Rational Survivability

Ellen Rubin and John Considine from CloudSwitch chuckled when I muttered this toward them in some sort of channeled pantomime of what an evaluation of their offering might bring from public-only cloud apologists.

Afterall, simply taking an application and moving it to a cloud doesn’t make it a “cloud application.”  Further, to fully leverage the automation, scale, provisioning and orchestration of “true” cloud platforms, one must re-write one’s applications and deal with the associated repercussions of doing so.  Things like security, networking, compliance, operations, etc.  Right?

Well…

CloudSwitch’s solutions — which defy this fundamental rearchitecture requirement —  enable enterprises to securely encapsulate and transport enterprise datacenter-hosted VM-based applications as-is and run them atop public cloud provider environments such as Amazon Web Services and Terremark in a rather well designed, security-conscious manner.

The reality is that their customer base — large enterprises in many very demanding verticals — seek to divine strategic technologies that allow them to pick and choose what, how and when to decide to “cloudify” their environments.  In short, CloudSwitch TODAY offers these customers a way to leverage the goodness of public utility in cloud without the need to fundamentally rearchitect the applications and accompanying infrastructure stacks — assuming they are already virtualized.  CloudSwitch seeks to do a lot more as they mature the product.

I went deep on current product capabilities and then John and I spent a couple of hours going off the reservation discussing what the platform plans are — both roadmapped and otherwise.

It was fascinating.

The secure isolation and network connectivity models touch on overlay capabilities from third parties, hypervisor/cloud stack providers like VMware (vCloud Director) as well as offers from folks like Amazon and their VPC, but CloudSwitch provides a way to solve many of the frustrating and sometimes show-stopping elements of application migration to cloud.  The preservation of bridged/routed networking connectivity back to the enterprise LAN is well thought out.

This is really an audit and compliance-friendly solution…pair a certified cloud provider (like AWS, as an example) up with app stacks in VMs that the customer is responsible for getting certified (see the security/compliance=shared responsibility post) and you’ve got something sweeter’n YooHoo…

It really exemplifies the notion of what people think of when they envision Hybrid Cloud today.  “Native” cloud apps written specifically for cloud environments, “transported” cloud apps leveraging CloudSwitch, and on-premises enterprise datacenters all interconnected.  Sweet.  More than just networking…

For the sake of not treading on FrieNDA elements that weaved their way in and out of our conversation, I’m not at liberty to discuss many of the things that really make this a powerful platform both now and in future releases.  If you want more technical detail on how it works, call ’em up, visit their website or check out Krishnan’s post.

Let me just say that the product today is impressive — it has some features from a security, compliance, reporting and auditing perspective I think can be further improved, but if you are an enterprise looking for a way to today make graceful use of public cloud computing in a secure manner, I’d definitely take a look at CloudSwitch.

/Hoff

Related articles

• CloudSwitch Releases New Version With Enhances Enterprise Features (cloudave.com)
• “Lights Out” in the Cloud (devcentral.f5.com)
• CloudSwitch Lets Developers Provision Apps in the Cloud with Point-and-Click Simplicity (devx.com)
• The Shifting Market for the Extended or Hybrid Cloud (readwriteweb.com)

I’m not sure this makes any sense whatsoever, but that’s why it’s labeled “incomplete thought,” isn’t it? 😉

A few weeks ago I was delivering my Cloudinomicon talk at the Cloud Security Alliance Congress in Orlando and as I was describing the cyclical nature of computing paradigms and the Security Hamster Sine Wave of Pain, it dawned on me — out loud — that we have Apple’s iPhone and its U.S. carrier, AT&T, to thank for the success of Cloud Computing.

My friends from AT&T perked up when I said that.  Then I explained…

So let me set this up. It will require some blog article ping-pong in order to reference earlier scribbling on the topic, but here’s the very rough process:

1. I’ve pointed out that there are two fundamental perspectives when describing Cloud and Cloud Computing: the operational provider’s view and the experiential consumer’s view.  To the provider, the IT-centric, empirical and clinical nuances are what matters. To the consumer, anything that connects to the Internet via any computing platform using any app that interacts with any sort of information is also cloud.  There’s probably a business/market view, but I’ll keep things simple for purpose of illustration.  I wrote about this here:  Cloud/Cloud Computing Definitions – Why they Do(n’t) Matter…
   –
2. As we look at the adoption of cloud computing, the consumption model ultimately becomes more interesting than how the service is delivered (as it commoditizes.) My presentation “The Future of Cloud” focused on the fact that the mobile computing platforms (phones, iPads, netbooks, thin(ner) clients, etc) are really the next frontier.  I pointed out that we have the simultaneous mass re-centralization of applications and data in massive cloud data centers (however distributed ethereally they may be) and the massive distribution of the same applications and data across increasingly more intelligent, capable and storage-enabled mobile computing devices.  I wrote about this here: Slides from My Cloud Security Alliance Keynote: The Cloud Magic 8 Ball (Future Of Cloud)
   –
3. The iPhone isn’t really that remarkable a piece of technology in and of itself, in fact it capitalizes on and cannibalizes many innovations and technologies that came before it.  However, as I mentioned in my post “Cloud Maturity: Just Like the iPhone, There’s An App For That… “The thing I love about my iPhone is that it’s not a piece of technology I think about but rather, it’s the way I interact with it to get what I want done.  It has its quirks, but it works…for millions of people.  Add in iTunes, the community of music/video/application artists/developers and the ecosystem that surrounds it, and voila…Cloud.”
   –
   
4. At each and every compute paradigm shift, we’ve seen the value of the network waffle between “intelligent” platform and simple transport depending upon where we were with the intersection of speeds/feeds and ubiquity/availability of access (the collision of Moore’s and Metcalfe’s laws?)  In many cases, we’ve had to rely on workarounds that have hindered the adoption of really valuable and worthwhile technologies and operational models because the “network” didn’t deliver.

I think we’re bumping up against point #4 today.  So here’s where I find this interesting.  If we see the move to the consumerized view of accessing resources from mobile platforms to resources located both on-phone and in-cloud, you’ll notice that even in densely-populated high-technology urban settings, we have poor coverage, slow transit and congested, high-latency, low-speed access — wired and wireless for that matter.

This is a problem. In fact it’s such a problem that if we look backward to about 4 years ago when “cloud computing” and the iPhone became entries in the lexicon of popular culture, this issue completely changed the entire application deployment model and use case of the iPhone as a mobile platform.  Huh?

Do you remember when the iPhone first came out? It was a reasonably capable compute platform with a decent amount of storage. It’s network connectivity, however, sucked.

Pair that with the fact that the application strategy was that there was emphatically, per Steve Jobs, not going to be native applications on the iPhone for many reasons, including security.  Every application was basically just a hyperlink to a web application located elsewhere.  The phone was nothing more than a web browser that delivered applications running elsewhere (for the most part, especially when things like Flash were’nt present.) Today we’d call that “The Cloud.”

Interestingly, at this point, he value of the iPhone as an application platform was diminished since it was not highly differentiated from any other smartphone that had a web browser.

Time went by and connectivity was still so awful and unreliable that Apple reversed direction to drive value and revenue in the platform, engaged a developer community, created the App Store and provided for a hybrid model — apps both on-platform and off — in order to deal with this lack of ubiquitous connectivity.  Operating systems, protocols and applications were invented/deployed in order to deal with the synchronization of on- and off-line application and information usage because we don’t have pervasive high-speed connectivity in the form of cellular or wifi such that we otherwise wouldn’t care.

So this gets back to what I meant when I said we have AT&T to thank for Cloud.  If you can imagine that we *did* have amazingly reliable and ubiquitous connectivity from devices like our iPhones — those consumerized access points to our apps and data — perhaps the demand for and/or use patterns of cloud computing would be wildly different from where they are today. Perhaps they wouldn’t, but if you think back to each of those huge compute paradigm shifts — mainframe, mini, micro, P.C., Web 1.0, Web 2.0 — the “network” in terms of reliability, ubiquity and speed has always played a central role in adoption of technology and operational models.

Same as it ever was.

So, thanks AT&T — you may have inadvertently accelerated the back-end of cloud in order to otherwise compensate, leverage and improve the front-end of cloud (and vice versa.)  Now, can you do something about the fact that I have no signal at my house, please?

/Hoff

* Update:  A few hours after writing this last night, AWS announced they had achieved Level 1 PCI DSS Compliance.* If you pay attention to how the announcement is worded, you’ll find a reasonable treatment of what PCI compliance means to an IaaS cloud provider – it’s actually the first time I’ve seen this honestly described:

Merchants and other service providers can now run their applications on AWS PCI-compliant technology infrastructure to store, process and transmit credit card information in the cloud. Customers can use AWS cloud infrastructure, which has been validated at the highest level (Level 1) of PCI compliance, to build their cardholder environment and achieve PCI certification for their applications.

Note how they phrased this, then read my original post below.

However, pay no attention to the fact that they chose to make this announcement on Pearl Harbor Day 😉

—

Here’s the thing…

A cloud provider can achieve compliance (such as PCI — yes v2.0 even) such that the in-scope elements of that provider which are audited and assessed can ultimately contribute to the compliance of a customer operating atop that environment.  We’ve seen a number of providers assert compliance across many fronts, but they marketed their way into a yellow card by over-reaching…

It should be clear already, but for a service to be considered compliant, it clearly means that the customer’s in-scope elements running atop a cloud provider must also undergo and achieve compliance.

That means compliance is elementally additive the same way “security” is when someone else has direct operational control over elements in the stack you don’t.

In the case of an IaaS cloud provider who may achieve compliance from the “concrete to the hypervisor,” (let’s use PCI again,) the customer in turn must have the contents of the virtual machine (OS, Applications, operations, controls, etc.) independently assessed and meet PCI compliance in order that the entire stack of in-scope elements can be described as compliant.

Thus security — and more specifically compliance — in IaaS (and PaaS) is a shared responsibility.

I’ve spent many a blog battling marketing dragons from cloud providers that assert or imply that by only using said provider’s network which has undergone and passed one or more audits against a compliance framework, that any of its customers magically inherit certification by default. I trust this is recognized as completely false.

As compliance frameworks catch up to the unique use-cases that multi-tenancy and technologies such as virtualization bring, we’ll see more “compliant cloud” offerings spring up, easing customer pain related to the underlying moving parts.  This is, for example, what FedRAMP is aiming to provide with “pre-approved” cloud offerings.  We’ve got visibility and transparency issues to solve , as well as temporal issues such as the frequency and period of compliance audits, but there’s progress.

We’re going to see more and more of this as infrastructure- and platform-as-a-service vendors look to mutually accelerate compliance to achieve that which software-as-a-service can more organically deliver as a function of stack control.

/Hoff

* Note: It’s still a little unclear to me how some of the PCI requirements are met in an environment like an IaaS Cloud provider where “applications” that we typically think of that traffic in PCI in-scope data don’t exist (but the infrastructure does,) but I would assume that AWS leverages other certifications such as SAS and ISO as a cumulative to petition the QSA for consideration during certification.  I’ll ask this question of AWS and see what I get back.

Related articles

• Navigating PCI DSS (2.0) – Related to Virtualization/Cloud, May the Schwartz Be With You! (rationalsurvivability.com)
• Seeing Through The Clouds: Understanding the Options and Issues (thesecuritysamurai.com)
• I’ll Say It Again: Security Is NOT the Biggest Barrier To Cloud… (rationalsurvivability.com)
• PCI 2.0 Allows For Compliant Clouds, Make Sure Your Service Providers Are PCI Compliant (securecloudreview.com)
• What’s The Problem With Cloud Security? There’s Too Much Of It… (rationalsurvivability.com)
• FedRAMP. My First Impression? We’re Gonna Need A Bigger Boat… (rationalsurvivability.com)
• Mixed Mode and PCI DSS 2.0 (brandenwilliams.com)
• The Future Of Audit & Compliance Is…Facebook? (rationalsurvivability.com)
• Incomplete Thought: Compliance – The Autotune Of The Security Industry (rationalsurvivability.com)

EMC today launched two new private cloud architect certifications.  I find it intriguing that the certification is described as “Leverag[ing] ‘open’ curriculum training and certification focused on technology concepts and principles applicable to any vendor environment.”  I’ll be interested to see how applicable to Citrix and Hyper-V environments the courseware is… 😉

From their community blog:

Related articles

• Creating A New Generation Of Cloud Professionals (chucksblog.emc.com)

Nope.

Security is not the biggest barrier to companies moving to applications, information and services delivered using cloud computing.

What is?

Compliance.

See Cloud: Security Doesn’t Matter (Or, In Cloud, Nobody Can Hear You Scream) and You Can’t Secure The Cloud…

That means what one gives up in terms of direct operational control, one must gain back in terms of visibility and transparency (sort of like www.cloudaudit.org)

Discuss.

/Hoff

Related articles

• The Future Of Audit & Compliance Is…Facebook? (rationalsurvivability.com)
• Hack The Stack Or Go On a Bender With a Vendor? (rationalsurvivability.com)
• What’s The Problem With Cloud Security? There’s Too Much Of It… (rationalsurvivability.com)
• Navigating PCI DSS (2.0) – Related to Virtualization/Cloud, May the Schwartz Be With You! (rationalsurvivability.com)
• Incomplete Thought: Compliance – The Autotune Of The Security Industry (rationalsurvivability.com)

I’m grumpy, confused and scared.  Classic signs of shock.  I can only describe what I’m feeling by virtue of an analog…

There’s a scene in the movie Jaws where Chief Brody, chumming with fish guts to attract and kill the giant shark from the back of the boat called “The Orca,” meets said fish for the first time.  Terrified by it’s menacing size, he informs [Captain] Quint “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”

I felt like that today as I read through the recently released draft of the long-anticipated FedRAMP documents.  I saw the menace briefly surface, grin at me, and silently slip back into the deep.  Sadly, channeling Brody, I whispered to myself “…we’re gonna need something much sturdier to land this fish we call cloud.”

I’m not going to make any friends with this blog.

I can barely get my arms around all of the issues I have.  There will be sequels, just like with Jaws, though unlike Roy Schneider, I will continue to be as handsome as ever.

Here’s what I do know…it’s 81 pages long and despite my unhappiness with the content and organization, per Vivek Kundra’s introduction, I can say that it will certainly “encourage robust debate on the best path forward.”  Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it…

What I expected isn’t what was delivered in this document. Perhaps in the back of my mind it’s exactly what I expected, it’s just not what I wanted.

This is clearly a workstream product crafted by committee and watered down in the process.  Unlike the shark in Jaws, it’s missing it’s teeth, but it’s just as frightening because its heft is scary enough.  Even though all I can see is the dorsal fin cresting the water’s surface,  it’s enough to make me run for the shore.

As I read though the draft, I was struck by a wave of overwhelming disappointment.  This reads like nothing more than a document which scrapes together other existing legacy risk assessment, vulnerability management, monitoring and reporting frameworks and loosely defines interactions between various parties to arrive at a certification which I find hard to believe isn’t simply a way for audit companies to make more money and service providers to get rubber-stamped service ATO’s without much in the way of improved security or compliance.

This isn’t bettering security, compliance, governance or being innovative.  It’s not solving problems at a mass scale through automation or using new and better-suited mousetraps to do it.  It’s gluing stuff we already have together in an attempt to make people feel better about a hugely disruptive technical, cultural, economic and organizational shift.  This isn’t Gov2.0 at all.  It’s Gov1.0 with a patch.  It’s certainly not Cloud.

Besides the Center for Internet Security reference, there’s no mention of frameworks, tools, or organizations outside of government at all…that explains the myopic focus of “what we have” versus “what we need.”

The document is organized into three chapters:

Chapter 1: Cloud Computing Security Requirement Baseline
This chapter presents a list of baseline security controls for Low and Moderate
impact Cloud systems. NIST Special Publication 800-53R3 provided the foundation
for the development of these security controls.

Chapter 2: Continuous Monitoring
This chapter describes the process under which authorized cloud computing systems
will be monitored. This section defines continuous monitoring deliverables,
reporting frequency and responsibility for cloud service provider compliance with
FISMA.

Chapter 3: Potential Assessment & Authorization Approach
This chapter describes the proposed operational approach for A&A’s for cloud
computing systems. This reflects upon all aspects of an authorization (including
sponsorship, leveraging, maintenance and continuous monitoring), a joint
authorization process, and roles and responsibilities for Federal agencies and Cloud
Service Providers in accordance with the Risk Management Framework detailed in
NIST Special Publication 800-37R1.

It’s clear that the document was written almost exclusively from the perspective of farming out services to Public cloud providers capable of meeting FIPS 199 Low/Moderate requirements.  It appears to be written in the beginning from the perspective of SaaS services and the scoping and definition of cloud isn’t framed — so it’s really difficult to understand what sort of ‘cloud’ services are in scope.  NIST’s own cloud models aren’t presented.  Beyond Public SaaS services, it’s hard to understand whether Private, Hybrid, and Community clouds — PaaS or IaaS — were considered.

It’s like reading an article in Wired about the Administration’s love affair with Google while the realities of security and compliance are cloudwashed over.

I found the additional requirements and guidance related to the NIST 800-53-aligned control objectives to be hit or miss and some of them utterly laughable (such as SC-7 – Boundary Protection: “Requirement: The service provider and service consumer ensure that federal information (other than unrestricted information) being transmitted from federal government entities to external entities using information systems providing cloud services is inspected by TIC processes.”  Good luck with that.  Sections on backup are equally funny.

The “Continuous Monitoring” section requirements wherein the deliverable frequency and responsibile party is laid out engenders a response from “The Princess Bride:”

You keep using that word (continuous)…I do not think it means what you think it means…

Only 2 of the 14 categories are those which FedRAMP is required to provide (pentesting and IV&V of controls.)  All others are the responsibility of the provider.

Sigh.

There’s also not a clear distinction that in a service deployed on IaaS (as an example) where anything in the workload’s VM fits into this scheme (you know…all the really important stuff like information and applications) and how agency processes intersect with the CSP, FedRAMP and the  JAB.

The very dynamism and agility of cloud are swept under the rug, especially in sections discussing change control.  It’s almost laughable…code changes in some “cloud” SaaS vendors every few hours.  The rigid and obtuse classification of the severity of changes is absolutely ludicrous.

I’m unclear if the folks responsible for some of this document have ever used cloud based services, frankly.

“Is there anything good in the document,” you might ask?  Yes, yes there is. Firstly, it exists and frames the topic for discussion.  We’ll go from there.

However, I’m at a loss as how to deliver useful and meaningful commentary back to this team using the methodology they’ve constructed…there’s just so much wrong here.

I’ll do my best to hook up with folks at the NIST Cloud Workshop tomorrow and try, however if I smell anything remotely like seafood, I’m outa there.

/Hoff

Related articles

• Feds Roll Out Cloud Security Guidelines (informationweek.com)
• Administration Proposes Security Requirements For Cloud Computing (techdailydose.nationaljournal.com)
• New Standards for Governmental Agencies on Cloud Computing Security (blogs.csoonline.com)
• Feds Discover 1,000 More Data Centers (datacenterknowledge.com)
• What’s The Problem With Cloud Security? There’s Too Much Of It… (rationalsurvivability.com)
• Hoff’s 5 Rules Of Cloud Security… (rationalsurvivability.com)

[Disclaimer: I’m not a QSA. I don’t even play one on the Internet. Those who are will generally react to posts like these with the stock “it depends” answer, to which I respond “you’re right, it does.  Not sure where that leaves us other than with a collective sigh, but…]

The Payment Card Industry (PCI) last week released version 2.0 of the Data Security Standard (DSS.) [Legal agreement required]  This is an update from v1.2.1 but strangely does not introduce any major new requirements but instead clarifies language.

Accompanying this latest revision is also a guidance document titled “Navigating PCI DSS: Understanding the Intent of the Requirements, v2.0” [PDF]

One of the more interesting additions in the guidance is the direct call-out of virtualization which, although late to the game given the importance of this technology and its operational impact, is a welcome edition to this reader.  I should mention I’ve sat in on three of the virtualization SIG calls which gives me an interesting perspective as I read through the document.  Let me just summarize by saying that “…you can’t please all the people, all of the time…” 😉

What I find profoundly interesting is that since virtualization is a such a prominent and enabling foundational technology in IaaS Cloud offerings, the guidance is still written as though the multi-tenant issues surrounding cloud computing (as an extension of virtualization) don’t exist and that shared infrastructure doesn’t complicate the picture.  Certainly there are “cloud” providers who don’t use infrastructure shared with other providers beyond themselves in order to deliver service to different customers (I think we call them SaaS providers,) but think about the context of people wanting to use AWS to deliver services that are in scope for PCI.

Here’s what the navigation document has to say specific to virtualization and ultimately how that maps to IaaS cloud offerings.  We’re going to cover just the introductory paragraph in this post with the guidance elements and the actual DSS in a follow-on.  However, since many people are going to use this navigation document as their first blush, let’s see where that gets us:

PCI DSS requirements apply to all system components. In the context of PCI DSS, “system components” are defined as any network component, server or application that is included in, or connected to, the cardholder data environment. System components” also include any virtualization components such as virtual machines, virtual switches/routers, virtual appliances, virtual applications/desktops, and hypervisors.

I would have liked to see specific mention of virtual storage here and although it’s likely included by implication in the management system/sub-system mentions above and below, the direct mention of APIs. Thanks to heavy levels of automation, the operational movements related to DevOps and with APIs becoming the interface of the integration and management planes, these are unexplored lands for many.

I’m also inclined to wonder about virtualization approaches that is not server-centric such as physical networking devices, databases, etc.

If virtualization is implemented, all components within the virtual environment will need to be identified and considered in scope for the review, including the individual virtual hosts or devices, guest machines, applications, management interfaces, central management consoles, hypervisors, etc. All intra-host communications and data flows must be identified and documented, as well as those between the virtual component and other system components.

It can be quite interesting to imagine the scoping exercises (or de-scoping more specifically) associated with this requirement in a cloud environment.  Even if the virtualized platforms are operated solely on behalf of a single customer (read: no shared infrastructure — private cloud,)  this is still an onerous task, so I wonder how — if at all — this could be accomplished in a public IaaS offering given the lack of transparency we see in today’s cloud operators.  Much of what is being asked for relating to infrastructure and “data flows” between the “virtual component and other system components” represents the CSP’s secret sauce.

The implementation of a virtualized environment must meet the intent of all requirements, such that the virtualized systems can effectively be regarded as separate hardware. For example, there must be a clear segmentation of functions and segregation of networks with different security levels; segmentation should prevent the sharing of production and test/development environments; the virtual configuration must be secured such that vulnerabilities in one function cannot impact the security of other functions; and attached devices, such as USB/serial devices, should not be accessible by all virtual instances.

“…clear segmentation of functions and segregation of networks with different security levels” and “the virtual configuration must be secured such that vulnerabilities in one function cannot impact the security of other functions,” eh? I don’t see how anyone can expect to meet this requirement in any system underpinned with a virtualized infrastructure stack (hardware or software) whether it’s multi-tenant or not.  One vulnerability in the hypervisor makes this an impossibility.  Add in management, storage, networking. This basically comes down to trusting in the sanctity of the hypervisor.

Additionally, all virtual management interface protocols should be included in system documentation, and roles and permissions should be defined for managing virtual networks and virtual system components. Virtualization platforms must have the ability to enforce separation of duties and least privilege, to separate virtual network management from virtual server management.

Special care is also needed when implementing authentication controls to ensure that users authenticate to the proper virtual system components, and distinguish between the guest VMs (virtual machines) and the hypervisor.

The rest is pretty standard stuff, but if you read the guidance sections (next post) it gets even more fun.  This is why the subjectivity, expertise and experience of the QSA is so related to the quality of the audit when virtualization and cloud are involved.  For example, let’s take a sneak peek at section 2.2.1, as it is a bit juicy:

2.2.1 Implement only one primary function per server to prevent functions that require different security levels from co-existing
on the same server. (For example, web servers, database servers, and DNS should be implemented on separate servers.)
Note: Where virtualization technologies are in use, implement only one primary function per virtual system component.

I  acknowledge that there are “cloud” providers who are PCI certified at the highest tier.  Many of them are SaaS providers.  Many simply use their own server stacks in co-located facilities but due to their size and services merely call themselves cloud providers — many aren’t even virtualized per the description above.   Further, there are also methods of limiting scope and newer technologies such as tokenization that can assist in solving some of the information-centric issues with what would otherwise be in-scope data, but they offset many of the cost-driven efficiencies marketed by mass-market, low-cost cloud providers today.

Love to hear from an IaaS public cloud provider who is PCI certified (to the VM boundary) with customers that are in turn certified with in-scope applications and cardholder data or even a SaaS provider who sits atop an IaaS provider…

Just read this first before responding, please.

/Hoff

Related articles

• “PCI DSS 2.0 standard released, but detailed virtualization guidance still unavailable” and related posts (itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com)
• Dear Verizon Business: I Have Some Questions About Your PCI-Compliant Cloud… (rationalsurvivability.com)
• Scoping Fun with PCI DSS 2.0 (brandenwilliams.com)
• PCI DSS 2.0 Released, Updating Requirements for Credit Card Security (palisadesystems.com)
• What’s The Problem With Cloud Security? There’s Too Much Of It… (rationalsurvivability.com)

Blogging is very much a broadcast medium.  Sure, people comment every now and then, but I like talking to people; I like to understand what *they* think.

I have some folks I’d like to “interview” for my blog on the topic of cloud – specifically practitioners who have relevant cloud computing experience relevant to ops, compliance, risk, and security. I don’t want anecdotes or take ill-defined polls and I also don’t want to regurgitate my interpretation of what somewhat else said. I want to hear you say it and let others know directly what you said.

Not interested in vendor pitches, thanks.

The structure would be somewhat similar to my Take 5 interviews.  I’d preferably like folks in the architect or CISO/CSO role who have broad exposure to initiatives in their large enterprise or service provider companies.

We can keep it anonymous.

Email me [choff @ packetfilter.com] if you’re interested.

Thanks,

/Hoff

Here’s the biggest challenge I see in Cloud deployment as the topic of security inevitably occurs in conversation:

There’s too much of it.

Huh?

More specifically, much like my points regarding networking in highly-virtualized multi-tenant environments — it’s everywhere — we’ve got the same problem with security.  Security is shot-gunned across the cloud landscape in a haphazard fashion…and the buck (pun intended) most definitely does not stop here.

The reality is that if you’re using IaaS, the lines of demarcation for the responsibility surrounding security may in one take seemed blurred but are in fact extremely well-delineated, and that’s the problem.  I’ve seen quite a few validated design documents outlining how to deploy “secure multi-tentant virtualized environments.”  One of them is 800 pages long.

Check out the diagram below.

I quickly mocked up an IaaS stack wherein you have the Cloud provider supplying, operating, managing and securing the underlying cloud hardware and software layers whilst the applications and information (contained within VM boundaries) are maintained by the consumer of these services.  The list of controls isn’t complete, but it gives you a rough idea of what gets focused on. Do you see some interesting overlaps?  How about gaps?

This is the issue; each one of those layers has security controls in it.  There is lots of duplication and there is lots of opportunity for things to be obscured or simply not accounted for at each layer.

Each of these layers and functional solutions is generally managed by different groups of people.  Each of them is generally managed by different methods and mechanisms.  In the case of IaaS, none of the controls at the hardware and software layers generally intercommunicate and given the abstraction provided as part of the service offering, all those security functions are made invisible to the things running in the VMs.

A practical issue is that the FW, VPN, IPS and LB functions at the hardware layer are completely separate from the FW, VPN, IPS and LB functions at the software layer which are in turn completely separate from the FW, VPN, IPS and LB functions which might be built into the VM’s (or virtual appliances) which sit stop them.

The security in the hardware is isolated from the security in the software which is isolated from the security in the workload.  You can, today, quite literally install the same capabilities up and down the stack without ever meeting in the middle.

That’s not only wasteful in terms of resources but incredibly prone to error in both construction, management and implementation (since at the core it’s all software, and software has defects.)

Keep in mind that at the provider level the majority of these security controls are focused on protecting the infrastructure, NOT the stuff atop it.  By design, these systems are blind to the workloads running atop them (which are often encrypted both at rest and in transit.)  In many cases this is why a provider may not be able to detect an “attack” beyond data such as flows/traffic.

To make things more interesting, in some cases the layer responsible for all that abstraction is now the most significant layer involved in securing the system as a whole and the fundamental security elements associated with the trust model we rely upon.

The hypervisor is an enormous liability; there’s no defense in depth when your primary security controls are provided by the (*ahem*) operating system provider.  How does one provide a compensating control when visibility/transparency [detective] are limited by design and there’s no easy way to provide preventative controls aside from the hooks the thing you’re trying to secure grants access to?

“Trust me” ain’t an appropriate answer.  We need better visibility and capabilities to robustly address this issue.  Unfortunately, there’s no standard for security ecosystem interoperability from a management, provisioning, orchestration or monitoring perspective even within a single stack layer.  There certainly isn’t across them.

In the case of Cloud providers who use commodity hardware with big, flat networks with little or no context for anything other than the flows/IP mappings running over them (thus the hardware layer is portrayed as truly commoditized,) how much better/worse do you think the overall security posture is of a consumer’s workload running atop this stack.  No, that’s not a rhetorical question.  I think the case could be argued either side of the line in the sand given the points I’ve made above.

This is the big suck.  Cloud security suffers from the exact same siloed security telemetry problems as legacy operational models…except now it does it at scale. This is why I’ve always made the case that one can’t “secure the Cloud” — at least not holistically — given this lego brick problem.   Everyone wants to make the claim that they’re technology is that which will be the first to solve this problem.  It ain’t going to happen. Not with the IaaS (or even PaaS) model, it won’t.

However, there is a big opportunity to move forward here.  How?  I’ll give you a hint.  It exists toward the left side of the diagram.

/Hoff

Related articles

• Hoff’s 5 Rules Of Cloud Security… (rationalsurvivability.com)
• Hack The Stack Or Go On a Bender With a Vendor? (rationalsurvivability.com)
• The Missing Piece of Cloud Security? (pcworld.com)
• Cloud Adoption Still Struggles With Security Issues in CSO Survey (securecloudreview.com)
• VMware’s (New) vShield: The (Almost) Bottom Line (rationalsurvivability.com)
• If You Could Have One Resource For Cloud Security… (rationalsurvivability.com)

I’ll be adding a material review of this document here later, but I wanted to make sure folks know this resource exists.

It’s titled the “VMware vCloud Director Security Hardening Guide”

You can download it here (PDF)

The Table of Contents appears reasonably robust…content is TBD

/Hoff

Related articles by Zemanta

• VMWare launches six new vCloud products (zdnet.com)
• How To Wield the New vShield (Edge, App & Endpoint) (rationalsurvivability.com)
• VMware’s (New) vShield: The (Almost) Bottom Line (rationalsurvivability.com)
• VMware’s Cloud Strategy: Neither Deadwood Nor Sandalwood But A Little More Than A Collection Of Driftwoods (cloudave.com)
• VMworld: VMware pushes IT-as-a-service (v3.co.uk)
• Hoff’s 5 Rules Of Cloud Security… (rationalsurvivability.com)
• The Classical DMZ Design Pattern: How To Kill Security In the Cloud (rationalsurvivability.com)
• If You Could Have One Resource For Cloud Security… (rationalsurvivability.com)