adaptive process management (n.) an element of resource and business process management, adaptive search and event processing. Sometimes referred to as “Level 4” event processing or process refinement.

application concept (n.) a definition of a set of properties that represent the data fields of an application entity. An application concept can describe relationships among themselves. For example, an order concept might have a parent/child relationship with an item concept. A department concept might be related to a purchase requisition concept based on the shared property, department_id. Application concepts can include an application state model.

application state modeler (n.) a UML-compliant application that allows you to model the life cycle of a concept instance — that is, for each instance of a given concept, you can define which states it will pass through and how it will transition from state to state. States have entry actions, exit actions, and conditions, providing precision control over the behavior of an event processing agent. Transitions between states also may have rules. Multiple types of states and transitions maximize the versatility and power of the application state modeler.

derived event (n.) an event that is created as a result of processing one or more other events.

complex event (n.) an event that is a situation-entity abstraction of two or more simple, derived or other complex events.

complex event processing (n.) CEP is a technology for extracting information from message-based systems. CEP is primarily an event processing concept that deals with the task of processing multiple events from an event cloud with the goal of identifying the meaningful events within the event cloud. CEP employs techniques such as detection of complex patterns of many events, event correlation and abstraction, event hierarchies, and relationships between events such as causality, membership, and timing, and event-driven processes.

event (n.) a instance of an event definition. It is an immutable object that represents a business activity that happened at a single point in time. Just as one cannot change the fact that a given activity occurred, one cannot change an event — events are immutable.

event aggregation (n.) the aggregation of simple, derived or complex events into higher levels of event abstractions.

event definition (n.) a set of properties related to a given activity that represents an important or interesting change of state in a human, system or computational activity. An event definition includes event properties such as event priority, event time to live (TTL), and a description of the payload, which is comprehensive information related to the activity that occurred. Events expire when the TTL has elapsed, unless the event processing agent has instructions to consume them prior to that time.

event channel (n.) a communications channel in which events are transmitted from event source to event receivers, typically received as electronic messages. Each channel can have multiple destination and. events can be configured to transmit to a default destination. JMS is an example of an event channel.

event cloud (n.) a partially ordered set of events (poset), either bounded or unbounded, where the partial orderings are imposed by the causal, timing and other relationships between the events. Typically an event cloud is created by the events produced by one or more distributed systems. An event cloud may contain many event types, event streams and event channels. The difference between a cloud and a stream is that there is no event relationship that totally orders the events in a cloud.

event-driven (n.) the behavior of a human, system or computational entity whose execution or actuation is in response to events, typically received as electronic messages.

event-driven architecture (n.) an architectural style for distributed computing applications in which some of the components are event-driven and communicate by means of events.

event processing (n.) computing that performs operations on events, including modifying, creating and destroying events.

event-object (n.) an software object that represents an event, generally for the purpose of computer processing, that exhibits both encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism.

event prediction (n.) computational activity where the impact of events, complex events, and situations caused by events identified, including both opportunity or threat. Sometimes referred to as “Level 2” event processing, impact assessment or predictive analytics.

event pre-processing (n.) computational activity where events are cleansed or normalized to produce semantically understandable data. Sometimes referred to as “Level 0” event processing.

event processing (n.) computational activities on events dealing with the association, correlation, and combination of event data and information from single and multiple event sources to achieve refined identity and situation estimates for observed event objects, and to achieve complete and timely assessments of opportunities, threats, and their significance. Event processing is characterized by continuous refinements of event estimates and assessments and by evaluation of the need for additional sources, or modification of the process itself, to achieve improved results.

event processing agent (n.) an EPA is a computational entity that performs event processing.

event processing network (n.) a set of event processing agents and a set of event channels connecting them.

event properties (n.) data representation of an event, typically by name-value pairs of type string, integer, real, boolean or a complex data type.

event refinement (n.) filter, identify and track events & make initial processing decisions based on association, correlation and state estimation. Sometimes referred to as “Level 1” event, or event-object, track and trace.

event stream (n.) a time-ordered sequence of events. An event stream may be bounded by a certain time interval or other contextual dimension (content, space, source, certainty), or be open ended and unbounded.

event stream processing (n.) a time-ordered sequence of events. An event stream may be bounded by a certain time interval or other contextual dimension (content, space, source, certainty), or be open ended and unbounded.

rule (n.) defines what triggers unusual, suspicious, problematic, or advantageous activity within an event processing agent and what the EPA does when it discovers these types of activities. Rules execute actions based on certain conditions on events, instances, or a combination of both. A rule includes a group of condition-rule statements and action-rule statements. The condition statements instruct the EPA what to look for in events, and action statements instruct the EPA how to respond when conditions are met. If all the conditions in a rule are satisfied by events or instances or both, the EPA fires the actions. The action might be to execute tasks, create an event instance, modify property values in an event instance, create and send an event, or something else.

rules engine (n.) a type of event processing agent that uses a declarative programming model to process events. Formally described as “an abstract structure that describes a formal language precisely, i.e., a set of rules that mathematically delineates a (usually infinite) set of finite-length strings over a (usually finite) alphabet“. Informally, it can be any system that uses rules, in any form, that can be applied to data to produce outcomes.

rule language (n.) is an artificial language that is used to control the behavior of an event processing agent. Rules languages, like human languages, have syntactic and semantic rules to define meaning.

situation refinement (n.) identify situations, or complex events, based on event clustering, event-event relationships and relationship analysis and context. Sometimes referred to as “Level 2” event processing.

simple event (n.) an event that is not an abstraction or composition of other events.

virtual event (n.) an event that is imagined, modeled or simulated.

Here's the story. Every Oyster card has a radio-frequency identification chip that communicates with readers mounted on the ticket barrier. That chip, the "Mifare Classic" chip, is used in hundreds of other transport systems as well — Boston, Los Angeles, Brisbane, Oslo, Amsterdam, Taipei, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro — and as an access pass in thousands of companies, schools, hospitals, and government buildings around Britain and the rest of the world.

The security of Mifare Classic is terrible. This is not an exaggeration; it's kindergarten cryptography. Anyone with any security experience would be embarrassed to put his name to the design. NXP attempted to deal with this embarrassment by keeping the design secret.

The group that broke Mifare Classic is from Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands. They demonstrated the attack by riding the Underground for free, and by breaking into a building. Their two papers (one is already online) will be published at two conferences this autumn.

The second paper is the one that NXP sued over. They called disclosure of the attack "irresponsible," warned that it will cause "immense damages," and claimed that it "will jeopardize the security of assets protected with systems incorporating the Mifare IC." The Dutch court would have none of it: "Damage to NXP is not the result of the publication of the article but of the production and sale of a chip that appears to have shortcomings."

Exactly right. More generally, the notion that secrecy supports security is inherently flawed. Whenever you see an organization claiming that design secrecy is necessary for security — in ID cards, in voting machines, in airport security — it invariably means that its security is lousy and it has no choice but to hide it. Any competent cryptographer would have designed Mifare's security with an open and public design.

Secrecy is fragile. Mifare's security was based on the belief that no one would discover how it worked; that's why NXP had to muzzle the Dutch researchers. But that's just wrong. Reverse-engineering isn't hard. Other researchers had already exposed Mifare's lousy security. A Chinese company even sells a compatible chip. Is there any doubt that the bad guys already know about this, or will soon enough?

Publication of this attack might be expensive for NXP and its customers, but it's good for security overall. Companies will only design security as good as their customers know to ask for. NXP's security was so bad because customers didn't know how to evaluate security: either they don't know what questions to ask, or didn't know enough to distrust the marketing answers they were given. This court ruling encourages companies to build security properly rather than relying on shoddy design and secrecy, and discourages them from promising security based on their ability to threaten researchers.

It's unclear how this break will affect Transport for London. Cloning takes only a few seconds, and the thief only has to brush up against someone carrying a legitimate Oyster card. But it requires an RFID reader and a small piece of software which, while feasible for a techie, are too complicated for the average fare dodger. The police are likely to quickly arrest anyone who tries to sell cloned cards on any scale. TfL promises to turn off any cloned cards within 24 hours, but that will hurt the innocent victim who had his card cloned more than the thief.

The vulnerability is far more serious to the companies that use Mifare Classic as an access pass. It would be very interesting to know how NXP presented the system's security to them.

And while these attacks only pertain to the Mifare Classic chip, it makes me suspicious of the entire product line. NXP sells a more secure chip and has another on the way, but given the number of basic cryptography mistakes NXP made with Mifare Classic, one has to wonder whether the "more secure" versions will be sufficiently so.

This essay originally appeared in the Guardian.

We've probably all heard that you can't secure what you can't see and that statement is even more profound when it comes to virtual environments.  This is because it is extremely challenging to see what is going on at a micro vs. macro level within a virtual environments network.  The virtualization vendors such as VMWare and Citrix have provided embedded tools into their management consoles that show a macro level of visibility but its not enough to identify security events in the environment.  Take a look at the attached picture.  It simply shows VMWare's ability to monitor virtual network performance statistics from a bits per second perspective.

<-Click To Enlarge

With only this level of detail how can one determine which network applications are causing spikes.  Is it FTP traffic that is occuring at a high volume at an unuseal time of day?  If that were occuring, could that be indicative of either a breach or some sort of problem? What if FTP isn't even an authorized service in the virtual environment but there is a high volume of it?  Did someone install a rouge FTP service so they could steal information from the server at will?

These types of questions can't really be answered without a micro level of detail into the packets flowing in, out and within the virtual environment.  Now, what I am highlighting is not security in the traditional sense of prevention but using visibility as a means to first identify, then pin point the source of an issue so that it can properly be mitigated.  Having constant visibility can also ensure that other security products in the environment are performing as expected.  What if a Montego HyperSwitch with firewalling enabled is configured with many policies but someone forgot to create an FTP block policy.  One could think they are protected from rouge FTP services transmiting data out of the network, but without constant visibility monitoring, can you be certain?

Some vendors, namely Reflex Security will get you to believe that their IPS / IDS solution that is inline and running in the virtual environment is the right and only approach.  Or they will tell you to hang a virtual IDS off a span port in the virtual environment and you will at least have visibility into the attacks that are taking place.  Well, sure... You now have attack visibility but at the performance cost of your virtual environment.  Signature matching technologies are great, I'm a huge believer; however they don't scale very well in shared computing environments such as virtual ones.  IDS systems also don't typically track protocol and network service (FTP, HTTP, etc.) utilizations; which is another important part of visibility.

So, what do we do to gain visibility without the performance headache?  Well, for starters its probably best to put your IDS/IPS solutions in the physical environment where performance will be less of a concern.  In fact, you can span a virtual switch's traffic out to a physical NIC as easy as you can to a virtual one.  So why do it virtual and have to pay a 60% CPU utilization tax?  Another solution is to IDS inspect only the things you care about.  Why IDS inspect SSL traffic if you know your solution can't unencrypt SSL.  Its just a waste of compute cycles isnt it?  Policy based switching helps you with directing only the things you care about to an IDS (attack visualization product).  Montego's HyperSwitch also can help you with the traffic redirection of only the things you care about.

Another method of visibility which I tend to be a fan of is one of packet analysis (aka NetFlow).  NetFlow was invented by Cisco some time ago and has gained popularity in the physical world and definately has a use in the virtual world.  NetFlow is lightweight.  Let me say that again, its light weight!  It only sends a summation of packet detail to an analytical engine which can do some number crunching, packet comparison, etc. etc. to make some sense out of whats going on.  Lancope, an Atlanta based visibility company that provides Network Visibility, Security Visibility and User Visibility has this tool on their website that is a Netflow Bandwidth calculator.  You'll see from playing with this ( http://www.lancope.com/netflowcalculator.aspx ) calculator that it doesn't consume a lot of network bandwidth to transmit these network accounting records.  It also doesn't cause a lot of CPU overhead to send these records to an analytical engine sitting somewhere in the network.

Lancope's analytical engines have the ability to do the following for you within your virtual environment:

...and probably a slew of other things I'm not aware of.  A screen shot of their product is bellow:

<- Click to enlarge

You'll notice from the screenshot that you are able to visualize who is talking to who, how much traffic they have sent and received and something called a concern index (not seen on this screenshot).

Now, a concern index is a number that increases as Lancopes analytical engines monitor suspicious activity on a session.  A high counter can be indicative of a security problem.  Its another way of identifying (visualizing) compromised hosts (virtual machines) without having to do signature matching like a heavy weight IPS engine.  Example:  Lets say you have a VM that has a BOT on it and is "owned".  The Lancope product is monitoring this long life session.  Let's say that session is established for several hours or maybe even days or months.  Lets also say that the conversation appears to be mostly unidirectional from a public ip address not belonging to your enterprise.  Lancope would increase a the concern index on this since this server hasn't typically had this type of behavior.  Once the concern index reached a certain level it could then fire off an email, send you a text message or something saying:  Warning, Warning, Danger, Danger Will Robinson!!! You're virtual server may be infected with a BOT, please investigate immediately!!!

This example is VISIBILITY which helps you with SECURITY.  There are a number of other things you can do with NetFlow and Lancope products that have less to do with security and more to do with operational efficiencies.  Things like, helping you answer questions of:  How do I know what network applications are taking up the most bandwidth?  When should I move those applications over to a server with more horsepower?  When did these VM's vmotion over here and was there a traffic condition / CPU condition that caused that to occur?  I could go on and on but thats a topic for another blog entry.

So, my suggestion is to take a look at what NetFlow has to offer.  Montego Networks supports NetFlow transmission and Lancope supports NetFlow analytics and with both you can regain what was lost visibility.

I hope this was helpful to you all!

-John Peterson

We've probably all heard that you can't secure what you can't see and that statement is even more profound when it comes to virtual environments.  This is because it is extremely challenging to see what is going on at a micro vs. macro level within a virtual environments network.  The virtualization vendors such as VMWare and Citrix have provided embedded tools into their management consoles that show a macro level of visibility but its not enough to identify security events in the environment.  Take a look at the attached picture.  It simply shows VMWare's ability to monitor virtual network performance statistics from a bits per second perspective.

<-Click To Enlarge

With only this level of detail how can one determine which network applications are causing spikes.  Is it FTP traffic that is occuring at a high volume at an unuseal time of day?  If that were occuring, could that be indicative of either a breach or some sort of problem? What if FTP isn't even an authorized service in the virtual environment but there is a high volume of it?  Did someone install a rouge FTP service so they could steal information from the server at will?

These types of questions can't really be answered without a micro level of detail into the packets flowing in, out and within the virtual environment.  Now, what I am highlighting is not security in the traditional sense of prevention but using visibility as a means to first identify, then pin point the source of an issue so that it can properly be mitigated.  Having constant visibility can also ensure that other security products in the environment are performing as expected.  What if a Montego HyperSwitch with firewalling enabled is configured with many policies but someone forgot to create an FTP block policy.  One could think they are protected from rouge FTP services transmiting data out of the network, but without constant visibility monitoring, can you be certain?

Some vendors, namely Reflex Security will get you to believe that their IPS / IDS solution that is inline and running in the virtual environment is the right and only approach.  Or they will tell you to hang a virtual IDS off a span port in the virtual environment and you will at least have visibility into the attacks that are taking place.  Well, sure... You now have attack visibility but at the performance cost of your virtual environment.  Signature matching technologies are great, I'm a huge believer; however they don't scale very well in shared computing environments such as virtual ones.  IDS systems also don't typically track protocol and network service (FTP, HTTP, etc.) utilizations; which is another important part of visibility.

So, what do we do to gain visibility without the performance headache?  Well, for starters its probably best to put your IDS/IPS solutions in the physical environment where performance will be less of a concern.  In fact, you can span a virtual switch's traffic out to a physical NIC as easy as you can to a virtual one.  So why do it virtual and have to pay a 60% CPU utilization tax?  Another solution is to IDS inspect only the things you care about.  Why IDS inspect SSL traffic if you know your solution can't unencrypt SSL.  Its just a waste of compute cycles isnt it?  Policy based switching helps you with directing only the things you care about to an IDS (attack visualization product).  Montego's HyperSwitch also can help you with the traffic redirection of only the things you care about.

Another method of visibility which I tend to be a fan of is one of packet analysis (aka NetFlow).  NetFlow was invented by Cisco some time ago and has gained popularity in the physical world and definately has a use in the virtual world.  NetFlow is lightweight.  Let me say that again, its light weight!  It only sends a summation of packet detail to an analytical engine which can do some number crunching, packet comparison, etc. etc. to make some sense out of whats going on.  Lancope, an Atlanta based visibility company that provides Network Visibility, Security Visibility and User Visibility has this tool on their website that is a Netflow Bandwidth calculator.  You'll see from playing with this ( http://www.lancope.com/netflowcalculator.aspx ) calculator that it doesn't consume a lot of network bandwidth to transmit these network accounting records.  It also doesn't cause a lot of CPU overhead to send these records to an analytical engine sitting somewhere in the network.

Lancope's analytical engines have the ability to do the following for you within your virtual environment:

...and probably a slew of other things I'm not aware of.  A screen shot of their product is bellow:

<- Click to enlarge

You'll notice from the screenshot that you are able to visualize who is talking to who, how much traffic they have sent and received and something called a concern index (not seen on this screenshot).

Now, a concern index is a number that increases as Lancopes analytical engines monitor suspicious activity on a session.  A high counter can be indicative of a security problem.  Its another way of identifying (visualizing) compromised hosts (virtual machines) without having to do signature matching like a heavy weight IPS engine.  Example:  Lets say you have a VM that has a BOT on it and is "owned".  The Lancope product is monitoring this long life session.  Let's say that session is established for several hours or maybe even days or months.  Lets also say that the conversation appears to be mostly unidirectional from a public ip address not belonging to your enterprise.  Lancope would increase a the concern index on this since this server hasn't typically had this type of behavior.  Once the concern index reached a certain level it could then fire off an email, send you a text message or something saying:  Warning, Warning, Danger, Danger Will Robinson!!! You're virtual server may be infected with a BOT, please investigate immediately!!!

This example is VISIBILITY which helps you with SECURITY.  There are a number of other things you can do with NetFlow and Lancope products that have less to do with security and more to do with operational efficiencies.  Things like, helping you answer questions of:  How do I know what network applications are taking up the most bandwidth?  When should I move those applications over to a server with more horsepower?  When did these VM's vmotion over here and was there a traffic condition / CPU condition that caused that to occur?  I could go on and on but thats a topic for another blog entry.

So, my suggestion is to take a look at what NetFlow has to offer.  Montego Networks supports NetFlow transmission and Lancope supports NetFlow analytics and with both you can regain what was lost visibility.

I hope this was helpful to you all!

-John Peterson

"We must treat every suspicious item the same and utilize the tools we have available to make a final determination," said Federal Security Director David Wynn. "Procedures are in place for a reason and this is a clear indication our workforce is doing a great job."

My guess is that if Kip Hawley were allowed to comment on my blog, he would say something like this: "It's not just bombs that are prohibited; it's things that look like bombs. This looks enough like a bomb to fool the other passengers, and that in itself is a threat."

Okay, that's fair. But the average person doesn't know what a bomb looks like; all he knows is what he sees on television and the movies. And this rule means that all homemade electronics are confiscated, because anything homemade with wires can look like a bomb to someone who doesn't know better. The rule just doesn't work.

And in today's passengers-fight-back world, do you think anyone is going to successfully do anything with a fake bomb?