About itibble@gmail.com

Author of Security De-engineering, CTO at Seven Stones (Indonesia)

Fintechs and Security – Part Two

Threat and Vulnerability Management (TVM) – Application Security

This part covers some high-level guider points related to the design of the application security side of TVM (Threat and Vulnerability Management), and the more common pitfalls that plague lots of organisations, not just fintechs. I won’t be covering different tools in the SAST or DAST space apart from one known-good. There are some decent SAST tools out there but none really stand out. The market is ever-changing. When i ask vendors to explain what they mean by [new acronym] what usually results is nothing, or a blast of obfuscation. So I’m not here to talk about specific vendor offerings, especially as the SAST challenge is so hard to get even close to right.

With vulnerability management in general, ${VENDOR} has succeeded in fouling the waters by claiming to be able to automate vulnerability management. This is nonsense. Vulnerability assessment can to some limited degree be automated with decent results, but vulnerability management cannot be automated.

The vulnerability management cycle has also been made more complicated by GRC folk who will present a diagram representing a cycle with 100 steps, when really its just assess –> deduce risk –> treat risk –> GOTO 1. The process is endless, and in the beginning it will be painful, but if handled without redundant theory, acronyms-for-the-sake-of-acronyms-for-the-same-concept-that-already-has-lots-of-acronyms, rebadging older concepts with a new name to make them seem revolutionary, or other common obfuscation techniques, it can be easily integrated as an operational process fairly quickly.

The Dawn Of Application Security

If you go back to the heady days of the late 90s, application security was a thing, it just wasn’t called “application security”. It was called penetration testing. Around the early 2000s, firewall configurations improved to the extent that in a pen test, you would only “see” port 80 and/or 443 exposing a web service on Apache, Internet Information Server, or iPlanet (those were the days – buffer overflow nirvana). So with other attack channels being closed from the perimeter perspective, more scrutiny was given to web-based services.

Attackers realised you can subvert user input by intercepting it with a proxy, modifying some fields, perhaps inject some SQL or HTML, and see output that perhaps you wouldn’t expect to see as part of the business goals of the online service.

At this point the “application security” world was formed and vulnerabilities were classified and given new names. The OWASP Top Ten was born, and the world has never been the same since.

SAST/DAST

More acronyms have been invented by ${VENDOR} since the early early pre-holocene days of appsec, supposedly representing “brand new” concepts such as SAST (Static Application Security Testing) and DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing), which is the new equivalent of white box and black box testing respectively. The basic difference is about access to the source code. SAST is source code testing while DAST is an approach that will involve testing for OWASP type vulnerabilities while the software is running and accepting client connection requests.

The SAST scene is one that has been adopted by fintechs in more recent times. If you go back 15 years, you would struggle to find any real commercial interest in doing SAST – so if anyone ever tells you they have “20” or even “10” years of SAST experience, suggest they improve their creativity skills. The general feeling, not unjustified, was that for a large, complex application, assessing thousands of lines of source code at a vital organ/day couldn’t be justified.

SAST is more of a common requirement these days. Why is that? The rise of fintechs, whose business is solely about generation of applications, is one side of it, and fintechs can (and do) go bust if they suffer a breach. Also – ${VENDOR}s have responded to the changing Appsec landscape by offering “solutions”. To be fair, the offerings ARE better than 10 years ago, but it wouldn’t take much to better those Hello World scripts. No but seriously, SAST assessment tools are raved about by Gartner and other independent sources, and they ARE better than offerings from the Victorian era, but only in certain refined scenarios and with certain programming languages.

If it was possible to be able to comprehensively assess lots of source code for vulnerability and get accurate results, then theoretically DAST would be harder to justify as a business undertaking. But as it is, SAST + DAST, despite the extensive resources required to do this effectively, can be justified in some cases. In other cases it can be perfectly fine to just go with DAST. It’s unlikely ever going to be ok to just go with SAST because of the scale of the task with complex apps.

Another point here – i see some fintechs using more than one SAST tool, from different vendors. There’s usually not much to gain from this. Some tools are better with some programming languages than others, but there is nothing cast in stone or any kind of majority-view here. The costs of going with multiple vendors is likely going to be harder and harder to justify as time goes on.

Does Automated Vulnerability Assessment Help?

The problem of appsec is still too complex for decent returns from automation. Anyone who has ever done any manual testing for issues such as XSS knows the vast myriad of ways in which such issues can be manifested. The blackbox/blind/DAST scene is still not more than Burp, Dirbuster, but even then its mostly still manual testing with proxies. Don’t expect to cover all OWASP top 10 issues for a complex application that presents an admin plus a user interface, even in a two-week engagement with four analysts.

My preferred approach is still Fred Flinstone’y, but since the automation just isn’t there yet, maybe its the best approach? This needs to happen when an application is still in the conceptual white board architecture design phase, not a fully grown [insert Hipster-given-name], and it goes something like this: white board, application architect – zero in on the areas where data flows involve transactions with untrusted networks or users. Crpyto/key management is another area to zoom in on.

Web Application Firewall

The best thing about WAFs, is they only allow propagation of the most dangerous attacks. But seriously, WAF can help, and in some respects, given the above-mentioned challenges of automating code testing, you need all the help you can get, but you need to spend time teaching the WAF about your expected URL patterns and tuning it – this can be costly. A “dumb” default-configured WAF can probably catch drive-by type issues for public disclosed vulnerabilities as long as you keep it updated. A lot depends on your risk profile, but note that you don’t need a security engineer to install a WAF and leave it in default config. Pretty much anyone can do this. You _do_ need an experienced security engineer or two to properly understand an application and configure a WAF accordingly.

Python and Ruby – Web Application Frameworks

Web application frameworks such as Ruby on Rails (RoR) and Django are in common usage in fintechs, and are at least in some cases, developed with security in mind in that they do offer developers features that are on by default. For example, with Django, if you design a HTML form for user input, the server side will have been automagically configured with the validation on the server side, depending on the model field type. So an email address will be validated client and server-side as an email address. Most OWASP issues are the result of failures to validate user input on the server side.

Note also though that with Django you can still disable HTML tag filtering of user input with a “| safe” in the template. So it’s dangerous to assume that all user input is sanitised.

In Django Templates you will also see a CSRF token as a hidden form field if you include a Form object in your template.

The point here is – the root of all evil in appsec is server-side validation, and much of your server-side validation effort in development will be covered by default if you go with RoR or Django. That is not the end of the story though with appsec and Django/RoR apps. Vulnerability of the host OS and applications can be problematic, and it’s far from the case that use of either Django or RoR as a dev framework eliminates the need for DAST/SAST. However the effort will be significantly reduced as compared to the C/Java/PHP cases.

Wrap-up

Overall i don’t want to too take much time bleating about this topic because the take away is clear – you CAN take steps to address application security assessment automation and include the testing as part of your CI/CD pipeline, but don’t expect to catch all vulnerabilities or even half of what is likely an endless list.

Expect that you will be compromised and plan for it – this is cheaper than spending zillions (e.g. by going with multiple SAST tools as i’ve seen plenty of times) on solving an unsolvable problem – just don’t let an incident result in a costly breach. This is the purpose of security architecture and engineering. It’s more to deal with the consequences of an initial exploit of an application security fail, than to eliminate vulnerability.

Share This:

Fintechs and Security – Part One

Recruiting and Interviews

In the prologue of this four-stage process, I set the scene for what may come to pass in my attempt to relate my experiences with fintechs, based on what i am hearing on the street and what i’ve seen myself. In this next instalment, i look at how fintechs are approaching the hiring conundrum when it comes to hiring security specialists, and how, based on typical requirements, things could maybe be improved.

The most common fintech setup is one of public-cloud (AWS, Azure, GCP, etc), They’re developing, or have developed, software for deployment in cloud, with a mobile/web front end. They use devops tools to deploy code, manage and scale (e.g. Kubernetes), collaborate (Git variants) and manage infrastructure (Ansible, Terraform, etc), perhaps they do some SAST. Sometimes they even have different Virtual Private Clouds (VPCs) for different levels of code maturity, one for testing, and one for management. And third party connections with APIs are not uncommon.

Common Pitfalls

  • Fintechs adopt the stance: “we don’t need outside help because we have hipsters. They use acronyms and seem quite confident, and they’re telling me they can handle it”. While not impossible that this can work – its unlikely that a few devops peeps can give a fintech the help they need – this will become apparent later.
  • Using devops staff to interview security engineers. More on this problem later.
  • Testing security engineers with a list of pre-prepared questions. This is unlikely to not end in tears for the fintech. Security is too wide and deep an area for this approach. Fintechs will be rejecting a lot of good candidates by doing this. Just have a chat! For example, ask the candidate their opinions on the usefulness of VA scanners. The length of the response is as important as its technical accuracy. A long response gives an indication of passion for the field.
  • Getting on the security bandwagon too late (such as when you’re already in production!) you are looking at two choices – engage an experienced security hand and ignore their advice, or do not ignore their advice and face downtime, and massive disruption. Most will choose the first option and run the project at massive business risk.

The Security Challenge

Infosec is important, just as checking to see if cars are approaching before crossing the road is important. And the complexity of infosec mandates architecture. Civil engineering projects use architecture. There’s a good reason for that – which doesn’t need elaborating on.

Collapsing buildingWhenever you are trying to build something complex with lots of moving parts, architecture is used to reduce the problem down to a manageable size, and help to build good practices in risk management. The end goal is protective monitoring of an infrastructure that is built with requirements for meeting both risk and compliance challenges.

Because of the complexity of the challenge, it’s good to split the challenge into manageable parts. This doesn’t require talking endlessly about frameworks such as SABSA. But the following six capabilities (people, process, technology) approach is sleek and low-footprint enough for fintechs:

  • Threat and Vulnerability Management (TVM)
  • Logging – not “telemetry” or Threat intelligence, or threat hunting. Just logging. Not even necessarily SIEM.
  • Cryptography and Key Management
  • Identity Management
  • Business Continuity Management
  • Trust (network segmentation, firewalls, proxies).

I will cover these 6 areas in the next two articles, in more detail.

The above mentioned capabilities have an engineering and architecture component and cover very briefly the roles of security engineers and architects. A SABSA based approach without the SABSA theory can work. So an architect takes into account risk (maybe with a threat modelling approach) and compliance goals in a High Level Design (HLD), and generates requirements for the Low Level Design (LLD), which will be compiled by a security engineer. The LLD gives a breakdown of security controls to meet the requirements of the HLD, and how to configure the controls.

Security Engineers and Devops Tools

What happens when a devops peep interviews a security peep? Well – they only have their frame of reference to go by. They will of course ask questions about devops tools. How useful is this approach? Not very. Is this is good test of a security engineer? Based on the security requirements for fintechs, the answer is clear.

Security engineers can use devops tools, and they do, and it doesn’t take a 2 week training course to learn Ansible. There is no great mystery in Kubernetes. If you hire a security engineer with the right background (see the previous post in this series) they will adapt easily. The word on the street is that Terraform config isn’t the greatest mystery in the world and as long as you know Linux, and can understand what the purpose of the tool is (how it fits in, what is the expected result), the time taken to get productive is one day or less.

The point is: if i’m a security engineer and i need to, for example, setup a cloud SIEM collector: some fintechs will use one Infrastructure As Code (IaC) tool, others use another one – one will use Chef, another Ansible, and there are other permutations. Is a lack of familiarity with the tool a barrier to progress? No. So why would you test a security engineer’s suitability for a fintech role by asking questions about e.g. stanzas in Ansible config? You need to ask them questions about the six capabilities I mentioned above – i.e. security questions for a security professional.

Security Engineers and Clouds

Again – what was the transition period from on-premise to cloud? Lets take an example – I know how networking works on-premise. How does it work in cloud? There is this thing called a firewall on-premise. In Azure it’s called a Network Security Group. In AWS its called a …drum roll…firewall. In Google Cloud its called a …firewall. From the web-based portal UI for admin, these appear to filter by source and destination addresses and services, just like an actual non-virtual firewall. They can also filter by service account (GCP), or VM tag.

There is another thing called VPN. And another thing called a Virtual Router. On the world of on-premise, a VPN is a …VPN. A virtual router is a…router. There might be a connection here!

Cloud Service Providers (CSP) in general don’t re-write IT from the ground up. They still use TCP/IP. They host virtual machines (VM) instead of real machines, but as VMs have operating systems which security engineers (with the right background) are familiar with, where is the complication here?

The areas that are quite new compared to anything on-premise are areas where the CSP has provided some technology for a security capability such as SIEM, secrets management, or Identity Management. But these are usually sub-standard for the purpose they were designed for – this is deliberate – the CSPs want to work with Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) vendors such as Splunk and Qualys, who will provide a IaaS or SaaS solution.

There is also the subject of different clouds. I see some organisations being fussy about this, e.g. a security engineer who worked a lot with Azure but not AWS, is not suitable for a fintech that uses AWS. Apparently. Well, given that the transition from on-premise to cloud was relatively painless, how painful is it to transition from Azure to AWS or …? I was on a project last summer where the fintech used Google Cloud Platform. It was my first date with GCP but I had worked with AWS and Azure before. Was it a problem? No. Do i have an IQ of 160? Hell no!

The Wrap-up

Problems we see in fintech infosec hiring represent what is most likely a lack of understanding of how they can best manage risk with a budget that is considerably less than a large MNC for example. But in security we haven’t been particularly helpful for fintechs – the problem is on us.

The security challenge for fintechs is not just about SAST/DAST of their code. The challenge is wider and be represented as six security capabilities that need to be designed with an architecture and engineering view. This sounds expensive, but its a one-off design process that can be covered in a few weeks. The on-going security challenge, whereby capabilities are pushed through into the final security operations stage, can be realised with one or two security engineers.

The lack of understanding of requirements in security leads to some poor hiring practices, the most common of which is to interview a security engineer with a devops guru. The fintech will be rejecting lots of good security engineers with this approach.

In so many ways, the growth of small to medium development houses has exposed the weaknesses in the infosec sector more than they were ever exposed with large organisations. The lack of the sector’s ability to help fintechs exposes a fundamental lack of skilled personnel, more particularly at the strategic/advisory level than others.

Share This:

Fintechs and Security – Prologue

A Match Made In Heaven?

Well, no. Far from it actually. But again, as i’ve been repeating for 20 years now, its not on the fintechs. It’s on us in infosec, and infosec has to take responsibility for these problems in order to change. If i’m a CTO of a fintech, I would be confused at the array of opinions and advice which vary radically from one expert to another

But there shouldn’t be such confusion with fintech challenges. Confusion only reigns where there’s FUD. FUD manifests itself in the form of over-lengthy coverage and excessive focus on “controls” (the archetypal shopping list of controls to be applied regardless of risk – expensive), GRC, and “hacking/”[red,blue,purple,yellow,magenta/teal/slate grey] team”/”appsec.

Really what’s needed is something like this (in order):

  • Threat modelling lite – a one off, reviewed periodically.
  • Architecture lite – a one off, review periodically.
  • Engineering lite – a one off, review periodically.
  • Secops lite – the result of the previous 3 – an on-going protective monitoring capability, the first level of monitoring and response for which can be outsourced to a Managed Service Provider.

I will cover these areas in more details in later episodes but what’s needed is, for example, a security design that only provides the answer to “What is the problem? How are we going to solve it?” – so a SIEM capability design for example – not more than 20 pages. No theory. Not even any justifications. And one that can be consumed by non-security folk (i.e. it’s written in the language of business and IT).

Fintechs and SMBs – How Is The Infosec Challenge Unique?

With a lower budget, there is less room for error. Poor security advice can co-exist with business almost seamlessly in the case of larger organisations. Not so with fintechs and Small and Medium Businesses (SMBs). There has been cases of SMBs going under as a result of a security incident, whereas larger businesses don’t even see a hit on their share price.

Look For A Generalist – They Do Exist!

The term “generalist” is seen as a four-letter word in some infosec circles. But it is possible for one or two generalists to cover the needs of a fintech at green-field, and then going forward into operations, its not unrealistic to work with one in-house security engineer of the right background, the key ingredients of which are:

  • Spent at least 5 years in IT, in a complex production environment, and outgrew the role.
  • Has flexibility – the old example still applies today – a Unix fan has tinkered with Windows. So i.e. a technology lover. One who has shown interest in networking even though they’re not a network engineer by trade. Or one who sought to improve efficiency by automating a task with shell scripting.
  • Has an attack mindset – without this, how can they evaluate risk or confidently justify a safeguard?

I have seen some crazy specialisations in larger organisations e.g. “Websense Security Engineer”! If fintechs approached security staffing in the same way as larger organisations, they would have more security staff than developers which is of course ridiculous.

So What’s Next?

In “On Hiring For DevSecOps” I covered some common pitfalls in hiring and explained the role of a security engineer and architect.

There are “fallback” or “retreat” positions in larger organisations and fintechs alike, wherein executive decisions are made to reduce the effort down to a less-than-advisable position:

  • Larger organisations: compliance driven strategy as opposed to risk based strategy. Because of a lack of trustworthy security input, execs end up saying “OK i give up, what’s the bottom line of what’s absolutely needed?”
  • Fintechs: Application security. The connection is made with application development and application security – which is quite valid but the challenge is wider. Again, the only blame i would attribute here is with infosec. Having said that, i noticed this year that “threat modelling” has started to creep into job descriptions for Security Engineers.

So for later episodes – of course the areas to cover in security are wider than appsec, but again there is no great complication or drama or arm-waiving:

  • Part One – Hiring and Interviews – I expand on “On Hiring For DevSecOps“. I noticed some disturbing trends in 2019 and i cover these in some more detail.
  • Part Two – Security Architecture and Engineering I – Threat and Vulnerability Management (TVM)
  • Part Three – Security Architecture and Engineering II – Logging (not necessarily SIEM). No Threat Hunting, Telemetry, or Threat “Intelligence”. No. Just logging. This is as sexy as it needs to be. Any more sexy than this should be illegal.
  • Part Four – Security Architecture and Engineering III – Identity Management (IDAM) and Cryptography and Key Management (CKM).
  • Part Five – Security Architecture and Engineering IV – Trust (network trust boundary controls – e.g. firewalls and forward proxies), and Business Resilience Management (BRM).

I will try and get the first episode on hiring and interviewing out before 2020 hits us but i can’t make any promises!

Share This:

On Hiring For DevSecOps

Based on personal experience, and second hand reports, there’s still some confusion out there that results in lots of wasted time for job seekers, hiring organisations, and recruitment agents.

There is a want or a need to blame recruiters for any hiring difficulties, but we need to stop that. There are some who try to do the right thing but are limited by a lack of any sector experience. Others have been inspired by Wolf Of Wall Street while trying to sound like Simon Cowell.

It’s on the hiring organisation? Well, it is, but let’s take responsibility for the problem as a sector for a change. Infosec likes to shift responsibility and not take ownership of the problem. We blame CEOs, users, vendors, recruiters, dogs, cats, “Russia“, “China” – anyone but ourselves. Could it be we failed as a sector to raise awareness, both internally and externally?

So What Are Common Understandings Of Security Roles?

After 25 years+ we still don’t have universally accepted role descriptions, but at least we can say that some patterns are emerging. Security roles involve looking at risk holistically, and sometimes advising on how to deal with risk:

  • Security Engineers assess risk and design and sometimes also implement controls. BTW some sectors, legal in particular, still struggle with this. Someone who installs security products is in an IT ops role. Someone who upgrades and maintains a firewall is an IT ops role. The fact that a firewall is a security control doesn’t make this a security engineering function.
  • Security Architects take risk and compliance goals into account when they formulate requirements for engineers.
  • Security Analysts are usually level 2 SOC analysts, who make risk assessments in response to an alert or vulnerability, and act accordingly.

This subject evokes as much emotion as CISSP. There are lots of opinions out there. We owe to ourselves to be objective. There are plenty of sources of information on these role definitions.

No Aspect Of Risk Assessment != Security. This is Devops.

If there is no aspect of risk involved with a role, you shouldn’t looking for a security professional. You are looking for DEVOPS peeps. Not security peeps.

If you want a resource to install and configure tools in cloud – that is DEVOPS. It is not Devsecops. It is not Security Engineering or Architecture. It is not Landscape Architecture or Accounting. It is not Professional Dog Walker. it is DEVOPS. And you should hire a DEVOPS person. If you want a resource to install and configure appsec tools for CI/CD – that is DEVOPS. If you want a resource to advise on or address findings from appsec tools, that is a Security Analyst in the first case, DEVSECOPS in the 2nd case. In the 2nd case you can hire a security bod with coding experience – they do exist.

Ok Then So What Does A DevSecOps Beast Look Like?

DevSecOps peeps have an attack mindset from their time served in appsec/pen testing, and are able to take on board the holistic view of risk across multiple technologies. They are also coders, and can easily adapt to and learn multiple different devops tools. This is not a role for newly graduated peeps.

Doing Security With Non-Security Professionals Is At Best Highly Expensive

Another important point: what usually happens because of the skills gap in infosec:

  • Cloud: devops fills the gap.
  • On-premise: Network Engineers fill the gap.

Why doesn’t this work? I’ve met lots of folk who wear the aforementioned badges. Lots of them understand what security controls are for. Lots of them understand what XSS is. But what none of them understand is risk. That only comes from having an attack mindset. The result will be overspend usually – every security control ever conceived by humans will be deployed, while also having an infrastructure that’s full of holes (e.g. default install IDS and WAF is generally fairly useless and comes with a high price tag).

Vulnerability assessment is heavily impacted by not engaging security peeps. Devops peeps can deploy code testing tools and interpret the output. But a lack of a holistic view or an attack mindset, will result in either no response to the vulnerability, or an excessive response. Basically, the Threat And Vulnerability Management capability is broken under these circumstances – a sadly very common scenario.

SIEM/Logging is heavily impacted – what will happen is either nothing (default logging – “we have Stackdriver, we’re ok”), or a SIEM tool will be provisioned which becomes a black hole for events and also budgets. All possible events are configured from every log source. Not so great. No custom use cases will be developed. The capability will cost zillions while also not alerting when something bad is going down.

Identity Management – is not deploying a ForgeRock (please know what you’re getting into with this – its a fork of Sun Microsystems/Oracle’s identity management show) or an Azure AD and that’s it, job done. If you just deploy this with no thought of the problem you’re trying to solve in identity management, you will be fired.

One of the classic risk problems that emerges when no security input is taken: “there is no personally identifiable information in development Virtual Private Clouds, so there is no need for security controls”. Well – intelligence vulnerability such as database schema – attackers love this. And don’t you want your code to be safe and available?

You see a pattern here. It’s all or nothing. Either of which ends up being very expensive or worse. But actually come to think of it, expensive is the goal in some cases. Hold that thought maybe.

A Final Word

So – if the word risk doesn’t appear anywhere in the job description, it is nothing to do with security. You are looking for devops peeps in this case. And – security is an important consideration for cloud migrations.

Share This:

Exorcising Dark Reading’s Cloud Demons

Dark Reading recently covered what it says are Cloud “blind spots”. Really, there is some considerable FUD here. Is there really anything unique to cloud with the issues called out?

I’m not pro or anti-cloud. It is “just another organisation’s computer platform” as they say, and whereas this phrase was coined as a warning about cloud, it also serves as a reminder that the differences with on-premise aren’t as much as many would have you believe. In some areas cloud makes things easier and its a chance to go greed field and fix the architecture. Some fairly new concepts such as “immutable architecture” will change security architecture radically but there is nothing carved in stone which says this can only be implemented in cloud. In case it needed calling out – you can implement microservices in your data centre if microservices are what does it for you!

Migrating to cloud – there’s a lot to talk about regards infosec, and i can’t make an attempt at doing that comprehensively here. But some points to make based on what seems to be popular misconceptions:

  • Remember you will never get access to the Cloud Service Provider’s (CSP) hypervisors. Your hardware is in their hands. Check your SLA’s and contract terms.
  • SaaS – it many cases it can be bad to hand over your operating systems to CSPs, and not just from a security perspective. In the case of on-premise, it was deemed a good business choice to have skilled staff to administer complex resources that present many configuration options that can be used and abused for fun and profit. So why does moving to cloud change that?
  • Saas and SIEM/VA: Remember this now means you lose most of your Vulnerability Assessment coverage. And SaaS and SIEM is getting more popular. Due to the critical nature of a SIEM manager, with trust relationships across the board, personally i want access to the OS of such a critical device, but that’s just me.

So picking out the areas covered briefly….

  • Multi-cloud purchasing – “The problem for security professionals is that security models and controls vary widely across providers” – if it takes a few weeks to switch from on-premise to Cloud, then for example, from Azure to Google, or AWS, chances are they were struggling with on-premise. Sorry but there’s no “ignorance” here. A machine is now a VM but it still speaks TCP/IP, and a firewall is now not something in the basement…ok i’ll leave it there.
  • Hybrid Architecture – tracking assets is easier in cloud than it is on-premise. If they find it hard to track assets in cloud, they certainly find it hard on-premise. Same for “monitoring activity”.
  • Likewise with Cloud Misconfiguration – they are also finding it hard on-premise if they struggle with Cloud.
  • Business Managed IT – not a cloud specific problem.
  • Containers – “new platforms like Kubernetes are introducing new classes of misconfigurations and vulnerabilities to cloud environments faster than security teams can even wrap their arms around how container technology works. ” – WHAT!!? So does the world hold back on these devops initiatives while infosec plays catch up? There is “devsecops” which is supposed to be the area of security of security which is specialised in devops. If they also struggle, then what does it say about security? I have to say that on a recent banking project, most of the security team would certainly not know what Docker is. This is not a problem with Cloud, its a problem with security professionals coming into the field with the wrong background.
  • Dark Data – now you’re just taking the proverbial.
  • Forensics and Threat-Hunting Telemetry – show yourself Satan! Don’t lurk in the shadows! Ignore the fancy title – this is about logging. “Not only do organizations struggle to get the right information fed from all of their different cloud resources” – This is a logging problem, not a cloud problem. Even SaaS SIEM solutions do not present customers with issues getting hold of log data.

What happened Dark Reading? You used to be good. Why does’t thou vex us so? Cloud is just someone else’s computer, and just someone else’s network – there are a few unique challenges with cloud migrations, but none of those are mentioned here.

Share This:

“Cybersecurity Is About To Explode” – But in What Way?

I recently had the fortune to stumble across an interesting article: http://thetechnews.com/2019/08/17/cybersecurity-is-about-to-explode-heres-why/

The article probably was aimed at generating revenue for the likes of ISC2 (CISSP exam revenue) and so on, but i am open minded to the possibility that it was genuinely aimed at helping the sector. It is however hopelessly misleading. I would hate to think that this article was the thing that led a budding security wannabe to finally sign up. Certainly a more realistic outlook is needed.

Some comments on some of the points in said article:

“exciting headlines about data breaches” – exciting for who? The victims? 
“organizations have more resources to fight back ” – no they don’t. They spend lots but still cannot fight back.
“It’s become big enough that thought leaders, lawyers, and even academics are weighing in” – who are the thought leaders who are weighing in? If they are leading thought, i would like to know who they are.
“today’s cybercriminals are much more sophisticated than they were twenty years ago”. Do they need to be? I mean Wannacry exploited a basic firewall config problem. Actually firewall configs were better 20 years ago than they are today.
“employing the services of ethical hackers ” – i’m glad the hackers are ethical. They wouldn’t have the job if they had a criminal record. So what is the ‘ethical’ qualifier for? Does it mean the hackers are “nice” or… ?
“Include the use of new security technology like the blockchain and using psychology to trick, mislead, and confuse hackers before they ever reach sensitive data.” Psychology isn’t a defence method, it’s an attack method. Blockchain – there are no viable blue team use cases. 
“313,735 job openings in the cybersecurity field” – all of them are filled if this number is real (unlikely).
“since the need for security experts isn’t likely to drop anytime soon.” see Brexit. It’s dropping now. Today. Elsewhere its flat-line.
“You can take your pick of which industry you want to work in because just about every company needs to be concerned about the safety and security of their networks.” – “needing” to be concerned isn’t the same as being concerned. No. All sectors are still in the basic mode of just getting compliance. 
“Industries like healthcare, government, and fintech offer extensive opportunities for those who want to work in cybersecurity” – no, they do not. 
“90% of payment companies plan to switch over to blockchain technology by 2020” – can you tell your audience the source of this information?

Share This:

A Desperate Call For More Effective Information Security Accreditation

CISSP has to be the most covered topic in the world of infosec. Why is that? The discussions are mostly of course aimed at self-promotion (both by folk condemning the accreditation and then the same in the defensive responses) and justifying getting the accreditation. How many petabytes are there covering this subject? If you think about it, the sheer volume of the commentary on CISSP is proportional to the level of insecurity felt by infosec peeps. It’s a symptom of a sector that is really very ill indeed, and the sheer volume of the commentary is a symptom of how ineffective CISSP is in accreditation, and also the frustration felt by people who know we can do better.

We need _something_. We do need some kind of accreditation. Right now CISSP is the only recognised accreditation. But if you design an accreditation that attempts to cover the whole of infosec in one exam, what did you think the result would be? And there is no room for any argument or discussion on this. Its time to cut the defensiveness and come clean and honest.

The first stage of solving a problem is acknowledgment of its existence. And we’re not there yet. There are still 1000s in this field who cling onto CISSP like a lifebuoy out on the open ocean. There is a direct correlation between the buoy-clingers and the claim that “security is not about IT” …stop that!! You’re not fooling anybody. Nobody believes it! All it does is make the whole sector look even more like a circus to our customers than it already does. The lack of courage to admit the truth here is having a negative impact on society in general.

Seems to me that the “mandatory” label for CISSP in job qualifications is now rare to see. But CISSP is still alive and is better than nothing. Just stop pretending that it’s anything other than an inch thick and a mile wide.

Really we need an entry-level accreditation that tests a baseline level of technical skills and the possession of an attack mindset. We can’t attack or defend, or make calls on risk without an attack mindset. GRC is a thing in security and its a relevant thing – but it doesn’t take up much intellectual space so therefore it needs to be a small part of the requirements. Level 2 SOC Analysts need to understand risk and the importance of application availability, and the value of electronic information to the business, but this doesn’t require them to go and get a dedicated accreditation. Information Security Manage-ment is really an area for Manage-ers – the clue is in the name.

What are the two biggest challenges in terms of intellectual capital investment? They’re still operating systems (and ill-advised PaaS and SaaS initiatives haven’t changed this) and applications. So let’s focus on these two as the biggest chunks of stuff that an infosec team has to cover, and test entry-level skills in these areas.

Share This:

Musang – Oracle DB Security Testing – v1.8

Musang is a Docker-supplied Python/Django project for authenticated security testing scans for Oracle Database, for on-premise, or cloud SaaS, PaaS or IaaS stacks.

The last update of Musang (1.4) was in 2013! So this latest update (1.8) brings Musang into the modern age of old software by introducing support for 12c databases – after all i’m sure there are lots who upgraded from 9g. Right?

No but seriously, Oracle Database 12c introduces the concept of Containers and Pluggable Databases (PDB). It also stores password hashes in a dramatically different way (The mighty Pete Finnegan explains about these hashes so I don’t have to). The user doesn’t have to lose sleep worrying about such things – Musang auto-detects Database versions and selects the corresponding library of tests. However the connection string passed to the Database has to use the right SID of course – do you want to connect to a container or PDB?

Other major changes centred around Python 2.x going EOL – and with it the shift to Django 2.x.

An account privileges dump (for non-SYS, SYSTEM users) has been added also, and the output links each account to the account status (locked, expired, open, etc) – see below …

A rundown of the major changes…

  • Now covers 12c.
  • For the connection test, when Musang detects 12c it dumps the configuration of containers and pluggable databases – if you connect to the container instance, you see a very different output in some tests – notably the password hashes.
  • To get hashes for SYS and SYSTEM you need to connect to the container, with SYS and “as SYSDBA”. Musang now has as the classic “as SYSDBA” option.
  • Added a privileges dump for non SYS and SYSTEM DBAs – see above screen dump.
  • Phased out django-dajaxice and replaced those calls with native AJAX – basically Dajaxice is terrible and was not maintained for years.
  • Few other changes related to 12c and lots related to the above upgrades.
  • Celery is now 4.2.1.
  • Multiple other changes related to stability and 12c intricacies

Share This:

Prevalent DNS Attacks – is DNSSEC The Answer?

Recently the venerable Brian Krebs covered a mass-DNS hijacking attack wherein suspected Iranian attackers intercepted highly sensitive traffic from public and private organisations. Over the course of the last decade, DNS issues such as cache poisoning and response/request hijacking have caused financial headaches for many organisations.

Wired does occasionally dip into the world of infosec when there’s something major to cover, as they did here, and Arstechnica published an article in January this year that quotes warnings about DNS issues from Federal authorities and private researchers. Interestingly DNSSEC isn’t covered in either of these.

The eggheads behind the Domain Name System Security Extensions (obvious really – you could have worked that out from the use of ‘DNSSEC’) are keeping out of the limelight, and its unknown as to exactly how DNSSEC was conceived, although if you like RFCs (and who doesn’t?) there is a strong clue from RFC 3833 – 2004 was a fine year for RFCs.

The idea that responses from DNS servers may be untrustworthy goes way back, indeed the Council of Elrond behind RFC 3833 called out the year 1993 as being the one where the discussion on this matter was introduced, but the idea was quashed – the threats were not clearly seen in the early 90s. An even more exploitable issue was around lack of access control with networks, but the concept of private networks with firewalls at choke points was far from widespread.

DNSSEC Summarised

For a well-balanced look at DNSSEC, check Cloudfare’s version. Here’s the headline paragraph which serves as a decent summary “DNSSEC creates a secure domain name system by adding cryptographic signatures to existing DNS records. These digital signatures are stored in DNS name servers alongside common record types like A, AAAA, MX, CNAME, etc. By checking its associated signature, you can verify that a requested DNS record comes from its authoritative name server and wasn’t altered en-route, opposed to a fake record injected in a man-in-the-middle attack.”

DNSSEC Gripes

There is no such thing as a “quick look” at a technical coverage of DNSSEC. There is no “birds eye view” aside from “it’s used for DNS authentication”. It is complex – so much so that’s it’s amazing that it even works at all. It is PKI-like in its complexity but PKIs do not generally live almost entirely on the Public Internet – the place where nothing bad ever happened and everything is always available.

The resources required to make DNSSEC work, with key rotation, are not negligible. A common scenario – architecture designs call out a requirement for authentication of DNS responses in the HLD, then the LLD speaks of DNSSEC. But you have to ask yourself – how do client-side resolvers know what good looks like? If you’re comparing digital signatures, doesn’t that mean that the client needs to know what a good signature is? There’s some considerable work needed to get, for example, a Windows 10/Server 2k12 environment DNSSEC-ready: client side configuration.

DNSSEC is far from ubiquitous. Indeed – here’s a glaring example of that:


iantibble$ dig update.microsoft.com dnskey

via GIPHY

So, maybe i’m missing something, but i’m not seeing any Resource Records for DNSSEC here. And that’s bad, especially when threat modelling tells us that in some architectures, controls can be used to mitigate risk with most attack vectors, but if WSUS isn’t able to make a call on whether or not its pulling patches from an authentic source, this opens the door for attackers to introduce bad stuff into the network. DNSSEC isn’t going to help in this case.

Overall the provision of DNSSEC RRs for .com domains is less than 10%, and there are some interesting stats here that show that the most commonly used Domain Name registrars do not allow users to add DNSSEC records even if they wanted to.

Don’t forget key rotation – DNSSEC is subject to key management. The main problem with Cryptography in the business world has been less about brute-forcing keys and exploiting algorithm weaknesses than is has been about key management weaknesses – keys need to be stored, rotated, and transported securely. Here’s an example of an epic fail in this area, in this case with the NSA’s IAD site. The page linked to by that tweet has gone missing.

For an organisation wishing to authenticate DNS responses, DNSSEC really does have to be ubiquitous – and that can be a challenge with mobile/remote workers. In the article linked above from Brian Krebs, the point was made that the two organisations involved are both vocal proponents and adopters of DNSSEC, but quoting from Brian’s article: “On Jan. 2, 2019 — the same day the DNSpionage hackers went after Netnod’s internal email system — they also targeted PCH directly, obtaining SSL certificates from Comodo for two PCH domains that handle internal email for the company. Woodcock said PCH’s reliance on DNSSEC almost completely blocked that attack, but that it managed to snare email credentials for two employees who were traveling at the time. Those employees’ mobile devices were downloading company email via hotel wireless networks that — as a prerequisite for using the wireless service — forced their devices to use the hotel’s DNS servers, not PCH’s DNNSEC-enabled systems.”

Conclusion

Organisations do need to take DNS security more seriously – based on what i’ve seen most are not even logging DNS queries and answers, occasionally even OS and app layer logs are AWOL on the servers that handle these requests (these are typically serving AD to the organisation in a MS Windows world!).

But we do need DNS. The alternative is manually configuring IP addresses in a load balanced and forward-proxied world where the Origin IP address of web services isn’t at all clear. We are really back in pen and paper territory if there’s no DNS. And there’s also no real, planet earth alternative to DNSSEC.

DNSSEC does actually work as it was intended and its a technically sound concept, and as in Brian’s article, it has thwarted or delayed attacks. It comes with the management costs of any key management system, and relies on private and public organisations to DNSSEC-ize themselves (as well as manage their keys).

While I regard myself an advocate of DNSSEC deployment, it’s clear there are legitimate criticisms of DNSSEC. But we need some way of authentication of answers we receive from public DNS servers. DNSSEC is a key management system that works in principle.

If the private sector applies enough pressure, we won’t be seeing so many articles about either DNS attacks or DNSSEC, because it will be one of those aspects of engineering that has been addressed and seen as a mandatory aspect of security architecture.

Share This:

Infosec in APAC – A Very Summarised View

I spent a total of 16 years working in infosec in APAC – across the region as a whole except for India and mainland China. I was based initially in a pen test/research lab in Thailand with regional customers, and then later spent some time with big-4 in Thailand, before moving base to Jakarta for what will probably be my final stint in the region. As well as the aforementioned places i spent lots of time in Singapore, Taiwan, and HK. Less so in Malaysia, and i never worked in either of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, or the Philippines.

I was in APAC for most of the period between 1999 and 2013. My time with the consultancy which was based in Bangkok (although there was only one client account in Thailand) made up the formative, simulated-attack experience of my career – not a bad place to start. There were some brief spells away in the UK and Czech Republic (the best blue team experience one can hope to find). Overall i was lucky with the places I worked in, and especially the people I worked with – some of whom quit infosec not long after the Great Early Noughties Infosec Brain Drain. 

Appetite for risk is high in APAC – just look at the stats for insurance sales in the region. What results in infosec, even in banking and finance though, is exactly the same as the west – base compliance only. The difference is something like this: western CEOs showed interest and worried about cyber at some point in time, but when they went looking for answers they didn’t find any, other than buzzwords from CISSPs – result: base compliance – aka lets just get thru the audit. In Asia the CEOs didn’t go looking for answers – its just base compliance, do not pass go. But before you pass judgment on this statement – read on.

Where APAC countries were better was the lack of any pretence around GRC. You will never hear anything along the lines “security is not about IT” – i.e. there is no community of self-serving non-technical GRC folk spouting acronyms. Western countries blow billions down the dunny on this nonsense.

So both regions have poor security. Both face a significant threat. But if you measure security performance in terms of how much is spent, versus the results – there’s a clear winner, and that is APAC. Both have poor security, but one spends more for poor security than the other.

Share This: