So, my dear readers, imagine how amazed I was to find myself being truly inspired by my CEO,  for the first time in my working life! Philippe’s “no-B.S.” approach definitely works for me. I listened to his speech at a company meeting last week and – I am serious! – that was the most interesting, visionary AND inspiring speech that I’ve heard in a long time. It was clear what we’ve been doing, what worked, what didn’t and what we need to be doing and why it will work.

I already learned more than a few things from him just by listening to him  speak or conduct a meeting (or by watching him beat up a job candidate…). For example,  one CAN be “positive, but not marketing-ish,” even if situation is difficult. If one has an issue, one has to face it with no sugarcoating rather than ’play’ positive and pretend the issue is not there. One can have BOTH a driving vision AND be attentive to customers. One CAN release something when it is ready, not a year before :-) Etc, etc.

Finally, while some choose to lay people off, we at Qualys  ARE HIRING!  Come join us and help build the SaaS security platform that actually works! Specifically, we are looking for TAMs (kind like an SE, but better :-)), PMs and a lot of engineers.

I’ve often read people who say that we (security, risk management) need to “think like the attacker”.  And when you read this sort of article, that usually alludes to trying to anticipate the tactics an attacker might use to mess with your C, I, or A.  Smart stuff, that, and very useful when architecting security solutions.  But as I was training some folks Monday, I was thinking in the back of my head about Threat Capability (TCap) in FAIR.  As you might know, we like to estimate the capability of a threat to apply some level of “force” against our assets.  This ability to apply force is a byproduct of the attacker’s skills and resources.  And thinking of how an attacker applies skills and resources, I came across another way we might “think” like an attacker.

Traditionally, I’ve thought of “skills” as being a byproduct of the toolset an attacker has.  This mindset probably stems from my time with Penetration Testing teams, where in the process of scoping the  PenTest I would ask our clients to select the level of effort that they wanted us to throw at them.  If a client chose “high” we’d throw every ‘spoit we had at them.  If they chose “low” we’d limit ourselves to a more commonly available toolset.

But while the resources part of TCap is time & materials (money) - the skills are really more than just the toolset.  Skills would include the ability of the attacker to be creative and innovative.    As an example of that innovation from those PenTesting days - when we got a “high” effort request, we would always try to couple that with some “social engineering”-type of attack, or some unique means of delivering an existing exploit.  Our creativity was not necessarily a byproduct of a unique exploit or tool we had, but the process by which we might deliver pre-existing or commonly available exploits.  I remember when we first got ahold of a handful of 32mb thumb drives (hey, 32mb was huge back then) and “dropped” a few in the lobby of a client’s retail space.  The keystroke loggers and phone-home script weren’t new, but using the thumb drive as delivery vehicle certainly was.

So I’ve started to really think about this concept of innovation, and how if “thinking like an attacker” means to be innovative, we ought to do the same.  I’ve been thinking of two main categories of innovation this morning.

INNOVATION

The first I’ll call Technology Innovation.  And by Technology Innovation, I mean some new, unique, “ahead of the curve” technology that an attacker can use against us.  The obvious example of which is a zero-day.  It’s that “high” tool set our PenTesters would use against the clients.  For security departments, this might be the latest security product designed to enhance our ability to P, D, and/or R.

Alternately, we can be creative in the way we deliver (manage) existing technology.  I think of this as Process Innovation.  It’s doing more with what we already have, just like the PenTest team would be creative in the delivery of an existing exploit.

Unfortunately for us - attackers have traditionally had quite a leg up on us in terms of Process Innovation.  It is much easier fro them to be creative, as they are free of political constraints and bureaucracy.  In contrast, when the security industry tries Process Innovation, the results are checklists and “standards”.  It’s committees and consensus.  An extreme example of which might be something like SABSA - a great work if you want to understand some very smart people’s comprehensive understanding of organizational security  - but the “adoption”of which will do very little to help you be innovative in P/D/R.

It’s worth noting that ultimately, this is one reason I don’t like regulatory compliance efforts - they simply serve to prove how mundane your security department is,  wasting valuable resources that could be spent on creating ways to be more effective.

PROCESS INNOVATION AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION

As we come to the close of 2009, some surveys suggest that security spending isn’t horribly impacted yet by the economy (the latest from E&Y points to only 5% of their respondents getting budget cuts).  But if this is a protracted downturn, and because InfoSec is an operational expense, I would expect cash to become more and more difficult to keep.  And regardless if technology spends do slow, I believe it makes sense to think about Process Innovation because I see Process Innovation as a means to increase effectiveness without significant capital expenditures (effectiveness increases because our ability to manage risk has a direct correlation to the amount of risk we have).

The bad news is, of course, that great innovation is hard.  It is R & D.  Failure is usually a pre-requisite to success.

The good news is, our current state is so bad that many of us don’t need to come up with a whizbang new way of reducing software defects in the SDLC as innovation.  Simply inserting a risk analyst into the PMO’s processes might count as a big enough victory. Be cautioned, though,  that if we’re substituting the risk reductions provided by technology acquisition - Process Innovation might actually be even more “expensive” as it requires us to expend political capital.   But there are (forgive the term) innovative ways to spend this political capital.

For example, by taking a second now and figuring out the 3 things that the rest of the organization can do to make your life easier, when that “I need to reduce your budget” talk comes, you can be prepared to negotiate.  Get a political capital “loan” or “investment” from the C-Suite reducing your budget.  Something to the effect of: “I expected this, and am happy to give up my budget.  But if our tolerance for risk hasn’t changed, what I’d like to do is get you to personally back my office on three projects I’ve identified that can reduce our risk without requiring significant capital expenditure.”

Paul Kelly and colleagues at Loughborough University found that a disulfur dinitride (S₂N₂) polymer turned exposed fingerprints brown, as the polymer reaction was initiated from the near-undetectable remaining residues.

Traces of inkjet printer ink can also initiate the polymer. The detection limit is so low that details of a printed letter previously in an envelope could be read off the inside of the envelope after being exposed to S₂N₂.

"A one-covers-all versatile system like this has obvious potential," says Kelly.

"This work has demonstrated that it is possible to obtain fingerprints from surfaces that hitherto have been considered extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain," says Colin Lewis, scientific advisor at the UK Ministry of Defence. "The method proposed has shown that this system could well provide capabilities which could significantly enhance the tools available to forensic scientists in the future."

No longer are OS vendors and other large infrastructure technology providers the main source of vulnerabilities. It’s the thousands of applications, produced by thousands of software vendors, that make up this huge 3rd wave. ISS reported that in 2007 that the top five sources of vulnerabilities: Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, IBM, and Cisco, had dropped to supplying us with only 13.6% of our vulnerabilities. 86.4% came from the other thousands of software vendors that supply our computers with a seemingly unending supply of vulnerabilities for attackers to exploit.

In a recent report Microsoft has congratulated itself on doing a good job securing Windows. And by all accounts they have done a good job. But then they state this:

“Unless software development practices change throughout the industry, any improvements in the security of Windows would be meaningless.”

Whoa. Millions of dollars spent on securing the most prevalent piece of software and it could be meaningless? Yes, it’s true. Since attackers typically only need one vulnerability, if it isn’t in the network, and it isn’t in the host configuration, and it isn’t in the OS, they will happily exploit a vulnerability in an application.

At every shift of exploit target the problem has gotten more difficult to solve. Networks had choke points and could be centrally managed. It took a while but eventually host configurations became centrally managed and automated tools could scan configurations. Although OSes were huge and complex beasts with 10’s of millions of lines of code, with enough effort, their vulnerabilities have been largely tamed as Microsoft’s Windows and the Linux kernel track record shows. This was a very substantial, over five year effort, which used some of the most talented security people anywhere.
But now what to do? Instead of a few OSes we now have thousands of applications with vulnerabilities. As Microsoft found out, the attackers don’t go away, they just move on to the next incrementally less juicy vulnerability. In the world of exploits that typically means the vulnerability with the next smallest target population.

Attackers have started with the common client applications that can be found on almost every machine: Acrobat, Flash, RealPlayer, Quicktime, popular antivirus software. And they will continue down the popularity slope until they get to application populations down in the thousands which is getting to fairly small software vendors. Attackers can do this because they can bundle many vulnerabilities together, exploiting the statistical fact that you must have some vulnerable software installed. Compromised web sites have been found attacking visitors with over ten client side exploits preying on multiple versions of vulnerable client software.

The solution to this problem is all software must be written securely, not just the software from the big guys. Small vendors think they aren’t a target just like home users used to think they weren’t a target. People thought, “Why would someone want to attack my home computer?” Then they realized they did home banking, or had a fast internet connection that could be used for DDoS attacks or sending spam. All software vendors need to get the same wakeup call. Attackers don’t want to find a vulnerability in your software to make you look bad. They want any vulnerability. If the population of your software is small they will just bundle your vulnerability together with others in an exploit pack. The days of the average software vendor not having to worry about application security are officially over.

Warnings About Financial Institutions and Derivatives

Risks of Financial Institutions
The nature of a financial institution is that there are a lot of ways to go to hell in a bucket. You can push credit too far, do a dumb acquisition, leverage yourself excessively---its not just derivatives [that can bring about your downfall].

Maybe it's unique to us, but we're quite sensitive to financial risks. Financial institutions make us nervous when they're trying to do well.

We're exceptionally goosey of leveraged financial institutions. If they start talking about how good their risk management is, it makes us nervous.

We fret way earlier than other people. We've left a lot of money on the table through early fretting. It's the way we are -- you'll just have to live with it.

Derivatives
The system is almost insanely irresponsible. and what people think are fixes aren't realy fixes. It's so complicated I can't do it justice here - but you can't believe the trillions of dollars involved. You can't believe the complexity. You can't believe how difficult it is to do the accounting. You can't believe how big the incentives are to have wishful thinking about values and wishful thinking about ability to clear.

People don't think about the consequences of the consequences. People start by trying to hedge against interest rate changes, which is very difficult and complicated. Then, the hedges make the [reported profits] lumpy. So they use the new derivatives to smooth this. Well, now you've morphed into lying. This turns into a Mad Hatter's Tea Party. This happens to vast, sophisticated corporations.

Somebody has to step in and say, "We're not going to do it - it's just too hard."

I think a good litmus test of the mental and moral quality at any large institutions [with significant derivative exposure] would be to ask them, "Do you really understand your derivatives book?" Anyone who says yes is either crazy or lying.

It's easy to see [the dangers] when you talk about [what happened with] the energy derivatives - they went kerflooey. When [the companies] reached for the assets that were on their books, the money wasn't there. When it comes to financial assets, we haven't had any such denouement and the accountings hasn't changed so the denouement is ahead of us.

Derivatives are full of clauses that say if one party's credit gets downgraded then it has to put up collateral. It's like margin - you can go broke [just putting up more margin]. In an attempt to protect themselves, they've introduced instability. Nobody seems to recognize what a disaster of a system they've created. It's a demented system. 

In engineering people have a big margin of safety. But in the financial world, people don't give a damn about safety. They let it balloon and balloon and balloon. It's aided by false accounting. I'm more pessimistic about this than Warren is.

Accounting for Derivatives
I hate with a passion GAAP [Generally Accepted Accounting Principles] as applied to derivatives and swaps. JP Morgan sold out to this type of accounting to front-end revenues. I think it's a disgrace.

It's bonkers, and the accountants sold out. Everyone caved, adopted loose [accounting] standards, and created exotic derivatives linked to theoretical models. As a result, all kinds of earnings, blessed by accountants, are not really being earned. When you reach for the money, it melts away. It was never there.

It [accounting for derivatives] is just disgusting. It is a sewer, and if I'm right, there will be hell to pay in due course. All of you will have to prepare to deal with a blowup of derivative books.

Likelihood of a Derivatives Blowup
We tried to sell Gen Re's derivatives operations and couldn't, so we started liquidating it. We had to take big markdowns. I would confidently predict that most of the derivatives books of [this country's] major banks cannot be liquidated for anything like what they're carried on the books at. When the denouement will happen and how severe it will be, I don't know. But I fear the consequences could be fearsome. I think there are major problems, worse than in the energy field, and look at the destruction there.

I'll be amazed if we don't have some kind of significant [derivatives-related] blowup in the next five to ten years.

I think we're he only big corporation in America to be running off its derivative book.

It's a crazy idea for people who are already rich -  like Berkshire - to be in this business. It's a crazy business for big banks to be in.

Yo would be disgusted if you had a fair mind and spent a month really delving into a big derivative operation. You would think it was Lewis Carroll. You would think it was the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. And the false precision of these people is just unbelievable. They make the worst economics professors look like gods. Moreover, there is depravity augmenting the folly. Read the book F.I.A.S.C.O., by law professor and former derivative trader Frank Partnoy, an insider account of the depravity of derivative trading at one of the biggest and best-regarded Wall Street firms. This book will turn your stomach.

I find that legacy code poses a unique challenge for organizations rolling out a new security process.  Often, the resources dedicated to maintaining older code are a small fraction of those devoted to new features or products.  Furthermore, the original developers for such features have often moved on, leaving no subject matter experts to drive reviews.  The astute reader will ask “How do I apply the principles of the Microsoft SDL to legacy code when I have no development resources and nobody knows how it works?”

The answer is “Start small, and build expertise over time.”

A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats

The best thing a security engineering team can do to improve security in the short term is to drive code quality, and the first step in this process is to define and enforce a secure coding standard.  This helps on two fronts: 

1.       It will improve code quality and reduce implementation flaws across the entire code base.  Unlike other security processes, driving a secure coding standard is relatively easy to accomplish across an entire code base, regardless of the code’s age, by a focused security team.  That is not to say that it is easy without qualification – a large batch of spaghetti code will require a lot of work to untangle!  Such an effort can only be called “easy” when compared to, say, comprehensive identification and remediation of design flaws across legacy features.  Even so, improving code quality through the use of secure coding standards offers a unique combination of high impact, applicability to features, and ability to be carried out by a core team that makes it a sensible first step.

2.       The security team might notice that some sections of code have more standards violations or outright flaws than others.  This is an instance of vulnerability clustering, a concept that has been used to predict vulnerability rates and improve quality in the functional realm.  The evidence is anecdotal, but it stands to reason that portions of code that consistently violate secure coding standards are good places to start looking for other classes of security flaw.  These are security hotspots, and should be high on the prioritized list for further review.

Security testing may also be applied to legacy code, but initial activities should be considered on a case-by-case basis based on the expected return on investment.  Such testing ranges from using inexpensive off-the-shelf tools to exercise common interfaces to rather expensive custom testing and formal analysis.  It is worthwhile to begin with off-the-shelf tools, such as those that target file parsers or web applications, and tools created as part of your greater secure development efforts.  These can help identify easily-found flaws and suggest improvements to the coding standards.  Comprehensive security testing, on the other hand, is best tackled after the Legacy Security Push.

The Legacy Security Push

Coding standards and basic testing provide bang for the buck, but formal security processes seek to provide security assurance.  The challenge for legacy code is that it needs to play catch-up.  Security processes that occur early in the development cycle, such as requirements analysis, design review, and threat modeling, are particularly difficult to achieve years after the fact.  The main goal of the Legacy Security Push is to create the deliverables from these efforts, the most important of which are security requirements and a full risk analysis.

It may sound trivial, but security requirements are essential.  Not only do they define proper operation for the system in question, they also define assumptions that are suitable for relying systems.   It is very common to find security flaws in legacy systems that arise from well-intentioned but incorrect assumptions such as “I assume that the Foo authenticates server Bar when initiating a bank transfer.”  It stands to reason that Foo would do so for such an important activity, but this assumption must be validated.  It is very common for older features to have been deployed in and written for different environments where the security assumptions that are "obvious" today just didn't apply at the time.

When reviewing legacy systems, the first step is to identify such requirements.  If the original architects, developers or managers are available, they can provide valuable insight at this stage.  More often than not this is not the case, and analysis must instead rely on what documentation is present and interaction between the software and its consumers.  The goal is the same as in requirements analysis during project inception, except that in this case one must turn the process on its head and reverse engineer requirements from system behavior.  At the conclusion of this effort, requirements can be theorized – “Foo must authenticate its server Bar before initiating a bank transfer.” 

Risk analysis can be performed once a plausible set of requirements have been identified.  Threat modeling is a more structured means of performing such an analysis, with the eventual goal of identifying means by which requirements can be violated by an attacker. 

As with requirements analysis, original developers would be a valuable resource to consult.  With or without such help, the first step is to identify how the software works.  In many cases, help is not available and performing this task requires a great deal of effort.  For features of moderate size, this author has spent upwards of a month reading code, using process profiling tools, and walking through the software with a debugger to identify program flow and security-sensitive functionality.

Once completed, actual system behavior should be documented and compared against the requirements theorized.   It might be that the requirements should be re-evaluated (New requirement:  Do not assume that Foo requires server authentication) or the system may need to be changed (New bug:   Foo does not verify the CN for Bar).  At the end, this information should be sufficient to support a comprehensive threat modeling exercise where security requirements, risks, and their mitigations can be documented.

Next Steps

Bringing a legacy feature up to par with its newer kin requires a relatively small number of items:  improved code quality, clear security requirements, and a thorough threat model.  As we have seen, performing even these tasks is quite the effort!  I am sure that it is little comfort to be reminded that accomplishing these tasks has simply laid the foundation, and that the true benefit is that the newly-reviewed legacy feature is able to participate fully in the security processes that remain: reviewing cross-component security requirements and assumptions, comprehensive testing, and incident planning, to name a few.

Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet in security assurance.  The soundness of the design and implementation of legacy software is just as important as in newer software, which is why any complete secure software development process will look backwards as well as forwards.  Feature by feature, from higher priority to lower, the overall security of the software improves as legacy code receives the full security treatment it deserves.