[SecurityRatty] tag: sap

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

Interop NY: The ROI of Social Networking

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:54:45 +0000

How do you derive business value from social networks?

Moderator: Nick Hoover, Senior Editor, InformationWeek
Speaker - Anne Berkowitch, Co-Founder & CEO, SelectMinds
Speaker - J.B. Holston, CEO and President, NewsGator
Speaker - Umberto Milletti, CEO, InsideView

Businesses can take advantage of social networks by finding innovative ways to reach out to people. Looking at who you know and how you know them can benefit you. Knowing a personal connection to someone that you are trying to contact (for sales) is helpful. The blurring between home, personal, and business life is making this information more available and better able to leverage. People are able to capture more valuable long term information from social networks.

A lot of social network applications can be taken from the talent management space. Deploying alumni networks as a talent source is also a great asset. Alumni represent a well-known and relevant population. This provides a great economic benefit from a social network.

If you are running a sales organization and looking at building a pipeline of leads, consider how these leads are relevant. The ability to get more leads is apparent in finding the right person, right connection, and right contact. Underlying everything are productivity and efficiency. How much time are sales reps spending researching and pursuing each opportunity? With information on social networks, the time can be greatly decreased. Knowledge sharing is something that can be actively measured.

The ROI varies with the business issue that’s trying to be addressed by a particular network. Recruiting for example has a very concrete, measurable ROI. Knowledge share gets a little more tricky. How do you measure how much is shared and the impact on business systems? Businesses need to determine what specific goal they are trying to address.

CFOs want to see ROI, not intuitive information. If you can demonstrate engagement and participation in these networks and knowledge sharing tools, more and more executives are getting comfortable seeing how it’s used at a qualitative and process level. It’s a very case by case basis.

One major crisis that we see in our customers is the competition between sales and marketing. Each wants to do their own thing, they go together like oil and water. However, the push of the economy is now forcing them work together. This is a great opportunity for IT to step in and help them collaborate and be more productive.

Other resistance from companies are how to manage what they are trying to accomplish while still giving employees free reign of sites like Facebook. What are the incentives for using these technologies? How does it fit into your company culture and productivity scale? You must bring meaning to the structure of engaging in social networks.

Social networks like LinkedIn and Facebook would not exist if people did not contribute information to them. However, if people don’t know that it is there, it does not exist. People need to see the value and get drawn in to engage. There are two ways that companies get into social networks. Tie it into the business process. The general idea of social networks are intuitive and easy to understand, which make it an easier case to present to chief executives. Make it clear - how do you go about it and what’s the value?

Social networks are intrinsically about extending the network, the more contacts you have, the more to choose from when researching a specific contact. It also has to be integrated into your dataworkflow. Companies are going to build a variety of networks inside and outside the enterprise. The big companies (SAP, IBM) are all rushing to offer collaborative and social network functionality. However, this is not entirely useful unless it’s integrated into the entire infrastructure.

Interop NY Keynotes: BlackBerry

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:07:39 +0000

David Yach, Chief Technology Officer of Software at Research in Motion rounded out the final keynotes of the morning as part of the Mobile Business Expo (MBX). David focused on how enterprise and mobility are tied together today.

Which of the following initiatives are likely to be a major telecommunications technology related priority for 2007? Mobility is a huge issue.

We’re starting to see traction with mobility.

The evolution of enterprise mobility:
- Voice –> messaging –> e–mail –> web, –> business applications –> instant messaging/presence –> what’s next?
Cell phone to Smartphone:
- 1G –> 2G –> 3G

Converging IT Responsibilities

Collaboration, Web/Internet, Desktop Computer, Deskphone/PBX, Mobile Phone and Applications. All of this is under the umbrella of IT. IT departments are not a single cohesive unit where everyone gets along. They have different motivations, budgets, goals, etc.

BlackBerry manages all of these responsibilities in one, forcing these departments to collaborate and work together. This is key for interoperability between these systems, knowing how they work together.

Desktop capabilities are expected in mobility:

Information
Collaboration
Voice
Transactions
Presence
Application

Mobile devices are fundamentally changing the pace of which we all work. You can reach anybody at anytime. This changes business.

All of this is working with data that is behind a corporate firewall.

The big change in IT is that for almost any industry now, the data that you have and you manage is a core corporate asset. It doesn’t matter whether you’re in manufacturing, logistics, or a bakery. Information is king. This has the benefit of moving IT up to a C-level position. You are a core part of your business success. This has benefits, and also added stress.

Voice is still the “killer app” for mobility. Deskphones and smartphones need to overlap into a mobile voice system.

Another up and coming technology is the mobilization of enterprise applications. This provides the ultimate user experience. For example, Blackberry has mobilized the SAP Business Suite on BlackBerry smartphones. SAP CRM access is as seamless and intuitive as email on BlackBerry and incorporates push, alerting, security, GPS, Wi-Fi and media.

Enterprise grade platforms will extend core competencies of enterprise systems to mobile environments.

Secure
Reliable
Manage
Control
Administration
Standardize

Conclusion:

Putting it together: integrating the wireless capabilities of today into the business tools of tomorrow.

Global Dispatches

Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:33:25 +0000

Global Dispatches: Infosys to acquire U.K. SAP services firm; Lost laptop contains data on Royal Bank of Scotland customers.

Software Security Market

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:18:59 +0000

Information Security budgets are pretty crufty, they are an accumulation of decisions but the analysis that led to these decisions is rarely revisited, it just snowballs. So the normal Information Security budget is just a legacy artifact of when the network was the greatest vulnerability. Gary McGraw took a pass at reviewing the numbers in software security, breaking down software security sectors like tools and services (note to Gary - I think Aspect does more than just training!). This is great work by Gary to get these numbers to see the real changes occuring in software security. Here were 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 total picture is not so good. Gary'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?!? Complete UTTER Madness!

This is the stupefying, stultifying effects of budget cruft, where the decisions made in The People's Republic of Information Security have no bearing on reality of threats or even a business case.

Let's look at networks. 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 and you are going to "defend" that with allocating $150 Million worth of software security tools?

	Network	Software
Asset Value	$39.5 billion	$98 billion
Security Investment	$900 Million	$150 Million
Security Investment as a percentage of asset value	2.28%	0.15%

This table greatly disturbs me. From a prioritization standpoint The People's Republic of Information Security is misaligned by orders of magnitude. 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.

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

I see the outcomes of backwards looking, crufty decisions by Information Security every day - one or two software security sherpas heading out to work with thousands of developers, meanwhile the network security people sit around and read the newspaper and go home every day at 5.

The optimistic way of looking at all this data is that there is major room for growth for software security, if you take Checkpoint as a target, 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.

Microsoft and BearingPoint see space to play in the Enterprise GRC market

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:12:55 +0000

Earlier this week in a joint press release, Microsoft and BearingPoint announced the new BearingPoint Enterprise Governance, Risk, and Compliance product offering. Ok... it will be a while before the more veteran enterprise GRC vendors start really losing sleep over this deal. But BearingPoint continues to be a top risk consulting firm, and Microsoft’s reach through the business user community will be an attractive benefit for compliance and risk professionals trying to get hundreds or thousands of staff members to contribute to the GRC program. There’s potential here for sure.

With software giants IBM, Oracle, SAP, and now Microsoft increasing their level of commitment in the enterprise GRC space, the 2-3 year market outlook continues to change. The risk and regulatory landscape is only going to get tougher to handle, and the more GRC programs can run seamlessly with existing business processes and applications, the better. The vendors focused solely on GRC still have the advantage for now, but market consolidation is on its way... and it’s coming maybe just a tiny bit faster than it was at the start of this week.

Log Management - Day 1

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:03:00 +0000

Inspired by this and this here (and this too). It started from Jeremiah saying this:

“You’re hired on at a new company placed in charge of securing their online business (websites). You know next to nothing about the technical details of the infrastructure other than they have no existing web/software security program and a significant portion of the organizations revenues are generated through their websites.

What is the very first thing do on day 1?”

At about the same time, I saw a message posted to one of the mailing lists where the poster wondered: "I’ve been asked to look into finding a replacement to our current log management/auditing system. This is a field I haven’t even come close to touching before, and really don’t know the ideal things to look for (or ignore), etc. I’ve been searching through SANS site as well as googling, and I’m not coming up with a lot of great starter information. " And then he asks "Where should I start?"

This is indeed a really good question! Let's rephrase the above for the case of logging:

"You’re hired on at a new company placed in charge of TAKING CONTROL OVER THE LOGS. You know next to nothing about the technical details of the infrastructure other than they have no existing LOG MANAGEMENT process and tools... What is the very first thing do on day 1?”

So the "Day 1" of log management project. What's up?!

The very first thought that should cross you mind before you even do whatever first thing you wanted to do is "WHY?" (don't people hate those 'Why?" questions - focusing on "What?" or "How?" is soooooooo much easier....)

"Log management" is a solution, not a problem. What is your problem that you now have a mandate to solve?

Logs don't just drop on people :-) Well, not often.

What is it that motivated your boss (or his boss, or whoever) to decide to "address this", to "take control over logs?" Was it a new compliance mandate, PCI perhaps? Was it a recent incident where investigation hit the wall due to utter lack of logs? Was it a new corporation-wide IT efficiency improvement project? Was it a lawsuit where an e-discovery request was not satisfied and thus fine was levied? Was it a hot IT project that is impossible to complete without having a tool to analyze logs?

This "need" is very important since logging is a huge realm and not focusing on the need is akin to starting a journey into a hostile wilderness without a map - in other words, it might be fun for a while, but it can end badly :-)

Next, what do you actually do first? Figure out what logs are needed for this effort and what systems produce them (and who "owns" them!) Analyzing SAP logs for J-SOX is a VERY different effort from analyzing Cisco ASA logs for network troubleshooting.

Only at this point you can start thinking about "tools:" parsers, logs, databases, reports, alerts, indexing and other technical thingies as well as capacity planning, scalability, etc. This is the stage where you learn the lingo and learn to cut through marketing messaging to get to the actual tool capabilities.

So, remember: given mandate to "tame the logging monster", think "WHY?" first!

The Network Firewall is a Consensual Hallucination

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:04:34 +0000

James McGovern asks why we don't see enterprisey folks focusing on SOA *and* security? Well there are a lot of reasons here, but lets look at some facts. Most enterprisey folks look at security in binary terms - inside the firewall or outside the firewall. When a transaction is "inside the firewall" they can do silly things like load all their transaction on to something like MQ Series with no authentication, send it to the mainframe which runs their entire book of business, and in essence run their transactional backbone on anonymous ftp. Because its "inside the firewall"

Problem is - its just a Visio drawing, its not reality, its historical baggage. We were trained to think about things in these terms in the 90s

But the business and software worlds have changed a bit from the early 90s, even if security tooling hasn't

If you sent an alien from outer space to observe what an enterprise looks like today, and asked that alien to file an objective report as to the actual connections and message exchanges it wouldn't look like the idyllic, clear separation of good stuff from bad stuff, it would look like this

There is no firewall in any meaningful sense, there are links, federations, communities of interest, business units, integration points, outsourcing arrangements, business processes. In short, there is information and commerce in all its messy vitality.

Inside the firewall and outside the firewall is not a security architecture, its historical cruft a Victorian, industrial age artifact that snuck into your Visio, not something that protects your businesses' applications and data.

If you want to let the world access your maifnrame, SAP, Siebel, or whatever so they can buy things from you, that is probably a really good idea. But don't assume that RACF or what have you came down on stone tablets from Moses. Just because your transaction is "inside the firewall" doesnt mean that your security model can only focus on resources and objects in isolation. It has to focus on how your business just broke everything apart and then re-connected everything. The subjects are different, the sessions are different, and the transactions are different. Just because the objects and resources are the same and are "inside the firewall" means little when all the context and all the relationships are different.

The world is not firewalled, its federated. Just because its convenient for enterprisey folks to buy into the same hallucination doesn't make it reality.

Next week, I am speaking at Ping's SSO Summit on Web Services SSO basically everything that happens after you press "SUBMIT" on a website. Your data has a journey as dangerous as Frodo Baggins' travels through Mordor. The talk traces the path from the website through the perils that lurk in the enterprise and legacy systems, we will look at ways to get Frodo and Sam home safely and we won't rely on Visio firewalls where Mithril is required.

(Note - Thanks for reminding me of the analogy Jim)

Links for 2008-07-15 [del.icio.us]

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:00:00 +0000

SAP Library - Administration Manual - Logging
TaoSecurity: The Best Single Day Class Ever
I had the great fortune to attend Edward Tufte's one day class Presenting Data and Information. I only knew Tufte from advertisements in the Economist. For example, the image at left was frequently used as an ad in the print magazine.
Dorian Software BLOG: Event Analyst ® 7 Can Slice and Dice Your Security Event Logs ... Any Way Your Auditors Want Them Served
The Future Of Application And Database Security: Part 1, Setting The Stage | securosis.com

OWASP Talk Q&A Notes

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:36:26 +0000

On Monday I did a talk on Web Services security at the MSP OWASP. The talk was ok, but not as good as at RSA because I Brian Chess did a better job with some of the stories than me. What was really good though was a number of questions and answers afterwards.

One person asked the old chestnut - "do we need to care about web services security if we are inside the firewall?" Now, I have heard this question many, many times in different ways, and this time my brain just shorted out, I basically said that I am not sure what difference it really makes. You don't get security from a firewall, you may get the ability to fire someone if they do something bad, but in most companies there is no "wall" and there sure isn't any "fire", at most they are speed bumps. I am *not* saying to remove them, they are part and parcel of how you operate a network but they are not really providing any additional security. Network firewalls are thought of as a security tools because they began as a security innovation and they are paid for out of the security budget.

Robert Garigue said several years ago that network firewalls are part of network hygiene like brushing your teeth. Information security should not have to help people brush their teeth, and instead should operate like a dentist helping groups work more complex and risky issues. I have advised CISOs at several companies to off load the network firewall jockeys out of infosec and into network groups. Sometimes they listen. If so, the infosec group can focus on other issues instead of managing a Visio-driven "security" device.

Why Visio? Well, the main security property from a firewall is the scary flames and brick wall on Visio. And how do you know whether or not to open up a port? You just open the org chart (in Visio) and find the level of the person who is requesting the port be opened. If VP Then Yes. Is this security? Hardly.

So one last time - Web Services are used to provide access to your main systems (which live on mainframes, big RDBMS, SAP, ERP, CRM, and so on) these are the keys to the kingdom, and lots of apps need them. The whole point of Web Services is to make it easier to talk to them. So "inside" or "outside" the firewall, do you need to care about authentication, authorization, and auditing on the systems that run your entire business???

Another interesting question from the Q & A from Jon Passki was on XML Security Gateways. We talked a fair bit about their utility in solving the aforementioned authentication, authorization, and auditing problems. I pulled up Vordel's gateway and showed how to build security workflows to deploy security as a service. Jon asked could I ever imagine a Web services security architecture without a gateway? I said I think that they are not always the starting point but mid to long term they are definitely in basically any effective security architecture I can think of. Having a place to deploy, manage, and enforce policy that is separate the code solves a lot of real world problems. People are hung up on thinking about Web services programming like it has to be Web app programming (this happens in REST a lot), but there is another school of successful web apps, arguably the most successful, and its called email.

Email app architecture looks nothing like web app design. You wouldn't read every email sent to your address would you? Of course not, it goes through spam filters, virus checkers and so on. Further its a message oriented paradigm, and you know that unless its signed/encrypted with PGP/GPG security is suspect at best. So yeah, I think gateways are an hugely important part of a Web Services security architecture.

Finally, I can also not imagine going live when you are supporting multiple protocols and token types without a good testing strategy. Mark O'Neill recently blogged something I recommend to all my clients - namely make sure you have security specific test cases, test harnesses and testing tools, like for example Vordel's Soapbox.