1H08 Vulnerability Trends - Part 2 - Microsoft

To see all of my videos on http://edge.technet.com, click here (http://edge.technet.com/Tags/SecurityGuy/).

Best regards, Jeff

Partial Disclosure - The Good

The responsible disclosure process tends to break down in rare occasions where the vendor doesn’t want to fix the issue. When this occurs, the researcher is put into a difficult position whereby full disclosure could put users’ systems at high risk of compromise. The other case where partial disclosure becomes an alternative is when the researcher has discovered a design flaw in a protocol or underlying multiple vendor component. Examples of this case include the DNS flaws published this past summer by Dan Kaminsky and the TCP denial of service condition discovered by Robert E. Lee and Jack Louis that is currently in the disclosure process. When the flaw affects a very large number of vendors and the actual problem is located within the underlying protocols that support the communications of the Internet as a whole, one possible solution is to follow a partial disclosure model where phasing the details to the general public can be used to encourage adoption and creation of patches throughout the enormous target audience.

Partial Disclosure - The Bad

What is driving the fear surrounding partial disclosure is the potential for abuse. When a major flaw is partially disclosed, a number of potential issues may occur. First and foremost, the further along the partial disclosure path we are, the more details will be released to the public, and the higher the probability that someone (either good or bad intentioned) will figure out the exploit and disclose the details. Second, when partially disclosing, the vendor’s hand is being forced into a situation that could speed up fixes, reduce testing, and cause ripple problems elsewhere within the infrastructure. It is difficult enough to dance the fine time line when doing responsible disclosure, but if we are escalated to the point of partial disclosure, additional fuel is added to the fire.

The Ugly

The real ugly part of partial disclosure is when we add to the equation the ability to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the normal user community. It is generally well accepted that FUD can be used to drive additional revenue. If it is possible to increase the perceived magnitude of the “problem” that your product or service solves, it is possible to directly impact the demand for that product or service. That is the major fear imposed by the growing trend of partial disclosure. By releasing just enough information to trigger wide scale speculation into the flaw, it is possible to create buzz and garner media attention resulting in a lot of speculation and very little hard facts around the issue. The potential for abuse by the security industry at large is enormous.

The Fix

Some have suggested a group of security researchers be convened to vet the requirement of partial disclosure and to allow for independent peer review of any security research that requires the partial disclosure process. This suggestion leaves questions regarding who would stand on this group and who would be impartial enough to ensure that the right thing was always done regardless of profit potential. It also leaves open the opportunity for member researchers to utilize the information gathered during the vetting process to position themselves to profit from the data upon release. It might be wiser to rely on a higher level authority or government entity to manage this process and use the services of security researchers as required for subject matter expertise. While a group of this type wouldn’t ensure that all partial disclosure is appropriate, it would hopefully limit the potential for abuse and the ever present chance that people try to profit from the FUD that surrounds the current partial disclosure process.

I’d love to have another blog even more specific - “Ok, that Assurance is Evidence Of What, Exactly?

Today he has a great article called:

What’s the matter with Risk Management?

And “in short, it’s everything.” It pretty much sums up why I had to grow to re-evaluate how our industry does risk, risk management, approaches controls & vulnerability and find a new way.   A couple of things jump out at me in reading Chris’ article:

1.)  Just because that Deming cycle sucks and is full of unknowns doesn’t mean “risk” doesn’t exist, nor that it isn’t of primary importance. Nor does it mean that in the absence of model & methodology, we won’t be “doing” risk analysis anyway - just in an ad hoc method and completely from “the gut”.

Our industry calls these unstructured risk analysis “Best Practices”, as it’s an easy and convenient way of sweeping the unknowns under the rug of bureaucracy and enforcing it via peer pressure.

2.)  What this “suckiness” does mean is that your model and methodology aren’t helping you. As Chris intimates, there is too much uncertainty in the inputs for his model (they are, in the language of Bayesians - too subjective to be useful priors).

Take for example how we might be approaching the “controls” part of our analysis.  Chris writes:

“2. What are the controls that we have to employ?
800-53, ISO 27001, PCI, etc.

Still kinda good, but we basically know that ISO is relatively voluntary and NIST supplies a control catalog and not policies. So here we have to take the control catalog, and mash our policies into it.”

I wouldn’t call this “kinda good” at all :)  These control catalogs only provide a hierarchy within which to look for evidence of  our ability to resist an attacker.  They are incapable of making any claim about the effectiveness of the controls when they are operated at 100% efficiency, or more importantly, what % efficiency our specific organization operates at.

Let’s use Chris Hayes’ Initech as our fictional example.

Initech has a control (a back door on a loading dock).  Now the locks on the door are 100% capable of locking the door.  This is different than saying that they are capable of frustrating all but the top 5% of lockpicking burgalars.  It is also diffferent than saying that in a sample of several “walk around audits” the doors are left open 20% of the time (they are not in compliance with policy 100% of the time).  Even worse, that 80% of the time the door is not propped open?  Yeah, tailgating is a known issue.

So we have several different variables here that we need to account for (and it’s just a door).  But the analogy stands that most “risk management” methodologies are “We have a door, yes/no?” And most GRC platforms, when asked for their “opinion” will simply say “door is needed” or, even worse, “a door policy is needed”.

3.)  Criticality and the Source of Value is all messed up in these Risk Management models.

Chris writes:

Someone wants me to tell them which boxes are more critical than others. This is mainly because of budgetary or operational reasons. To which I usually say “All of them, it is a system after all”.

This literally made me laugh out loud.  And this sort of “rate the firewall as Risk = 500 but rate the actual business application as Risk = 157″ thing is also endemic.  Now Chris is very smart here.  He correctly identifies that the value is tied to the business process the systems support, and not to a specific box.  Oh, we scan at the specific box level - but because of the nature of systemic failures - all the boxes in the process are inexorably interrelated.

One of the reasons I really like FAIR is that the losses are quantified (or qualified) based not on some amorphous value of the box or the process itself, but losses are linked to the actions that the threat will take. Take systems in a highly regulated industries as an example.  Usually the most probable losses aren’t due to system compromise per se, but in the disclosure the compromise causes (regulators are a threat source, after all).  But many “risk management” methodologies will say “online banking is worth $2 billion, the value of the systems is therefore $2 billion”.  And suddenly we’re telling executive management that there’s a 60% probability that they’ll lose $2 billion.

4.)  If the primary source of prior information for your “risk management” methodology is a vulnerability scanner - you’re doing it wrong.  Chris writes:

So we ran a scan and now we have a report. A snapshot in time to make all decisions. Where did these vulnerability ratings come from? Do I even know if my system is at risk? What if I spend my time on vulnerabilities that have no threat?

So first, my thoughts are that actual “vulnerability” must be a comparison of the force a threat can apply, and our ability to resist that force (this is a probability statement, btw).

Changing your thinking about vulnerability now helps us understand the problem in several new ways.  First, you can start to divorce yourself from the scanner.  After all, the scanner is simply providing you with current state information that is usually just relevant variance from policy. It doesn’t really tell you about real “weakness in a system” because the system is an interrelated mess of people, processes and IT assets.

5.)  Finally, most “risk management” approaches just *don’t* do a good job of helping us understand the how’s and why’s of managing risk. In the past, I’ve referred to these standards as really being “issue management” because they are at their heart, an act of discovery - a formal process around gathering prior information.  They are not, in and of themselves, capable of linking the issues discovered to the root cause.  And these root causes?  Yeah, they’re the things that create “risk”.  Not a threat, not a vulnerability, not the existence of an asset - the amount of risk that we have stems from our capability to manage it.

So Chris, I completely agree - but I wouldn’t give up yet.  There actually are a few of us who are focused on what you suggest:

Where to go from here: A fundamental revamp of how to deal with Risk. Where risk professionals focus on the treating the sickness and not the symptoms, and come up with some new success/actionable metrics.

Chris, there’s nothing I want to do more than that.

Wanted to drop a quick note to introduce the latest member of the SDL team - Katie Moussouris!

Many of you may already know Katie from her past work on the MSRC Ecosystem Strategy Team or her tenure at Symantec and @Stake.

Katie has joined the SDL team to help drive crucial elements of our SDL outreach effort; her primary responsibility will be managing our relationships with security consulting and training partners. She’ll additionally be tasked with ongoing analysis of the SDL – with a goal of assisting industry verticals that are looking to apply the SDL in critical computing scenarios. 

It goes without saying that she will be a regular contributor on the SDL Blog – but given her expertise, it’s likely she’ll continue to blog on an occasional basis over on Ecostrat...

Anyway – here’s Katie in her own words!

Katie Moussouris is a Senior Security Program Manager in the Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) Outreach Team, working to bring Microsoft’s SDL to partners, vendors and customers in order to improve the security of the Internet as a whole. Katie began her nerdy life programming her C64 in grade school, writing her own Zork-like text-based adventure – which was of limited use, since she had no friends and she knew all the puzzles in her own game.  Good thing she eventually left her room and found some like-minded people at a local 2600 meeting.

Katie’s professional background is application security, having come from Symantec by way of the @stake acquisition. Katie founded the Microsoft Vulnerability Research Program (MSVR), extending the focus of Microsoft’s security vulnerability research to third party software.  Katie also founded and ran the Symantec Vulnerability Research Program, the first program of its kind in Symantec's history to allow the publication through Responsible Disclosure of original vulnerability advisories discovered by Symantec researchers. In addition to performing security research, Katie has been an application penetration tester for Fortune 500 companies across numerous industries. She has uncovered serious vulnerabilities during the course of her work before they could be widely exploited by hooligans and criminals for either fun or profit, respectively.