Weldon, who is currently being investigated by the FBI over alleged corruption during his time in office, visited Libya in March to discuss a possible military deal, according to a letter describing the trip from Weldon to Defense Solutions CEO Timothy Ringgold. In May, Weldon, together with Ringgold and another company representative, traveled to Moscow to discuss working with Russia's weapons-export agency on arms sales to the Middle East.

Both trips were part of the company's effort to tap into the growing -- and often legally murky -- market for selling weapons from former Eastern Bloc countries to the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Ex-Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn., is helping broker deals between Russian weapons suppliers and the Iraqi and Libyan governments through his company, Defense Solutions.
Photo: H. Rumph Jr/AP

The Russians want to sell weapons to Iraq directly, but "must go slow on Iraq because of political reasons" and want to work with an "intermediary" like Defense Solutions, CEO Ringgold subsequently wrote to colleagues. "They have not spoken with any American company that can offer the quid pro quo that we can or that has the connections in Russia that we have," he boasted.

A few years ago, an American company proposing to sell weapons to Libya might have triggered a congressional hearing. So, too, would have a proposal to conduct arms deals with Russia, which the United States has accused of selling high-tech weapons to Syria and Iran.

However, U.S. government efforts to rapidly equip countries like Afghanistan and Iraq -- which have largely Soviet-origin weapons -- have created legal ambiguities and loopholes in export controls that didn't exist in years past and given rise to a new class of arms trade middlemen. So, even though both Libya and the Russian arms export agency are on official U.S. blacklists, government officials and analysts involved in weapons sales say the rules have become unclear as the push to equip allies in the global war on terror has blazed new but uncertain legal ground.

Eagerly stepping into that virgin territory is Defense Solutions, a Pennsylvania-based company that is carving out a small but lucrative niche in a new international arms bazaar. The firm boasts as its advisors a number of influential Washington insiders, such as retired General Barry McCaffrey, the former White House drug czar.

Helping the firm make key connections is Curt Weldon, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania at the center of an FBI investigation into alleged conflicts of interest during his time in office. Weldon, now a key executive at Defense Solutions, is working with the company to set up these weapons deals.

Defense Solutions has also proposed refurbishing Libya's BTR-60 armored personnel carriers, according to a sales proposal seen by Wired.com. Defense Solutions denies drafting a sales proposal to Libya.

It's an unusual, if not an entirely unexpected chapter for Weldon, whose time in office included frequent trips to Russia. As an influential member of the House Armed Services Committee, Weldon pushed for multibillion-dollar defense programs, like ballistic missile defense, and earned a reputation as a foreign policy gadfly, boasting of his contacts with officials in nations labeled by the administration as "rogue states" such as Libya and North Korea. Weldon's wild claims about a 9/11 cover-up and his sensationalist book warning of an Iranian terror plot, sometimes earned him official scorn and public ridicule, but it was accusations that he steered contracts to Eastern European businesses linked to his daughter's lobbying firm that drew the government's attention.

Weldon was voted out of office in 2006 just weeks after the FBI raided his daughter's home, and that of one of her associates.

Weldon did not respond to e-mails and phone requests to be interviewed or comment for this article. But in a 2006 interview, before the FBI probe was public, Weldon spoke enthusiastically about setting up a "front company" to work with the Russian arms agency, Rosoboronexport. Weldon hoped this company could sell weapons to the Middle East, and other regions, particularly to countries where the U.S. has strained relations. He claimed the director of Rosoboronexport approached him to work with "an American company that would act as a front for weapons these nations want to buy."

Weldon called the proposal an "unbelievable offer."

The administration, he acknowledged at the time, did not welcome the idea of an American company selling Russian weapons to potentially unfriendly countries. But two years later, Weldon, now a private citizen and chief strategic officer for Defense Solutions, appears to be working on precisely that sort of deal. And whether illegal or not, Defense Solutions' business represents a new phenomenon in the international arms trade business.

In years past arms brokers -- firms or individuals who serve as middlemen to facilitate weapons sales between countries -- were largely the stuff of spy thrillers. Unlike traditional American defense companies, like Lockheed Martin or Boeing, which typically sell weapons directly to NATO countries or other governments regarded as friendly to the United States, brokers are often small outfits run by people with sometimes questionable experience and reputations they will sell to anyone. One of the most infamous arms brokers, a Russian named Viktor Bout, is charged by the United States, United Nations, Interpol and others of funneling arms to terrorists and rebels around the world. He was recently arrested in Thailand. The United States is requesting his extradition on charges of supplying arms to a terrorist organization.

Two Marines lower the trim vane on the front of an Iraqi BMP-1 mechanized infantry combat vehicle that was captured during Operation Desert Storm. The American defense consulting firm Defense Solutions has proposed refurbishing Libya's aging fleet of BMP-1s. Defense Solutions denies drafting a sales proposal to Libya.

But ironically, Iraq has fueled a new market for these professional middlemen; the United States is funneling billions of dollars into modernizing Iraq's army so that the country's government can fend for itself after coalition troops withdraw. And Iraq's largely Soviet-equipped military is a natural market for Eastern European countries brimming with old or out-of-date equipment they would like to unload. The middlemen, in these cases, serve a key role by allowing the U.S. government to do business with an American company, which in turn buys equipment from Eastern Bloc countries in deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it financed with U.S. taxpayer dollars.

One of Defense Solutions' sales -- a deal to sell Hungarian-owed T-72 tanks to Iraq in 2005 -- was typical of these new foreign military sales. But on the more questionable side is the company's plans to work with Rosoboronexport, which is barred from doing business with the U.S. government, and Libya, which is still on the State Department's arms embargo list.

The Eastern European-Middle East arms-brokering business, while in some cases sanctioned by the U.S. government, has run into problems, including outright corruption and quality. Defense contractor Dale Stoffel, the president of Wye Oak Technology, and another American were gunned down in Iraq in December 2004 after Stoffel alleged that the Iraqi Ministry of Defense was involved in a kickback scheme. Like Defense Solutions, the company Stoffel worked for was refurbishing the Iraq's army Eastern Bloc equipment.

Another problem is quality. Weapons from the former Soviet Bloc, which the U.S. military euphemistically calls "nonstandard equipment," have been flagged as substandard, acknowledges Brigadier General Charles Luckey, who is in charge of security assistance at Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq. In an interview from Iraq, Brigadier General Luckey said: "One of the frustrating things about buying nonstandard [weapons], is that I'm the guy who has to deal with the fact that some broker I've never heard of allowed weapons to get to Iraq before they were inspected."

Defense Solutions is carving a new niche in the arms trade, selling Soviet-made weapons to Middle Eastern countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. Defense Solutions sold Hungarian-owed T-72 tanks to Iraq in 2005.

In one high-profile case, Iraqi officials alleged that a corrupt firm sold them $400 million in shoddy helicopters from Poland. More recently, a company led by a 21-year-old and a former masseur was offered a U.S. government contract worth nearly $300 million to sell ammunition to Afghanistan. The ammunition turned out to be outdated and of dubious origin and several people connected with the company have been indicted. A congressional investigation concluded that the company, which was on a State Department watch list, was able to take advantage of regulatory loopholes by using middlemen.

For those concerned about illicit arms trade, this new wave of weapons deals is rife with the potential for corruption and abuse, but for companies eager to pursue markets once regarded as dubious, it represents a lucrative business opportunity. The problem in these cases, according to those familiar with arms sales, is that it's no longer clear what's legal and what's not.

Rachel Stohl, an expert on international arms trade and a senior analyst at Center for Defense Information, says that in many ways, the rush to equip Iraq has led the United States to throw caution to the wind. She points to a report by the Government Accountability Office last year that found that some 190,000 weapons sold to Iraq have gone missing. "I think the reality is we won't know, until way after the fact, about all of these irregularities with the Iraq weapons provision program," she said. "We were providing them all these assault rifles that have gone missing. Why? They were not following the standard procedures that were in place."

But Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the only markets available to arms brokers like Defense Solutions. The gradual normalization of relations with Libya opens another door into a quasi-legal area of sales.

Like Iraq, Libya has a substantial arsenal of Soviet-origin military weapons, offering a potential market for brokers working with Russia and other former Soviet states. But even when there's not an outright ban, sales to the Middle East are often fraught with controversy, particularly to countries like Libya, which was under international sanction for more than a decade. Even as sanctions against it have been lifted, European companies proposing to sell arms to Libya have faced steep criticism, particularly since the country is still ruled by dictator Muammar Gaddafi, who took power in a military coup in 1969.

While the United States lifted Libya's "state sponsor of terrorism" designation in 2006, other restrictions, such as on the sale of arms, remain in place. A State Department spokesperson confirmed that exports of "lethal munitions" to Libya, such as tanks or related equipment, are still banned, although sales of nonlethal equipment are now allowed on a case-by-case basis.

In late March, Weldon traveled to Libya for a weeklong trip at the invitation of the Gaddafi Foundation, a group run by the son of Libya's leader, and the chairman of Libya's foreign affairs committee, according to the report he sent to Defense Solutions (.pdf), a copy of which was obtained by Wired.com. The trip reports states: "Agreement reached for Weldon to quickly return to Libya for meetings with son [of Libyan leader Gaddafi] Morti regarding defense and security cooperation."

A document dated April 16, just two weeks after Weldon's trip, outlines Defense Solutions' proposal to Libya to refurbish the country's fleet of armored vehicles, including its T-72 tanks, BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicles, and BTR-60 armored personnel carriers. A copy of the sales proposal, also provided to Wired.com, is on Defense Solutions' letterhead, appears to bear the signature of company CEO Timothy Ringgold, and is addressed to Libya's defense procurement council. "Defense Solutions is committed to delivering a full end-to-end solution to its clients," the proposal states. "Besides refurbishing these vehicles, we are capable of providing a full logistics support package, including a two year supply of spare parts, maintenance and repair services, and operator, maintenance, and repair training."

In an interview with Wired.com, Ringgold admitted that he's interested in doing business in Libya and confirms receiving Weldon's trip report from Libya, but denies drafting or signing an arms-sale proposal. "I've never made such a document to Libya," Ringgold insisted, after being read the proposal, and told that his signature is on it.

In addition to the Libyan arms-deal document, Wired.com has also reviewed copies of e-mails from Ringgold discussing the Libyan deal.

While Ringgold denies proposing an arms sale to Libya, he is open about speaking with Rosoboronexport, which has been on a U.S. government sanctions list since 2006, after the Russian state agency allegedly violated the Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act. An April e-mail provided to Wired.com describes Ringgold, Weldon and Stephan Minikes, a senior advisor to Defense Solutions and a former ambassador, meeting with Rosoboronexport. The conversations included a number of potential deals, including supplying Mi-17 helicopters to Afghanistan and spare parts for Iraq's infantry fighting vehicles. Ringgold wrote to colleagues following the visit, describing the meetings as a "spectacular success," saying the Russian agency "has the ability to undercut all cost proposals from brokers."

Ringgold confirmed those discussions and said that his company has sought to do business with Rosoboronexport. Asked whether Ringgold considers his dealings with Russia to be legal, he argued that U.S. companies could work with Rosoboronexport on a "case-by-case" basis. "The particular purpose of the meeting we had -- and I want to be crystal clear -- was in response to a U.S. government requirement," he said.

A number of officials at the State Department and in the Pentagon, when contacted for this article, could not say whether working with Rosoboronexport is legal or not. A Pentagon spokeswoman said she was familiar with the issue, but deferred the question to the State Department. When asked about Rosoboronexport's status on the blacklist, John Herzberg, a State Department spokesman replied: "What's on there is on there."

Asked whether, given the ban, there was any way a company could legally work with Rosoboronexport, as Ringgold suggested, Herzberg provided an equivocal answer. "At the stage of the process we're at, I'm unable to give you an answer," he said. "You can try elsewhere in government, and maybe they'll be braver than me."

In an interview from Iraq, General Luckey conceded it was a murky area, but said, "My understanding is they are currently on our no-go list."

The confusion over debarred parties has even led the U.S. government into its own legal tangles, according to Jim McAleese, a Washington attorney who specializes in government contracting and foreign military sales. Because the Russian government violated U.S. nonproliferation laws, even NASA had to go to Congress to ensure it could work with Russia on Soyuz flights to the international space station. "What I'm warning you about is, don't be surprised by the confusion," McAleese said. "There are a whole bunch of different statutes that were adopted piecemeal and were never intended to be reconciled."

But it's the very ambiguity of the law that troubles those who monitor export control. "It's highly unusual to do anything with the Russians, particularly Rosoboronexport," said Scott Jones, director of Export Control Programs at the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia.

Legal or not, reputable American companies simply don't want to work with banned entities, Jones said, for fear of risking their reputations and business. "Even if it's not an outright prohibition, most companies don't want to put themselves in a liability situation that has really bad PR … and they stay away from it," Jones said. "But if that's your business, pimping out arms from the U.S. or Russia, that's the way it works, and you push as much as possible."

Finding any U.S. defense company working with the Russian government at this point would be "remarkable," Jones added.

In the meantime, the future for Weldon is unclear. The FBI investigation continues and Weldon's former chief of staff recently pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge and is cooperating with the government, notes Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which filed a complaint against Weldon in 2004. Sloan speculated that Weldon may be charged with "honest service fraud" for misusing his office for personal gain. "It's an easier standard than bribery," she said. "I wouldn't be surprised [if he's charged] with bribery, but I think it will be honest services fraud."

Ringgold insists that he and Weldon are on the right side of the law. "Everything we do is in strict compliance with international and U.S. law and we operate only in the best interests of the U.S. government," he said. "I didn't serve 30 years in the United States Army to throw that away on a whim."

Asked if Weldon is still working for the company, Ringgold replied: "Absolutely, proudly so."

From Paterva dot com:

The Community Edition is limited in the following ways:

* A 15second nag screen
* Save and Export has been disabled
* Limited zoom levels
* Can only run transforms on a single entity at a time
* Cannot copy and paste text from detailed view
* Transforms limited to 75 per day
* Throttled client to TAS communication

http://www.paterva.com/maltego/community-edition/

I've blogged on this topic of Netflow enabling visibility within virtual environments in the past but thought I'd discuss this topic once again as I feel visibility within virtual networks is VERY important.

One of the big problems that comes along with virtualization is the inability to see "hidden" traffic flows within virtual networks created by VMWare, Citrix and others.  There are a number of companies off building "agents" or visibility products that can drop inside VMWare to bring back that visibility that was once had in the physical network and I think this is great!  But! These solutions although needed are yet another tool that needs to be purchased, managed and maintained.  These new solutions also only work within the virtual environment.

Wouldn't it be great if you could leverage either existing tools that give you physical network visibility or being able to use a tool that could give you both physical and virtual visibility?  It would be one less thing to manage right?  It could also probably correlate information for your entire network vs. just a subset of it.

Well, look no further.  With the enablement of a feature called Netflow within virtual switches from Montego Networks and an experimental version that exists in VMWare ESX 3.5 you can now export Netflow records to physical network monitoring solutions from the likes of Lancope, Plixer International, Mazu Networks, Arbor Networks and others.

What triggered my blog on this topic today was a webinar I listened in on this morning from CTO Adam Powers of Lancope.  He did an excellent job explaining the how VM 2 VM communications are hidden and how you can bring back that visibility by leveraging Netflow and Lancope. 

I would suggest everyone interested in this topic CLICK HERE to register for the next Webinar by Lancope on this topic.  It starts at 2:00 PM EST today May 21st 2008. 

Bellow are a couple of screenshots from the webinar that was hosted earlier today.

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

Also the picture bellow shows a nice graphic of how the Montego Networks HyperSwitch interacts with Netflow devices.

Again, I would suggest everyone interested in this topic CLICK HERE to register for the next Webinar by Lancope on this topic.  It starts at 2:00 PM EST today May 21st 2008.

John Peterson

I've blogged on this topic of Netflow enabling visibility within virtual environments in the past but thought I'd discuss this topic once again as I feel visibility within virtual networks is VERY important.

One of the big problems that comes along with virtualization is the inability to see "hidden" traffic flows within virtual networks created by VMWare, Citrix and others.  There are a number of companies off building "agents" or visibility products that can drop inside VMWare to bring back that visibility that was once had in the physical network and I think this is great!  But! These solutions although needed are yet another tool that needs to be purchased, managed and maintained.  These new solutions also only work within the virtual environment.

Wouldn't it be great if you could leverage either existing tools that give you physical network visibility or being able to use a tool that could give you both physical and virtual visibility?  It would be one less thing to manage right?  It could also probably correlate information for your entire network vs. just a subset of it.

Well, look no further.  With the enablement of a feature called Netflow within virtual switches from Montego Networks and an experimental version that exists in VMWare ESX 3.5 you can now export Netflow records to physical network monitoring solutions from the likes of Lancope, Plixer International, Mazu Networks, Arbor Networks and others.

What triggered my blog on this topic today was a webinar I listened in on this morning from CTO Adam Powers of Lancope.  He did an excellent job explaining the how VM 2 VM communications are hidden and how you can bring back that visibility by leveraging Netflow and Lancope. 

I would suggest everyone interested in this topic CLICK HERE to register for the next Webinar by Lancope on this topic.  It starts at 2:00 PM EST today May 21st 2008. 

Bellow are a couple of screenshots from the webinar that was hosted earlier today.

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

Also the picture bellow shows a nice graphic of how the Montego Networks HyperSwitch interacts with Netflow devices.

Again, I would suggest everyone interested in this topic CLICK HERE to register for the next Webinar by Lancope on this topic.  It starts at 2:00 PM EST today May 21st 2008.

John Peterson

From his site:

I like to embed the EICAR Anti-Virus test file in usual formats and less usual formats. Today, I’m publishing a PDF document with an embedded EICAR test file (eicar.txt). This PDF document has also an annotation with a JavaScript action linked to it. Clicking the annotation will export the embedded eicar.txt file to a temporary folder and launch the default editor for .txt files.

Read on.

Article Link

I blogged on this topic a few weeks ago but given the huge interest in this topic I’ve decided to blog on it again. One of the major concerns in virtualized environments is the lack of visibility of the communication between virtual machines. With this lack of visibility a number of challenges start to appear such as security, monitoring and capacity planning.  It’s hard to secure what you can’t see or don’t know about and it’s hard to determine when you need to add more resources when you don’t have a clear picture into what applications are consuming them.

This problem is widely known and as a result there are a few companies that are starting to pop up that are building Virtual Network Visibility tools. But should you buy yet another tool to gain visibility into your Virtual Network communication when you may already have a tool for your physical network? Should you have to have separate tools for your physical network and virtual network?

One common method of gaining visibility into network communication is through a technology called Netflow. Netflow was originally developed by Cisco Systems but has since become a defacto standard for Network Monitoring and Network Behavioral Analysis. Companies such as Lancope, Mazu Networks, Plixer International and Arbor Networks all have products that enable network visibility, monitoring and analysis. These tools typicaly take Netflow feeds from a switch of some sort.  Knowing that some of these tools may have already been deployed in physical environments, IT staff will now need to consider  whether or not to buy new visibility tools to give them visibility into their virtual environment communication or try and leverage existing solutions already deployed in their physical environments.

Up until recently there has been no elegant way to export Netflow records from virtual environments such as VMWare and as a result companies have had consider purchasing new visibility tools that would often antiquate their existing physical solutions. This is due to their migration from physical environments to virtual environments.

Montego Networks now has Netflow capability in its HyperSwitch product which runs inside VMWare and enables security, visibility and control for the virtual environment by leveraging existing tools. Through its API’s and standards based methods Montego can enable customers to leverage existing infrastructure purchases to gain visibility and control within the virtual environment.

So, enough of the commercial and lets get on to the technical meat of this new Netflow enablement within the virtual environment.

Let’s say that you have a virtual machine that is infected with a BOT and it is communicating to a Command and Control Site of a BOT-Army. How would you know this? Well, you could have a NetFlow tap at a network switch close to your internet connection. But what if you have some sort of communication between VM’s on a non standard port that you are not aware of? Maybe a machine got infected and is sending data from the database virtual machine to a web server virtual machine and then feeding that info from the web server virtual machine to the internet. Your Netflow tap on the internet facing switch would see traffic coming from the web server virtual machine to the internet but wouldn’t see that data was being taken from the database, put on the web server and then fed out to the internet. Kinda tricky to hunt this problem down isn’t it?

So, whats needed is Netflow all the way into the virtual environment so that it can be fed to the same tools in your physical environment for easy correlation.

Take a look at the attached screen shot which shows Lancope and Montego Networks in action.

<---Click to Enlarge

With this level of visibility now you can see who is talking to who, when are they communicating and how much traffic is being consumed by which applications and which virtual machines.  This can now all be done by leveraging existing Netflow analytics tools.

This screen shot is showing flow data of Virtual Machines talking either to the Internet or to other virtual machines within the same environment.  You will notice from the flow data that one of the Virtual Machines has iTunes running on it.  An IT Administrator may have not sanctioned this or even know about it.  But with Flow records you can now see!  Like a new pair of glasses for your virtual environment.  With this visibility you can now go in to the Montego HyperSwitch and enable a firewall policy to block that iTunes traffic as an example.
 

Lancope is just one example here and its important to note that, because Netflow is a defacto standard for this type of visibility, other tools such as those from Mazu Networks, Plixer International and others can be used as well.  They all have their unique advantages and disadvantages but the point here is that dependent upon your prior network purchases in this area you will now be able to leverage existing tools vs. having to purchase new ones in many cases.

Check out Montego Networks at Networld Interop 2008 in the Lancope booth to see the solution in action!

John Peterson
CTO Montego Networks

I blogged on this topic a few weeks ago but given the huge interest in this topic I???ve decided to blog on it again. One of the major concerns in virtualized environments is the lack of visibility of the communication between virtual machines. With this lack of visibility a number of challenges start to appear such as security, monitoring and capacity planning.  It???s hard to secure what you can???t see or don???t know about and it???s hard to determine when you need to add more resources when you don???t have a clear picture into what applications are consuming them.

This problem is widely known and as a result there are a few companies that are starting to pop up that are building Virtual Network Visibility tools. But should you buy yet another tool to gain visibility into your Virtual Network communication when you may already have a tool for your physical network? Should you have to have separate tools for your physical network and virtual network?

One common method of gaining visibility into network communication is through a technology called Netflow. Netflow was originally developed by Cisco Systems but has since become a defacto standard for Network Monitoring and Network Behavioral Analysis. Companies such as Lancope, Mazu Networks, Plixer International and Arbor Networks all have products that enable network visibility, monitoring and analysis. These tools typicaly take Netflow feeds from a switch of some sort.  Knowing that some of these tools may have already been deployed in physical environments, IT staff will now need to consider  whether or not to buy new visibility tools to give them visibility into their virtual environment communication or try and leverage existing solutions already deployed in their physical environments.

Up until recently there has been no elegant way to export Netflow records from virtual environments such as VMWare and as a result companies have had consider purchasing new visibility tools that would often antiquate their existing physical solutions. This is due to their migration from physical environments to virtual environments.

Montego Networks now has Netflow capability in its HyperSwitch product which runs inside VMWare and enables security, visibility and control for the virtual environment by leveraging existing tools. Through its API???s and standards based methods Montego can enable customers to leverage existing infrastructure purchases to gain visibility and control within the virtual environment.

So, enough of the commercial and lets get on to the technical meat of this new Netflow enablement within the virtual environment.

Let???s say that you have a virtual machine that is infected with a BOT and it is communicating to a Command and Control Site of a BOT-Army. How would you know this? Well, you could have a NetFlow tap at a network switch close to your internet connection. But what if you have some sort of communication between VM???s on a non standard port that you are not aware of? Maybe a machine got infected and is sending data from the database virtual machine to a web server virtual machine and then feeding that info from the web server virtual machine to the internet. Your Netflow tap on the internet facing switch would see traffic coming from the web server virtual machine to the internet but wouldn???t see that data was being taken from the database, put on the web server and then fed out to the internet. Kinda tricky to hunt this problem down isn???t it?

So, whats needed is Netflow all the way into the virtual environment so that it can be fed to the same tools in your physical environment for easy correlation.

Take a look at the attached screen shot which shows Lancope and Montego Networks in action.

<---Click to Enlarge

With this level of visibility now you can see who is talking to who, when are they communicating and how much traffic is being consumed by which applications and which virtual machines.  This can now all be done by leveraging existing Netflow analytics tools.

This screen shot is showing flow data of Virtual Machines talking either to the Internet or to other virtual machines within the same environment.  You will notice from the flow data that one of the Virtual Machines has iTunes running on it.  An IT Administrator may have not sanctioned this or even know about it.  But with Flow records you can now see!  Like a new pair of glasses for your virtual environment.  With this visibility you can now go in to the Montego HyperSwitch and enable a firewall policy to block that iTunes traffic as an example.
 

Lancope is just one example here and its important to note that, because Netflow is a defacto standard for this type of visibility, other tools such as those from Mazu Networks, Plixer International and others can be used as well.  They all have their unique advantages and disadvantages but the point here is that dependent upon your prior network purchases in this area you will now be able to leverage existing tools vs. having to purchase new ones in many cases.

Check out Montego Networks at Networld Interop 2008 in the Lancope booth to see the solution in action!

John Peterson
CTO Montego Networks

“Security in the cloud” just got more complicated with the introduction of “Cloud Mashups”.

What Do You Get When You Cross Salesforce.com and Amazon S3?

The answer we are told is Appirio Cloud Storage - a fully integrated Salesforce.com add-on that uses Amazon’s Simple Storage Service (S3) to store larger files. Previously, Salesforce.com users were limited to 5MB file uploads.

Read this quote from Appirio and think about it from a security perspective:

We’re excited not only about the service itself, but also what it represents. It shows where the industry as a whole can head - as the platforms mature, there is a substantial opportunity for ISVs to tie together the different clouds and provide offerings that extend and fill in the platforms themselves. In traditional enterprise application integration (EAI), packaged integrations were difficult to commercialize. The permutation of versions and customizations created and “n times n” problem, making it too expensive to create something “packaged” that appealed to more than a very small number of customers. But in the cloud, because SaaS providers commit to stable interfaces - Salesforce has maintained backwards compatability for more than a dozen revisions of its API - “integrating the cloud” can become a new class of solution.

From a security risk assessment perspective, you now need to factor in 3rd parties that hook into your “primary” cloud providers API.

If your company goes with Appirio, company data is now stored in Amazon S3 buckets paid for by Appirio, instead of storage paid for by Salesforce.com. This means your data is actually split across both providers (!) - old attachments and CRM data with Salesforce.com and new attachments with Appirio (if someone from Appirio is reading this and can say differently, please do).

As it happens, Salesforce.com already uses Amazon for computing and storage so its the same back-end storage. But what happens when another cloud storage provider pops up that offers a better deal? Lets say salesforce.com stays with Amazon S3 but Appirio migrates to the new player to attract more customers.  [Just to be clear, not picking on Appirio here - this applies to *any* ISV - particularly those that store data somewhere else in the Cloud].

Multiple cloud storage providers for a single app, raises some issues.

• Is ISV obligated to tell you they are migrating to a cheaper cloud storage provider? (think cross border data transfer issues).
• What security ‘certification’ will take place of the new provider and what visibility will you have of that?
• How much notification do you get before the switchover?
• If you don’t want to go with the new provider, but that is the only supported option, what happens to all your data? Even if we *assume* an export function is provided you still need to find an alternate ISV that has coded a compatibility layer to access your existing data. If you can’t, where do you export the data too? Will we have ‘frozen clouds‘?
• What integrity checks take place to ensure data was properly migrated over?
• When the migration happens, what clean-up happens at the source? (can anyone say forensic wiping?). What about any backup tapes or off-line copies? Who is responsible for making sure those are wiped/destroyed?

Suddenly your cloud storage arrangements have gotten more complex and thus, less secure. Security issues aside, how does an agile business cope with this? With multiple providers, data portability becomes a real issue.

And we haven’t even dug into the API level security issues yet! (yeah, you get to assess that too!).

As an Information Security community, we have to start figuring out some of these issues before we find our options severely limited…

What do you think?

This is a great illustration of the maxim "security trade-offs are often made for non-security reasons." I can imagine the manager in charge: "Yes, it's insecure. But think of the savings!"

The Government Printing Office's decision to export the work has proved lucrative, allowing the agency to book more than $100 million in recent profits by charging the State Department more money for blank passports than it actually costs to make them, according to interviews with federal officials and documents obtained by The Times.

Another story.