security space, in what alternate universe does this make sense?

This is where we begin to see that decisions in the People's Republic of Information Security have no real risk management thinking, they truly are swimming naked and hoping the tide doesn't go out.

Let's look at network assets. Obviously Cisco is the biggest, they earned $39.5 Billion last year. Pretty stellar. So spending $900 Million (Checkpoint) to defined $39.5 Billion seems like a pretty good deal.

Except, let's compare software security spending - last year Microsoft earned $60 Billion, SAP $16 billion, and Oracle $22 Billion. So that is about $98 Billion in just three vendors and you are going to "defend" that with allocating $150 Million worth of software security tools?

On the network side we are buying $900 million of security countermeasures (Checkpoint firewalls) to protect $39.5 billion worth of Cisco gear, about 2.3% of the network investment goes to security.

On the software side, we are buying $150 million of security countermeasures (like static analysis and black box scanners) to protect $98 billion of software (you know the stuff that runs the whole business), roughly coming to about 0.2% of the software budget goes to security.

This is very disturbing. From a prioritization standpoint The People's Republic of Information Security is misaligned by an order of magnitude at least. Next time you read about a data breach, or see an auditor's report with thousands of findings you won't have to wonder how it happened. It happened because Information Security doesn't have its eye on the ball, it invests in network security not because those controls have greater efficacy (the whole point of networks is they are dumb), no, they invest in network firewalls because they bought a bunch in 1995, some more in 1998, and heck they just kept buying them, the Checkpoint rep kept showing up and taking CISOs out to play golf, contracts got renewed, and poof - there goes the security budget.

Consider that software security tools could grow 50% a year for five years and still be half of where Checkpoint is today.

The optimistic way of looking at all this data is that there is major room for growth for software security, if you take network security as a target for a mature industry and assume that 2.3% is a reasonable margin of safety, then the software security space should evolve to around 2% of the software space meaning that it should evolve into a $2 billion space around fifteen times larger than it is today. Unprotected assets will either be protected or will cease to be assets, VCs get your check books ready.

My friend Brian Chess has a nice way of looking at this he says 2007 was the turning point - "the first year there was a bigger market for products that help you get code right than there was for products that help you demonstrate a problem exists."

Now I am not suggesting that Information Security budgets have to be aligned with IT budget one for one, but I do think that looking at the overall IT budget is the starting point. If Information Security has a more cost effective security mechanism they should deploy it, but the starting point should be aligned to the business. Businesses spend most of their money on software, and there are very good reasons - competitive advantage, increased revenues and lower costs. Information Security spends most of its money on network security, and there is no good reason why, except that it was a seemingly good idea in 1995. You really don't have to go beyond the book value of IT investment as a whole versus Information Security to see a stunning disparity. Information Security's job is to deliver a Margin of Safety to the business, but they are not.

To deliver a real Margin of Safety to the business, I propose the following based on a defense in depth mindset. Break the IT budget into the following categories:

- Network: all the resources invested in Cisco, network admins, etc.

- Host: all the resources invested in Unix, Windows, sys admins, etc.

- Applications: all the resources invested in developers, CRM, ERP, etc.

- Data: all the resources invested in databases, DBAs, etc.

Tally up each layer. If you are like most business you will probably find that you spend most on Applications, then Data, then Host, then Network.

Then do the same exercise for the Information Security budget:

- Network: all the resources invested in network firewalls, firewall admins, etc.

- Host: all the resources invested in Vulnerability management, patching, etc.

- Applications: all the resources invested in static analysis, black box scanning etc.

- Data: all the resources invested in database encryption, database monitoring, etc.

Again, tally each up layer. If you are like most business you will find that you spend most on Network, then Host, then Applications, then Data. Congratulations, Information Security, you are diametrically opposed to the business!

Its not just about alignment for alignment's sake, its about applying controls as a way to have a Margin of Safety properly placed so that when not if there is a failure on a higher value asset you are relatively better positioned to deal with it.

The pure statistical approach can only take us so far. Buffett said he would be a lot poorer if all he did was listen to Ben Graham. Book value is great to see the diametric opposition mentioned above, but it doesn't really tell us much about the efficacy of the security mechanisms.

What we do get out of this statistical approach is a screen. The asset value screen filters out subjective opinion and narrows the field for where we need to dig in to do the high value, time consuming analytical work.

The second part of Warren Buffett's career and the second part of this talk leave behind pure statistical measures. In Warren Buffett's case he was joined by a guy named Charlie Munger who talked him out of the pure Ben Graham approach. Charlie Munger has a saying - "a great business at a fair price beats a fair business at a great price." Where Graham was focused on price and margin of safety, Munger wants a fair price but also a high quality business. This lead to Warren Buffett's company Berkshire Hathaway investing in companies like Coca Cola, Wells Fargo, and American Express, where the prices were far from dirt cheap (as Graham would have wanted), but the long term returns were outstanding.

In our world of Information Security, we start by aligning our priorities with the business using the thumbnail defense in depth approach, but then we would like to invest in high quality, effective controls.

To get at the notion of control quality and effectiveness, I am going to start part 2 of this talk with a brief history of software. The first web software was just static HTML, but web software really got interesting when developers started creating dynamic websites using CGI an PERL.

Once websites were hooked up to company databases and were not just serving static content, the security people realized they needed a security architecture, and they sprung into action. What they came up was was model that divided the world into "good stuff" which was comprised of all their networks, systems, and data; and then there was everything else the "bad stuff" on the Internet. So job one of the early days Internet security architecture was to separate all your good stuff (i.e. your network) for the bad stuff (the Internet). To do this the security people used a sophisticated tool called Visio to draw a flaming brick wall on the network diagram, and this flaming brick wall was supposed to keep the good stuff and the bad stuff separate.

The security people also realized that the data and session tokens that they served up from their Web server would have to traverse the "bad" neighborhood called the Internet, so they added one more security mechanism to secure the last mile of the transaction - SSL between the browser and the Web server.

And this was the state of the art security architecture used circa 1995 to protect the earliest dynamic web applications.

What happened next was that the dotcom boom started to happen and businesses realized they could make some real money on the Web, the web apps started to get more sophisticated, more personalization, richer session experiences and so on. This led the Java people to create JSP and the Microsoft people to create ASP, and of course the PERL people to create even greasier PERL scripts, all of this in the effort to pooling resources and sessions on the Web server. The security people defended this new application programming model with network firewall and SSL.

Around 1998, developers began building out more distributed N tier or 3 tier applications that separated the business logic layer, the presentation layer and the data access layer. Among other things, your web application could seamlessly integrate data from multiple back ends systems. Let's say you have pricing data in Oracle, order data in SAP, and customer data in a Mainframe. You write separate data access objects, apply business logic in the middle tier and then you tie it all together in a friendly user interface. At this point the web applications are beginning to integrate across departments and geographic boundaries, huge critical chunks of the business are now connected to the web. How did the security people defend this part of the business? They applied the same 1995 security architecture - network firewall and SSL.

Around 1999-2000 timeframe businesses relied on web applications for major parts of the revenue, and the apps were built in different technologies like Java and Microsoft technologies, but the customer didn't care (still doesn't), the customer wanted (and still wants) data access and functionality. So to integrate the disparate technologies, SOAP and XML were deployed so that Microsoft could talk to Java and so Websphere could talk to Weblogic and so on. And, oh yes, SOAP and XML were used to connect B2B networks so partners in a supply chain and business process can exchange data and interoperate. SOAP and XML present a fundamentally new programming model based on a message document style integration, where XML is used to mesh together data and functionality across platforms. SOAP and XML have no security model by default for authentication, authorization, and confidentiality. How did the security people deal with this? They kept the security architecture the same as they had in 1995 - network firewalls and SSL.

The software world did not stop innovating in 2000 of course, in the last few years we have seen Web services and XML form the basis of baroque and powerful SOAs and simple REST applications. We have seen Web 2.0 come on the scene, and entirely new networked applications built on top of that.

What we have not seen, is a single meaningful change in security architecture in 13 years. Developers have evolved, businesses have increasingly bet their entire business models on the web and they have increased security budgets. But what has the security architecture as its deployed in the field got to show for all of this? More firewalls and more SSL connections.

Since Information Security has proven incapable of evolving, it is time to learn from a discipline that has mastered innovation - software development, and yes, I will step back in case the lightning bolts hits.

What does software development focus on these days? Well, let's look at Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), all hype aside I look at SOA as a set of technologies that delivers three things:

Virtualization: we want Beijing, Bangalore and Boston to communicate.

Interoperability: we want our .Net stuff to talk to our java stuff.

Reusability: how many order/claim/pricing/customer systems does one company need?

To build out their SOA, developers separated the application interface from its implementation. So you can host the interface in a variety of locations, but its separate from the application logic and data.

This is also a useful trick for putting services like SOAP through the firewall. SOAP was designed as a firewall friendly protocol. When SOAP first came out, Bruce Schneier said calling SOAP a firewall friendly protocol is like having a skull friendly bullet. Which is a great line and explains why his books fly off the shelves, it does not explain, why security people think an architecture designed in 1995 is the one we should be using today. Maybe the problem is not that the developers figured out how to go through the firewall to get the data their customers want, maybe the problem is that the firewall is the sum total of the security architecture, and it never adapted.

A big part of this problem is that we have left Newton's world behind and entered Einstein's universe. Mainframes are Newton’s world, we have THE computer, THE price, THE record and so on.

As Pat Helland explained [4,5], Mainframes are Newron's world, but Distributed computing is Einstein’s world. More specifically in the Einstein world of distributed computing - "Computers don’t make decisions, computers try to make decisions." Our computers don't really make a decision, they say you can buy this book from Amazon at this price, we have it in stock and will deliver on such and such a date. But the warehouse runs out, the pallet gets dropped in the warehouse, your boo is crushed, and the package is stolen off your front step. The computer confirmed your transaction, but the real world intervened.

So we don't have iron clad decisions, instead its all about Memories (last time I checked your book was in stock), Guesses (we should be able to ship on this date) and Apologies (sorry the forklift ran over your book)

Translating this into security, security mechanisms don’t make policy-based decisions, security mechanisms try to make policy-based decisions

Some examples of memories, guesses and apologies in security

Memories

Security Policies - for example Triple A policy

Triple A policies can memorize a map of subjects, objects, and roles. They can even replicate these memories and play them back at runtime to try to make policy enforcement decisions.

Guesses

Security Policy Enforcement Decision

Unfortunately, while the policy enforcement decisions can be based on memorized logic, the decision itself is still a guess, even in the case of Triple A. Any guesses why? Because, the authentication process itself is a guess. It happens to be a guess that you then bind to a principal so it looks very official once you bind your guess to a Kerberos ticket or SAML assertion, but it still a guess.

Apologies

Giant Global Bank is sorry your account was compromised!

And this leads to lots and lots of apologies by companies with poor access control models.

Some additional examples of information security memories, guesses and apologies.

Example Memories - Triple A Security Policies, Audit logs, User account information , Authorization Logic - concrete mapping Subject, Resource, Condition, Action

Example Guesses - Security Policy Enforcement Decision Points, Authentication Logic, Monitoring, detection, fraud response

Example Apologies - Identity Management tools - provisioning, deprovisioning, Reimburse customer for fraud losses, Compensating Transaction - Giant Global Bank is still sorry your account was compromised!

The point of this is that security memories, guesses and apologies utilize different processes, different people, and different capabilities to be effective.

What trends can we identify to lead us toward better qualitative analysis based on the best practices of virtualization, interoperability and reusability.

Virtualization

Finding Vulnerabilities in a Virtualized World is a problem because applications are more configured than coded. Runtime behavior and structure not apparent due to weak typing and inversion of control.

Result - finding bugs becomes harder. Action - use screens to target finding time and resources

Fixing Vulnerabilities in a Virtualized World is a problem because how do I locate the controls when interfaces run in Beijing, Bangalore and Boston?

Result - synchronization and/or replication of security policy is problematic. Action - decentralized policy enforcement points and policy decision points.

Interoperability

Finding interoperable vulnerabilities

XSS - Javascript is an equal opportunity offender - interoperability for developers and attackers alike.

Fixing interoperable vulnerabilities

App servers, ESBs, and services are the attacker’s red carpet to your enterprise, right into your book of business. Interoperable access control can be leveraged across the enterprise.

Use XML signature for authentication and integrity

…

Use XML encryption to protect sensitive data, don't pass sensitive data in the clear

My Credit Card Number

Encrypt the data

…

XNQ0a4legiie5mWFxO6CQkk2hhldYNnKroObue/LXS/VYtvaTgMbCujhGExDi+vlkU//Qc2/T6mx0WVTmBMT3z8rogha8jD+nS9Zr2Bc3CwoTh2lh8wL3D0DEu91iwJT9JByLGXvt7v9lyuxK0ooDOYEClsH974CPmTs3tBC+GQ=

To ensure that these controls are applied use automated tools like static analysis to scan for security mechanism use and coverage.

In terms of reusability findings and fixes consider two bug findings

Session management bug: session state is passed around to every component, service and user. Makes for many high priority findings in audit report, also the fix is required on virtually every program

Data validation bug: Data access object (DAO) has a SQL injection hole. One major high priority finding in report. DAO used by many business logic classes, one fix location serves many classes

To bring these factors together, I generally use a scorecard index [6], so you can measure such things as transport security, message security, threat protection and so on. The hard work in developing the index is developing a useful scale. A scale for XML tokens could use the following

0: no token

1: hashed token

2: hashed and signed token

3: hashed and signed token from standard authoritative source

An example scale for XML validation could use:

0: no validation

1: schema validation

2: schema validation against hardened schema

3: schema validation against standard, hardened schema

These indexed scales are used to show maturity across the factors in the scorecard. The first part of the talk described value, the value assessment is used to focus time and effort on high value assets. The value assessment can be determined quantitatively. There is hard analytical work to qualitatively determine the scorecard, index, and scales, the quantitative value assessment is used to screen out high value targets for these endeavors. The scoring index is used to track progress and improve quality over time. In the best case scenario, automated tools are used to perform the checks described in the index, and once security is automated just like software developers we may see security innovation make progress in years not decades.

Thank you for your time.

1 "Risk Management is where the Money Is" by Dan Geer, http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.06.html

2 Berkshire Hathaway 2007 Shareholder Letter by Warren Buffett, http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2007ltr.pdf

3 "Software [In]security: Software Security Demand Rising, by Gary McGraw

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1237978

4 "SOA and Newton's Universe" by Pat Helland, http://blogs.msdn.com/pathelland/archive/2007/05/20/soa-and-newton-s-universe.aspx

5 "Memories, Guesses and Apologies" by Pat Helland, http://blogs.msdn.com/pathelland/archive/2007/05/15/memories-guesses-and-apologies.aspx

6 "Web Servicres Security Checklist" by Gunnar Peterson, http://arctecgroup.net/pdf/WebServicesSecurityChecklist.pdf

What's Happiness Got to Do With It?

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:00:44 +0000

Gartner's own John Pescatore has issued a 12 world post:

The best security program is at the business with the happiest customers.

Happiness? Really? That's the measure of program effectiveness? I would see those 12 words and raise them one word (13 if you're scoring at home):

There's a fine line between happy customers and playing piano in a bordello.

I mean the people running hedge funds and derivative books at AIG, Lehman and friends had lots of happy customers for the last decade!

To me the happy customer is a classic IT copout "we just did what the "business" asked". Like we're just a bystander or something. Its our job to create business value and be business like. We should seek to empower out customers, not make them happy.

Please understand I am not that guy who says IT security has to be the "bad cops" who deny everything the business wants to do. Just saying it is our job to raise the bar where we can. Raising the bar does not always create super happy customers in the short run, but it does empower companies.

Unfortunately, playing piano in the bordello is what a lot of security groups do and even big analyst firms. The path of least resistance ain't always the way. Here is an example. I was at a client many years ago, they wanted to build a big Identity Management solution, so of course they wrote a big RFI got responses from Sun, IBM, Oracle and friends. The bids were in the $3-5 million range. Pretty big projects for an Infosec team. So what do you do? Call up a big analyst firm and get some advice, right?

A week goes by and we get an audience with the "guru" from the Big Analyst Firm. The client has pretty detailed requirements, what systems they want to connect to, what use cases they are looking to solve for, and so on. We anxiously await the knowledge the analyst is about to transfer to us. His response was as follows - "what kind of shop are you? IBM shop? Oracle shop?" "Ummm...we are a huge company we have everything." "Well if you are more of a IBM shop you should go with them. If you are more of a Oracle shop you should go with them." That was the extent of a 30 minute conversation. True story.

Of course, the one value proposition of the Big Analyst Firms is that they supposedly can tell you what everyone else is supposedly doing. There is some value in this I grant you. And it does make for happy customers because even when you force your customers to change, you can say "Well geez, I know its hard but the Big Analyst Firm says that everyone is doing it." But is this security improvement?

Back in 2004, I went to a great security conference, it was Information Security Decisions (they are back in Chicago next week). It was in Chicago, downtown on the river. Tom Davern even took us all out on a boat for lunch one day. Anyway, there was one truly great talk there. It wasn't Fred Cohen debating Gary McGraw on application security which was outstanding (in which Fred uttered the memorable line "I agree with Gary everywhere he agrees with me." (Gary won the debate, his best line - "We know how to win the software security war, but we don't know how to manage the peace" still the problem today actually)) It wasn't Pete Lindstrom showing his security metrics framework (which is still a great starting point). it wasn't Dan Geer's fireside chat.

The truly great talk, though, was by the now departed Robert Garigue. It was called "Its the End of the CISO as I Know It, (And I Feel Fine)." The whole end to end talk was wonderful, there are several things in there that I still use every single day like the separate security models for Infostructure and Infrastructure but the point I want to talk about is the CISO role.

Garigue talked about the two most prevalent CISO models - the jester and the bad cop. The jester CISO

Sees a lot
Can tell the king he has no clothes
Can tell the king he really is ugly
Does not get killed by the king
Nice to have around but…how much security improvement comes from this ?

The jester has happy customers! At least for awhile.

Again I grant you bad cop is not the way to go either (and while this already long post could read harsh on John Pescatore's pithy summary, I give him a lot of points for saying that security needs to be customer conscious).

We have all seen bad cop CISOs who

Changes happened faster that he was able to move
Did not read the signs
Good intentions went unfulfilled
A brutal way to ending a promising career
Sad to have around but…how much security improvement comes from this ?

Obviously these models of CISOs are not solving our information security problems. Instead Dr. Garigue points us to Charlemagne as a better model

King of the Franks and Holy Roman Emperor; conqueror of the Lombards and Saxons (742-814) - reunited much of Europe after the Dark Ages.
He set up other schools, opening them to peasant boys as well as nobles. Charlemagne never stopped studying. He brought an English monk, Alcuin, and other scholars to his court - encouraging the development of a standard script.
He set up money standards to encourage commerce, tried to build a Rhine-Danube canal, and urged better farming methods. He especially worked to spread education and Christianity in every class of people.
He relied on Counts, Margraves and Missi Domini to help him.
Margraves - Guard the frontier districts of the empire. Margraves retained, within their own jurisdictions, the authority of dukes in the feudal arm of the empire.
Missi Domini - Messengers of the King.

This is the way forward! Find software security champions in the architecture and development groups,help them understand the real security issues. They will find solutions you have not thought of. Same for DBAs, same for business analysts even. Its all about beating the bushes, education, and decentralizing security services. Specifically, he points out this important mandate for IT security

Knowledge of risky things is of strategic value

How to know today tomorrow’s unknown ?
How to structure information security processes in an organization so as to identify and address the NEXT categories of risks ?

To me this is our mandate and measure of effectiveness. Empower our customers, educate, and create business value. If I am a CISO I don't want 20 people reporting to me who do firewall ruleset changes. I want one champion in 20 different groups - development teams, architects, DBAs, business analysts.

A concrete example, infosec can continue to go along with the herd and follow the "what everyone else is doing architecture" meanwhile developers are connecting every single thing in your business to the Web. I have been doing integration and new technology projects for a long time, and let me tell you - Change does not always create happy customers in the short run. But the chart below shows that information security is maybe more concerned with not causing waves rather than adapting.

How long can developers evolve, connect everything and security people not change anything? Herb Stein said, "things that can't go on forever, don't. "At some point these chickens are coming home to roost, there is a yawning gap between rapidly evolution connecting the enterprise and the 13 year old and counting security architecture that "Everyone else is using" and when those chicken come home to roost you may not have happy customers then. Here is my 12 words:

The best security program is at the business with sustainable competitive advantage.

A horse's ass approach to virtualization security - The four horsemen

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:31:00 +0000

I opinioned a bit about the current approaches to virtualization security and how they might be failing to address current and future threats - let me explain further what I mean.

In this blog I want to talk about the four elements that make up every computing environment
(i.e. the four horsemen :)):

Devices: These are the hardware and operating system combinations that host or store the execution environment.
Applications: Applications execute on host environments (devices + OS) and transform data into information useful for the business.
Data: Digital representation of information that is acted upon by applications.
Networks: Enable collaboration and the sharing of information across multiple devices and/or applications.

All four are absolutely essential to complete any transaction in the modern business world. However, to gain competitive advantage, organizations are looking to optimize the usage of these four elements. Technology, flexibility, and agility are becoming increasingly important in a fast-changing business world and have therefore led to the rise of virtualization.

In my next post I will discuss how these elements are being changed in a virtual environment and what impact it has on security.

The asymmetry of data loss - data thief has an upper hand

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:33:22 +0000

I read this awesome book by Dan Geer, Economics and Strategies of Data Security. This gave me structure for my thoughts about a complex topic such as data security.

When a data owner's (a business) sensitive data is breached it is difficult to quantify the monetary loss. According to respectable survey sources, the average cost of sensitive data breach for a large size company is about $50,000. I am attempting here to think about this in simple mathametical terms:

There is a data breach. From the data owner's perspective the loss is:

Loss = Cost to protect data + Loss of business due to data theft aka cost of competitive disadvantage

From the data thief's perspective

Net Gain= [Cost of producing the data * Data freshness factor] - Cost to steal the data + Profit of business due to data aka gain of competitive advantage

From the above two equations it is very clear that this is not a zero sum game. There is a clear cost asymmetry for a data owner and for a data thief. When there is an asymmetry there is an opportunity. Data owner would not even know that the data is lost because the original copy of the data may be still intact - data thief could have simply copied the data. Data theft does not look like a car theft, there is no vacuum left behind.

This motivates a data thief to keep the cost to steal low, steal highly valuable data that has a long shelf life and in a way that data owner will never even be aware of theft.

From a data thief's perspective, the cost to steal data if kept high would disincentive him. Moreover, Data freshness factor, i.e. how valuable this data is over period of time plays an important role. A good example is content of today's newspaper is hardly valuable tomorrow, but the content of newspaper two days ahead (if can be procured)would be invaluable. Data relevance is a function of time and other marketplace variables - Data freshness Factor accounts for that variable. A good way to discourage data thief is to increase his/her cost to steal the data. There are other inferences from the above equation. If there exists no competitive advantage with the stolen data, hardly any thief would even venture to steal the data in the first place. If the cost of producing data is very low, then probably thief can just produce the data himself and would not attempt to steal the data. If the cost of theft is kept high, it would definitely deter the data thief from stealing data using technical mechanisms, then the data thief would exploit weak links in data security such as use of social engineering to get access to the data.

From data owner perspective protecting data becomes very important. How much would the owner be willing to spend? Not definitely the cost equal to cost of producing the data. 1% to 10% of cost of producing data is considered prudent. For a data owner it is difficult to estimate cost of data protection of a specific data, because it is not easy to chunkify data protection costs. Moreover, as Dan Geer says in his book, a data owner has to protect himself from number of intruders not just one.

It pays for a data owner to: be aware of data breaches (or data leaks), employ appropriate mechanisms to protect the data; the cost of protection which is fractional cost of the valuable data and enhance information security awareness of personnel who handle the data.

Data loss is not a zero sum game. The advantage is in favor of a data thief (data thieves rather). Data owner does not give much thought on the value of data unless there is a data theft. But, a data thief has every reason to think about economics of data theft before he acts to steal the data else data thief won't survive in this game and he is very well aware of his advantageous position.

Inc 500/5000 Conference Summary

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:00:44 +0000

It didn’t really sink in until after the final black-tie awards ceremony finished last Saturday night that I had a chance to comprehend how starting a company that achieves this list is a once in a lifetime experience.

When I walked up on stage and accepted the Inc 500 award, it hit me square in the face that this is a rare accomplishment, and even more difficult for a product company that started without the benefit of VC funding.

Dave with wife, Anne, at the awards ceremony
Over the 2 day period, I heard from some great speakers with entrepreneurial passion, many who never had accomplished making the list. It is so highly competitive and just plain hard to do.

I loved hearing some of the speeches during the conference and getting to know other entrepreneurs that attended the conference talk about how they created their niche and ultimately built a successful company from a good idea.

Because I enjoyed hearing some of what I like to call “golden nuggets of wisdom” so much, I thought in my conference wrap-up I would pass on a few to our blog readers:

Tom Peters – Author In Search of Excellence and The New World of WOW

“Only 7% of our great nation works for Fortune 500 companies. Small businesses and the entrepreneurs are the jet fuel that makes our country fly.”

“Brand is shorthand for a collection of experiences, memories of what it will be like the next time a customer deals with you. With the advent of blogs and consumer activism, Brand is impossible to fake; it is like the temperature in the room… it is there… it exists.”

Chester Elton – SVP Carrot Culture Group

“At the casino – they train the heck out of the Valet! Why do they spend 3 months on Valet training? Because he is the first and the last person to greet and interact with a visitor during their trip! Who is your company Valet?”

Paul Bennett – Chief Creative officer IDEO – speaking on — Creating a culture of optimism:

“You need to ditch B-B and B-C Need to become P-P Person to Person.”

“You don’t buy loyalty… you earn it… this is an interesting challenge, but small allows us to behave like human beings… Going off script and doing something human is a great place to start.”

“Stop obsessing about ROI and start obsessing about ROC! Return on Customer/Consumer is much more powerful than ROI!!!!”

“Happy people, unabashedly doing, happy things, makes for happy companies, which create happy businesses which enable happy cultures… IN WHICH THRIVE”

Marilyn Carlson Nelson – Chairman and CEO Carlson Companies – A family owned $40 Billion empire including TGI Fridays, Radisson Hotels…

“My leadership was tested terribly - after 9/11 the travel industry was particularly harmed. It was an extraordinary time for Carlson. “

“Put tactics around these strategic initiatives”

Whomever you serve, serve with caring
Whenever you dream – dream with your all
Wherever you go, go as a leader
And never, never give up
Whatever you do – do it with integrity

“That builds trust, trust builds relationships and relationships build results.”

=============================================

Actually, I took about 40 pages of notes throughout the two days… So I can’t say that this will be my last summary post on the Inc 500/5000 conference, but I can say that the conference did leave a strong impression about how I can help shape the future of ScienceLogic in an even more positive way.

Around The Web For Friday

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:56:15 +0000

We’re frequently asked what we’re reading and what we like in blog posts, so here are some interesting things that hit our RSS readers that you may have missed:

COBIT rivals ITIL from The IT Skeptic

“Everyone is tiptoeing around the fact that COBIT offers a significant competitive body of knowledge (BOK) to ITIL. Sure ITIL goes into more depth in places, but to say COBIT sits over the top is to grossly understate the overlap. COBIT extends a long way down into the “how” and it does it with an intellectual rigour that ITIL lacks.”

Interesting stuff that. A detailed mapping might help some folks. Either way, the good news for those keen on understanding risk management is that governance metrics, done right, allow us to understand a part of that “capability to manage risk” we’re always looking for. Assurance, verification and the acquisition and interpretation of knowledge is king. Speaking of which….

How To Tell When “Nothing Happens” by Pete Lindstrom

“…problem is that, it isn’t really true that “nothing happens” when you employ some specific security control to prevent an exploit. Not only that, but even when it is difficult to collect data on what didn’t happen, one can devise experiments to tell how frequently that nothing occurred.”

Good analysis is all about the uncertainty. Speaking of accounting for uncertainty…

Assets Good Until Reached For by Gunnar Peterson

“If you have a 100,000 dekstops or 100,000 servers it hard to manage. You will need to automate and to do that you need to abstract, but you should also realize that its a drawing on a whiteboard not reality. You need abstraction assurance.”

And there’s the trick. We might call “abstraction assurance” an analog to “confidence” or “uncertainty” in certain priors (metrics) or posteriors (calculated values based on those metrics). The stronger that abstraction assurance is, the less uncertainty we have in our knowledge and the better our ability to create wisdom from that knowledge (you know, make decisions).

Epstein, Snow and Flake: Three Views of Software Security by Adam Shostack

Adam’s focus is on software security, but the discussion here can be abstracted out into the broader realm of risk management quite nicely.

Two-thirds of firms hit by cybercrime from Security Focus

The US DoJ says that in 2005 (there’s some timely data) 2/3 of their surveyed firms detected at least one cybercrime. “Cybercrime” is “classified … into cyber attacks, cyber theft, and other incidents.” Pretty general. Also from the report: “Computer viruses made up more than half of all cyber attacks.”

(That sound you hear is me tapping my forehead lightly on large iron object)

Lessons Learned from “Personal” Risk Management By: Christopher Daugherty

“This process is what I call “personal risk management.” All of us have done it and will continue to do so. Why is it, then, many companies have ignored following similar principles with the on-going health of the business? This is a debate with many different answers so I ask you to select the best answer for your employer:

a) Have not ignored as this keeps me awake at night!

b) Please restate the problem, I cannot hear well with my head buried in the sand.

c) We passed our SOX audit so we checked this off the list!

d) We are informed of the challenge but we have a business to run and profits to make

e) Is this what internal audit and risk management has been telling us?”

Complex Event Processing An Emerging Paradigm in Business Intelligence, Security and Monitoring and Control

Sun, 21 Sep 2008 01:59:21 +0000

The following quote is from Complex Event Processing – An Emerging Paradigm in Business Intelligence, Security and Monitoring and Control by Evo Eftimov, iSec Consulting Ltd

“Complex Event Processing (CEP) is a technology which has been used for many years in the Aerospace and Defence Industry for Situational Awareness and Data Fusion modules in Command, Control, Communications, Computing and Intelligence Systems (aka C4I).

Currently CEP is being rediscovered as a foundation for new class of extremely effective Business Intelligence, Security and System/Network/SCADA Monitoring solutions in industries like Financial Services, Telecommunications, Oil and Gas, Manufacturing, Logistics etc. The increasing connectivity and processing power of the modern IT and Telecom technologies lead to increasing speed and volume of the dataflow available to the organisations. By using CEP solutions companies can gain competitive advantage by achieving real-time situational awareness and tapping the information value that is hidden within the streams of real-time event data that are coming from a variety of sources such as enterprise applications, financial transactions, sensor networks and supply chains.”

Unfortunately, the author does not cite references in the paper.