Rational Survivability

I was reading Reuven Cohen's "Elastic Vapor: Life In the Cloud Blog" yesterday and he wrote an interesting piece on what is being coined "Fraud as a Service."  Basically, Reuven describes the rise of botnets as the origin of "cloud" based service utilities as chronicled from Uri Rivner's talk at RSA Europe:

The one sentence that really clicked for me was the following:

Amen. 

One of the obvious benefits of cloud computing is the distribution of applications, services and information.  The natural by-product of this is additional resiliency from operational downtime caused by error or malicious activity.

This benefit is a also a forcing function; it will require new security methodologies and technology to allow the security (policies) to travel with the applications and data as well as enforce it.

I wrote about this concept back in 2007 as part of my predictions for 2008 and highlighted it again in a post titled: "Thinning the Herd and Chlorinating the Malware Gene Pool" based on some posts by Andy Jaquith:

Grid and distributed utility computing models will start to creep into security
A
really interesting by-product of the "cloud compute" model is that as
data, storage, networking, processing, etc. get distributed, so shall
security.  In the grid model, one doesn't care where the actions take
place so long as service levels are met and the experiential and
business requirements are delivered.  Security should be thought of in
exactly the same way. 

The notion that you can point to a
physical box and say it performs function 'X' is so last Tuesday.
Virtualization already tells us this.  So, imagine if your security
processing isn't performed by a monolithic appliance but instead is
contributed to in a self-organizing fashion wherein the entire
ecosystem (network, hosts, platforms, etc.) all contribute in the
identification of threats and vulnerabilities as well as function to
contain, quarantine and remediate policy exceptions.

Sort
of sounds like that "self-defending network" schpiel, but not focused
on the network and with common telemetry and distributed processing of
the problem.
Check out Red Lambda's cGrid technology for an interesting view of this model.

This
basically means that we should distribute the sampling, detection and
prevention functions across the entire networked ecosystem, not just to
dedicated security appliances; each of the end nodes should communicate
using a standard signaling and telemetry protocol so that common
threat, vulnerability and effective disposition can be communicated up
and downstream to one another and one or more management facilities.

It will be interesting to watch companies, established and emerging, grapple with this new world.

/Hoff

I was reading an article on SlashFood titled "Drinking Straw: Friend or Foe" and chuckled at the parallels to the reflexive hyping, purchase and (oft failed) use of "solutions" in the security space.  Sometimes I think we need a securitysnopes.com:

Brings new meaning to "security sucks."  What's your favorite "security straw" analogy?

/Hoff

I'm afraid it's come to this, Simon.

It occurs to me that the only way we can settle our debate to finality is via mortal combat.

I'm calling you out:

Real shipping versions of you only, no virtual replicas or stand-ins allowed.  We'll get sponsors.

You wouldn't want to let down the community now would you Simon?

See you in San Francisco…

/Hoff

UPDATE: Simon is THE man!  He's accepted the battle.  We'll have an
all-star panel of judges and Dan Kaminsky has agreed to referee. 
Winner gets grandma's cookies! w00t!

Simon Crosby and I have been going 'round a bit lately arguing the premise of where, why, when, how and how much security should be invested by either embedding it in the virtualization platform itself or being addressed by third parties.

Simon's last sentence in his latest riposte titled "Hoff is Still Confused" was interesting:

Well, how the hell am I supposed to argue with that!? ;)  OK, now I am confused! Simon's taken the high road and thus I shall try to do so, too.  I wrote a ton more in response, but I'm not sure anybody cares. 😉

All told, I think we're both aiming at a similar goal in spite of our disparate approaches: achieving a more secure virtualized environment.

But seriously, I don't think that I'm confused about Citrix's position on this matter, I just fundamentally disagree with it.

I feel strongly that Simon and I really are on different sides of a religious issue but without a more reasonable platform for discussion, I'm not sure how we'll intelligently discuss this more coherently without all the back and forth.  Perhaps a cage match in sumo suits!?

I appreciate Simon clarifying his position and reaching out to ensure we are on the same page.  We're not, but the book's not closed yet. 

So we agree to disagree, and I respect Simon for his willingness to debate the issue.

/Hoff

Hello.

I wonder if you might help me.

I operate an e-commerce Internet-based business that processes and stores cardholder data.

I need a QSA to assess my infrastructure and operations for PCI/DSS compliance.

Oh, I forgot to mention.  All my infrastructure is in the cloud.  It's all virtualized.  It runs on Amazon's EC2.  All my data is hosted outside of my direct stewardship.  I don't own anything.

Since the cloud hides all the infrastructure and moving parts from me, I don't know if I meet any of the following PCI requirements:


I don't know if there are firewalls. I don't know about the cloud-vendor's passwords, AV, access control/monitoring, vulnerability management or security processes.

A friend told me about section 12.8, but it doesn't really apply because the "service" provider just provides me cycles and storage, I run the apps I build but I don't see any of the underlying infrastructure.

Also, I have no portability for BCP/DR because my AMI only runs on the Amazon cloud, nowhere else.  I don't know who/how backups are done outside of my manifest.

I'm sure we could ask though, right?

Seems logical…

However, this is the quandary we're facing with virtualization and cloud computing.  In terms of the companies that hire these PCI compliance experts, the assessment methodology/requirements are predicated upon a "standard" that continues to be out of touch with the economic and technological world around it.  That's not the experts' fault, they're scoring you against a set of requirements that are black and white. 

As companies try and leverage technology to be more secure, to transfer risk, to focus on the things that matter most and reduce costs — if you believe the marketing — It's really a no-win situation.

The PCI Security Standards Council doesn't even have a SIG for virtualization and yet we see the crushing onslaught of virtualization with no guidance and this tidal wave has been rushing at us for at least 3-5 years.   If you believe the uptake of cloud computing, we're blindly hurdling over the challenges that virtualized internally-owned infrastructure brings and careening headlong down a path to cloud computing that leaves us in non-compliance.

The definition of what a "service provider" means and how they interact with the cardholder data companies are supposed to protect needs to be redefined.

It's time the PCI Council steps up and gets in front of the ball and not crushed by it such that the companies that would do the right thing — if they knew what that meant — aren't punished by an out-of-touch set of standards.

Gunnar just hit a home run responding to John Pescatore's one line, twelve word summarization of how to measure a security program's effectiveness.  Read Gunnar's post in it's entirety but here's the short version:

Pescatore says:

To which Gunnar suggests:

…and revises Pescatore's assertion to read:

To which, given today's economic climate, I argue the following simplification:

I maintain that if, as John suggests, you want to introduce the emotive index of "happiness" and relate it to a customer's overall experience when interacting with your business, then the best security program is one that isn't seen or felt at all.  Achieving that Zen-like balance is, well, difficult.

It's hard enough to derive metrics that adequately define a security program's effectiveness, value, and impact on risk.  Balanced scorecard or not, the last thing we need is the introduction of a satisfaction quotient that tries to quantify (on a scale from 1-10?) the "warm and fuzzies" a customer enjoys whilst having their endpoint scanned by a NAC device before attaching to your portal… 😉

I understand what John was shooting for, but it's like suggesting that there's some sort of happiness I can achieve when I go shopping for car insurance.

/Hoff

Hat-tip to David Marshall for the pointer.

In what can only be described as the natural evolution of Xen's security architecture, news comes of a Xen community project to integrate a VM Introspection API and accompanying security functionality into Xen.  Information is quite sparse, but I hope to get more information from the project leader, Stephen Spector, shortly. (*Update: Comments from Stephen below)

This draws naturally obvious parallels to VMware's VMsafe/vNetwork API's which will yield significant differentiation and ease in integrating security capabilities with VMware infrastructure when solutions turn up starting in Q1'09.

From the Xen Introspection Project wiki:

The
purpose of the Xen Introspection Project is to design an API for
performing VM introspection and implement the necessary functionality
into Xen. It is anticipated that the project will include the following
activities (in loose order): (1) identification of specific
services/functions that introspection should support, (2) discussion of
how that functionality could be achieved under the Xen architecture,
(3) prioritization of functionality and activities, (4) API definition,
and (5) implementation.

It is important to note that this is not the first VMI project for Xen.  There is also the Georgia Tech XenAccess project lead by Bryan Payne which is a library which allows a privileged domain to gain access to the runtime state of another domain.  XenAccess focuses (initially) on memory introspection but is adaptable to disk I/O also:

I wonder if we'll see XenAccess fold into the VMI Xen project?

Astute readers will also remember my post titled "The Ghost of Future's Past: VirtSec Innovation Circa 2002" in which I reviewed work done by Mendel Rosenblum and Tal Garfinkel (both of VMware fame) on the LiveWire project which outlined VMI for isolation and intrusion detection:

What's old is new again.

Given my position advocating VMI and the need for inclusion of this capacity in all virtualization platforms versus that of Simon Crosby, Citrix's (XenSource) CTO in our debate on the matter, I'll be interested to see how this project develops and if Citrix contributes. 

Microsoft desperately needs a similar capability in Hyper-V if they are to be successful in ensuring security beyond VMM integrity in their platform and if I were a betting man, despite their proclivity for open-closedness, I'd say we'll see something to this effect soon.

I look forward to more information and charting the successful evolution of both the Xen Introspection Project and XenAccess.

/Hoff

Update: I reached out to Stephen Spector and he was kind enough to respond to a couple of points raised in this blog (paraphrased from a larger email):

Bryan Payne from Georgia tech will be participating in the project and there is some other work going on at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. The leader for the project is Stephen Brueckner from NYC-AT.

As for participation, Citrix has people already committed and I have 14 people who have asked to take part.

Sounds like the project is off to a good start! 

Microsoft’s announcements today at OzzieFest (Microsoft’s PDC) include the unveiling of Windows Azure.

The Azure “services platform” is described as:

Holy buzzword bingo, batman!

Look, when I’m forced into vendor lock-in in order to host my applications and I am confined to one vendor’s datacenters without portability, that’s not ” the cloud” and it’s not an “open architecture,” it’s marketing-speak for “we’re now your ASP/XaaS service provider of choice.”

Azure doesn’t run “in the cloud.” It’s a set of hosted services connected to the Internet. In this case the “cloud” is more like fog which encircles the islands of data inhabited by Dr. Moreau and his ghoulish API-infected creatures. (Ed: In full disclosure a year later this strategy makes a crap-load more sense. I simply didn’t get it at all back when I wrote this post)

Amazon has their hosting infrastructure and API’s/SDK’s, Microsoft has theirs. Google, too.

You might convince me there is such thing as THE cloud if there was ONE standardized API subscribed to by everyone who claims membership in the cloud. But there isn’t. Everyone is announcing their own little island with their own API, own “datacenter operating system,” etc.

I go back to my recent rant titled “Will You All Please Shut-Up About Securing THE Cloud…NO SUCH THING…” wherein I stated:

Again, I’m not suggesting that this model is not reasonable, warranted or worthwhile. I am a big believer in leveraging open architectures for the interoperable exchange of data as well as resiliency, scale and utility computing.

I’m simply suggesting that re-branding the word “Internet” and implementing ROT13 to arrive at “Cloud” is really confusing and intellectually dishonest.

It’s not FUD, it’s FOG.

/Hoff

This is in response to my buddy Alex Hutton's blog post titled "Cloud Computing – Stormy Weather?"

If you took a poll
of folks in a crowd
asking them to define
what they thought of "the cloud"

I guess this all depends
on which model of cloud
you decide to rely on
to make your CIO proud

But the cloud ain't an answer
it's a cyclic response,
evolutionary next-steps
to what the tech. industry wants

You dress up this pig
in a nice looking dress
security will be here
to clean up the mess

Just to confuse you, as a lead-in on this topic, please first read my recent rant titled “Will You All Please Shut-Up About Securing THE Cloud…NO SUCH THING…”

Let’s say the grand vision comes to fruition where enterprises begin to outsource to a cloud operator the hosting of previously internal complex mission-critical enterprise applications.

After all, that’s what we’re being told is the Next Big Thing™

In this version of the universe, the enterprise no longer owns the operational elements involved in making the infrastructure tick — the lights blink, packets get delivered, data is served up and it costs less for what is advertised is the same if not better reliability, performance and resilience.

Oh yes, “Security” is magically provided as an integrated functional delivery of service.

Tastes great, less datacenter filling.

So, in a corner case example, what does a boundary condition like the out-of-cycle patch release of MS08-067 mean when your infrastructure and applications are no longer yours to manage and the ownership of the “stack” disintermediates you from being able to control how, when or even if vulnerability remediation anywhere in the stack (from the network on up to the app) is assessed, tested or deployed.

Your application is sitting atop an operating system and underlying infrastructure that is managed by the cloud operator.  This “datacenter OS” may not be virtualized or could actually be sitting atop a hypervisor which is integrated into the operating system (Xen, Hyper-V, KVM) or perhaps reliant upon a third party solution such as VMware.  The notion of cloud implies shared infrastructure and hosting platforms, although it does not imply virtualization.

A patch affecting any one of the infrastructure elements could cause a ripple effect on your hosted applications.  Without understanding the underlying infrastructure dependencies in this model, how does one assess risk and determine what any patch might do up or down the stack?  How does an enterprise that has no insight into the “black box” model of the cloud operator, setup a dev/test/staging environment that acceptably mimics the operating environment?

What happens when the underlying CloudOS gets patched (or needs to be) and blows your applications/VMs sky-high (in the PaaS/IaaS models?)

How does one negotiate the process for determining when and how a patch is deployed?  Where does the cloud operator draw the line?   If the cloud fabric is democratized across constituent enterprise customers, however isolated, how does a cloud provider ensure consistent distributed service?  If an application can be dynamically provisioned anywhere in the fabric, consistency of the platform is critical.

I hate to get all “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” on you, but as Spock said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”  How, when and if a provider might roll a patch has a broad impact across the entire customer base — as it has had in the hosting markets for years — but again the types of applications we are talking about here are far different than what we we’re used to today where the applications and the infrastructure are inextricably joined at the hip.

Hosting/SaaS providers today can scale because of one thing: standardization.  Certainly COTS applications can be easily built on standardized tiered models for compute, storage and networking, but again, we’re being told that enterprises will move all their applications to the cloud, and that includes bespoke creations.

If that’s not the case, and we end up with still having to host some apps internally and some apps in the cloud, we’ve gained nothing (from a cost reduction perspective) because we won’t be able to eliminate the infrastructure needed to support either.

Taking it one step further, what happens if there is standardization on the underlying Cloud platform (CloudOS?) and one provider “patches” or updates their Cloud offering but another does or cannot? If we ultimately talk about VM portability between providers running the “same” platform, what will this mean?  Will things break horribly or be instantiated in an insecure manner?

What about it?  Do you see cloud computing as just an extension of SaaS and hosting of today?  Do you see dramatically different issues arise based upon the types of information and applications that are being described in this model?  We’ve seen issues such as data ownership, privacy and portability bubble up, but these are much more basic operational questions.

This is obviously a loaded set of questions for which I have much to say — some of which is obvious — but I’d like to start a discussion, not a rant.

/Hoff

*This little ditty was inspired by a Twitter exchange with Bob Rudis who was complaining that Amazon’s EC2 service did not have the MS08-067 patch built into the AMI…Check out this forum entry from Amazon, however, as it’s rather apropos regarding the very subject of this blog…