Many people who may only casually read my blog or peer at the timeline of my tweets may come away with the opinion that I suffer from confirmation bias when I speak about security and Cloud.
That is, many conclude that I am pro Private Cloud and against Public Cloud.
I find this deliciously ironic and wildly inaccurate. However, I must also take responsibility for this, as anytime one threads the needle and attempts to present a view from both sides with regard to incendiary topics without planting a polarizing stake in the ground, it gets confusing.
Let me clear some things up.
Digging deeper into what I believe, one would actually find that my blog, tweets, presentations, talks and keynotes highlight deficiencies in current security practices and solutions on the part of providers, practitioners and users in both Public AND Private Cloud, and in my own estimation, deliver an operationally-centric perspective that is reasonably critical and yet sensitive to emergent paths as well as the well-trodden path behind us.
I’m not a developer. I dabble in little bits of code (interpreted and compiled) for humor and to try and remain relevant. Nor am I an application security expert for the same reason. However, I spend a lot of time around developers of all sorts, those that write code for machines whose end goal isn’t to deliver applications directly, but rather help deliver them securely. Which may seem odd as you read on…
The name of this blog, Rational Survivability, highlights my belief that the last two decades of security architecture and practices — while useful in foundation — requires a rather aggressive tune-up of priorities.
Our trust models, architecture, and operational silos have not kept pace with the velocity of the environments they were initially designed to support and unfortunately as defenders, we’ve been outpaced by both developers and attackers.
Since we’ve come to the conclusion that there’s no such thing as perfect security, “survivability” is a better goal. Survivability leverages “security” and is ultimately a subset of resilience but is defined as the “…capability of a system to fulfill its mission, in a timely manner, in the presence of attacks, failures, or accidents.” You might be interested in this little ditty from back in 2007 on the topic.
Sharp readers will immediately recognize the parallels between this definition of “survivability,” how security applies within context, and how phrases like “design for failure” align. In fact, this is one of the calling cards of a company that has become synonymous with (IaaS) Public Cloud: Amazon Web Services (AWS.) I’ll use them as an example going forward.
So here’s a line in the sand that I think will be polarizing enough:
I really hope that AWS continues to gain traction with the Enterprise. I hope that AWS continues to disrupt the network and security ecosystem. I hope that AWS continues to pressure the status quo and I hope that they do it quickly.
Why?
Almost a decade ago, the Open Group’s Jericho Forum published their Commandments. Designed to promote a change in thinking and operational constructs with respect to security, what they presciently released upon the world describes a point at which one might imagine taking one’s most important assets and connecting them directly to the Internet and the shifts required to understand what that would mean to “security”:
- The scope and level of protection should be specific and appropriate to the asset at risk.
- Security mechanisms must be pervasive, simple, scalable, and easy to manage.
- Assume context at your peril.
- Devices and applications must communicate using open, secure protocols.
- All devices must be capable of maintaining their security policy on an un-trusted network.
- All people, processes, and technology must have declared and transparent levels of trust for any transaction to take place.
- Mutual trust assurance levels must be determinable.
- Authentication, authorization, and accountability must interoperate/exchange outside of your locus/area of control
- Access to data should be controlled by security attributes of the data itself
- Data privacy (and security of any asset of sufficiently high value) requires a segregation of duties/privileges
- By default, data must be appropriately secured when stored, in transit, and in use.
These seem harmless enough today, but were quite unsettling when paired with the notion of “de-perimieterization” which was often misconstrued to mean the immediate disposal of firewalls. Many security professionals appreciated the commandments for what they expressed, but the the design patterns, availability of solutions and belief systems of traditionalists constrained traction.
Interestingly enough, now that the technology, platforms, and utility services have evolved to enable these sorts of capabilities, and in fact have stressed our approaches to date, these exact tenets are what Public Cloud forces us to come to terms with.
If one were to look at what public cloud services like AWS mean when aligned to traditional “enterprise” security architecture, operations and solutions, and map that against the Jericho Forum’s Commandments, it enables such a perfect rethink.
Instead of being focused on implementing “security” to protect applications and information based at the network layer — which is more often than not blind to both, contextually and semantically — public cloud computing forces us to shift our security models back to protecting the things that matter most: the information and the conduits that traffic in them (applications.)
As networks become more abstracted, it means that existing security models do also. This means that we must think about security programatticaly and embedded as a functional delivery requirement of the application.
“Security” in complex, distributed and networked systems is NOT a tidy simple atomic service. It is, unfortunately, represented as such because we choose to use a single noun to represent an aggregate of many sub-services, shotgunned across many layers, each with its own context, metadata, protocols and consumption models.
As the use cases for public cloud obscure and abstract these layers — flattens them — we’re left with the core of that which we should focus:
Build secure, reliable, resilient, and survivable systems of applications, comprised of secure services, atop platforms that are themselves engineered to do the same in way in which the information which transits them inherits these qualities.
So if Public Cloud forces one to think this way, how does one relate this to practices of today?
Frankly, enterprise (network) security design patterns are a crutch. The screened-subnet DMZ patterns with perimeters is outmoded. As Gunnar Peterson eloquently described, our best attempts at “security” over time are always some variation of firewalls and SSL. This is the sux0r. Importantly, this is not stated to blame anyone or suggest that a bad job is being done, but rather that a better one can be.
It’s not like we don’t know *what* the problems are, we just don’t invest in solving them as long term projects. Instead, we deploy compensation that defers what is now becoming more inevitable: the compromise of applications that are poorly engineered and defended by systems that have no knowledge or context of the things they are defending.
We all know this, but yet looking at most private cloud platforms and implementations, we gravitate toward replicating these traditional design patterns logically after we’ve gone to so much trouble to articulate our way around them. Public clouds make us approach what, where and how we apply “security” differently because we don’t have these crutches.
Either we learn to walk without them or simply not move forward.
Now, let me be clear. I’m not suggesting that we don’t need security controls, but I do mean that we need a different and better application of them at a different level, protecting things that aren’t tied to physical topology or addressing schemes…or operating systems (inclusive of things like hypervisors, also.)
I think we’re getting closer. Beyond infrastructure as a service, platform as a service gets us even closer.
Interestingly, at the same time we see the evolution of computing with Public Cloud, networking is also undergoing a renaissance, and as this occurs, security is coming along for the ride. Because it has to.
As I was writing this blog (ironically in the parking lot of VMware awaiting the start of a meeting to discuss abstraction, networking and security,) James Staten (Forrester) tweeted something from @Werner Vogels keynote at AWS re:invent:
I couldn’t have said it better myself 🙂
So while I may have been, and will continue to be, a thorn in the side of platform providers to improve the “survivability” capabilities to help us get from there to there, I reiterate the title of this scribbling: Amazon Web Services (AWS) Is the Best Thing To Happen To Security & I Desperately Want It To Succeed.
I trust that’s clear?
/Hoff
P.S. There’s so much more I could/should write, but I’m late for the meeting 🙂
Related articles
Rich Mogull (Securosis) and I have given a standing set of talks over the last 5-6 years at the RSA Security Conference that focus on innovation, disruption and ultimately making security practitioners more relevant in the face of all this churn.
Recent Comments