Rational Survivability

Two of my favorite bloggers engaged in a trackback love-fest lately on the topic of building security into applications; specifically, enabling applications as a service delivery function to be able to innately detect, respond to and report attacks.

Richard Bejtlich wrote a piece called Security Application Instrumentation and Gunnar Peterson chimed in with Building Coordinated Response In – Learning from the Anasazis.  As usual, these are two extremely well-written pieces and arrive at a well constructed conclusion that we need a standard methodology and protocol for this reporting.  I think that this exquisitely important point will be missed by most of the security industry — specifically vendors.

While security vendor’s hearts are in the right place (stop laughing,) the "security is the center of the universe" approach to telemetry and instrumentation will continue to fall on deaf ears because there are no widely-adopted standard ways of reporting across platforms, operating systems and applications that truly integrate into a balanced scorecard/dashboard that demonstrates security’s contribution to service availability across the enterprise.   I know what you’re thinking…"Oh God, he’s going to talk about metrics!  Ack!"  No.  That’s Andy’s job and he does it much better than I.

This mess is exactly why the SEIM market emerged to clean up the cesspool of log dumps that spew forth from devices that are, by all approximation, utterly unaware of the rest of ecosystem in which they participate.  Take all these crappy log dumps via Syslog and SNMP (which can still be proprietary,) normalize if possible, correlate "stuff" and communicate that something "bad" or "abnormal" has occurred.

How does that communicate what this really means to the business, its ability to function, deliver servce and ultimately the impact on risk posture?  It doesn’t because security reporting is the little kid wearing a dunce hat standing in the corner because it doesn’t play well with others.

Gunnar stated this well:

Coordinated detection and response is the logical conclusion to defense
in depth security architecture. I think the reason that we have
standards for authentication, authorization, and encryption is because
these are the things that people typically focus on at design time.
Monitoring and auditing are seen as runtime operational acitivities,
but if there were standards based ways to communicate security
information and events, then there would be an opportunity for the
tooling and processes to improve, which is ultimately what we need.

So, is the call for "security
application instrumentation"
doomed to fail because we in the security industry will try to reinvent the wheel with proprietary solutions and suggest
that the current toolsets and frameworks which are available as part of
a much larger enterprise management and reporting strategy not enough? 

Bejtlich remarked on the need for mechanisms that report application state must be built into the application and must report more than just performance:

Today we need to talk about applications defending themselves. When
they are under attack they need to tell us, and when they are abused,
subverted, or breached they would ideally also tell us

I would like to see the next innovation be security application instrumentation,
where you devise your application to report not only performance and
fault logging, but also security and compliance logging. Ideally the
application will be self-defending as well, perhaps offering less
vulnerability exposure as attacks increase (being aware of DoS
conditions of course).

I would agree, but I get the feeling that without integrating this telemetry and the output metrics and folding it into response systems whose primary role is to talk about delivery and service levels — of which "security" is a huge factor — the relevance of this data within the visible single pane of glass of enterprise management is lost.

So, rather than reinvent the wheel and incrementally "innovate," why don’t we take something like the Open Group’s Application Response Measurement (ARM) standard, make sure we subscribe to a telemetry/instrumentation format that speaks to the real issues and enable these systems to massage our output in terms of the language of business (risk?) and work to extend what is already a well-defined and accepted enterprise response management toolset to include security?

To wit:

The Application Response Measurement (ARM) standard describes a common
method for integrating enterprise applications as manageable entities.
The ARM standard allows users to extend their enterprise management
tools directly to applications creating a comprehensive end-to-end
management capability that includes measuring application availability,
application performance, application usage, and end-to-end transaction
response time.

Or how about something like EMC’s Smarts:

Maximize availability and performance of
mission-critical IT resources—and the business services they support.
EMC Smarts software provides powerful solutions for managing complex
infrastructures end-to-end, across technologies, and from the network
to the business level. With EMC Smarts innovative technology you can:

• Model components and their relationships across networks, applications, and storage to understand effect on services.
• Analyze data from multiple sources to pinpoint root cause problems—automatically, and in real time.
• Automate discovery, modeling, analysis, workflow, and updates for dramatically lower cost of ownership.

…add security into these and you’ve got a winner.   

There are already industry standards (or at least huge market momentum)
around intelligent automated IT infrastructure, resource management and service level reporting. We should get behind a standard that elevates the perspective of how security contributes to service delivery (and dare I say risk management) instead of trying to reinvent the wheel…unless you happen to like the Hamster Wheel of Pain…

/Hoff

Dr. Joseph Tardo over at the Nevis Networks Illuminations blog composed a reasonably well-balanced commentary regarding one or more of my posts in which I was waxing on philosophically about about my beliefs regarding keeping the network plumbing dumb and overlaying security as a flexible, agile, open and extensible services layer.

It’s clear he doesn’t think this way, but I welcome the discourse.  So let me make something clear:

Realistically, and especially in non-segmented flat networks, I think there are certain low-level security functions that will do well by being served up by switching infrastructure as security functionality commoditizes, but I’m not quite sure for the most part how or where yet I draw the line between utility and intelligence.  I do, however, think that NAC is one of those utility services.

I’m also unconvinced that access-grade, wiring closet switches are architected to scale in either functionality, efficacy or performance to provide any more value or differentiation other than port density than the normal bolt-on appliances which continue to cause massive operational and capital expenditure due to continued forklifts over time.  Companies like Nevis and Consentry quietly admit this too, which is why they have both "secure switches" AND appliances that sit on top of the network…

Joseph suggested he was entering into a religious battle in which he summarized many of the approaches to security that I have blogged about previously and I pointed out to him on his blog that this is exactly why I practice polytheism 😉 :

In case you aren’t following the
religious wars going on in the security blogs and elsewhere, let me bring you
up to date.

It goes like this. If you are in
the client software
business, then security has to be done in the endpoints and the network is just
dumb “plumbing,” or rather, it might as well be because you can’t assume
anything about it. If you sell appliances
that sit here and there in the network, the network sprouts two layers, with
the “plumbing” part separated from the “intelligence.” Makes sense, I guess. But
if you sell switches and routers then the intelligence must be integrated in with
the infrastructure. Now I get it. Or maybe I’m missing the point, what if you
sell both appliances
and infrastructure?

I believe that we’re currently forced to deploy in defense in depth due to the shortcomings of solutions today.  I believe the "network" will not and cannot deliver all the security required.  I believe we’re going to have to invest more in secure operating systems and protocols.  I further believe that we need to be data-centric in our application of security.  I do not believe in single-point product "appliances" that are fundamentally functionally handicapped.  As a delivery mechanism to deliver security that matters across network I believe in this.

Again, the most important difference between what I believe and what Joseph points out above is that the normal class of "appliances" he’s trying to suggest I advocate simply aren’t what I advocate at all.  In fact, one might surprisingly confuse the solutions I do support as "infrastructure" — they look like high-powered switches with a virtualized blade architecture integrated into the solution.

It’s not an access switch, it’s not a single function appliance and it’s not a blade server and it doesn’t suffer from the closed proprietary single vendor’s version of the truth.  To answer the question, if you sell and expect to produce both secure appliances and infrastructure, one of them will come up short.   There are alternatives, however.

So why leave your endpoints,
the ones that have all those vulnerabilities that created the security industry
in the first place, to be hit on by bots, “guests,” and anyone else that wants
to? I don’t know about you, but I would want both something on the endpoint,
knowing it won’t be 100% but better than nothing, and also something in the
network to stop the nasty stuff, preferably before it even got in.

I have nothing to disagree with in the paragraph above — short of the example of mixing active network defense with admission/access control in the same sentence; I think that’s confusing two points.   Back to the religious debate as Joseph drops back to the "Nevis is going to replace all switches in the wiring closet" approach to security via network admission/access control:

Now, let’s talk about getting on
the network. If the switches are just dumb plumbing they will blindly let
anyone on, friend or foe, so you at least need to beef up the dumb plumbing
with admission enforcement points. And you want to put malware sensors where
they can be effective, ideally close to entry points, to minimize the risk of having
the network infrastructure taken down. So, where do you want to put the
intelligence, close to the entry enforcement points or someplace further in the
bowels of the network where the dumb plumbing might have plugged-and-played a
path around your expensive intelligent appliance?

That really depends upon what you’re trying to protect; the end point, the network or the resources connected to it.  Also, I won’t/can’t argue about wanting to apply access/filtering (sounds like IPS in the above example) controls closest to the client at the network layer.  Good design philosophy.   However, depending upon how segmented your network is, the types, value and criticality of the hosts in these virtual/physical domains, one may choose to isolate by zone or VLAN and not invest in yet another switch replacement at the access layer.

If the appliance is to be
effective, it has to sit at a choke point and really be and enforcement point.
And it has to have some smarts of its own. Like the secure switch that we make.

Again, that depends upon your definition of enforcement and applicability.  I’d agree that in flat networks, you’d like to do it at the port/host level, though replacing access switches to do so is usually not feasible in large networks given investments in switching architectures.  Typical fixed configuration appliances overlaid don’t scale, either.

Furthermore, depending upon your definition of what an enforcement zone and it’s corresponding diameter is (port, VLAN, IP Subnet) you may not care.  So putting that "appliance" in place may not be as foreboding as you wager, especially if it overlays across these boundaries satisfactorily.

We will see how long before these new-fangled switch vendors that used to be SSL VPN’s, that then became IPS appliances that have now "evolved" into NAC solutions, will become whatever the next buzzword/technology of tomorrow represents…especially now with Cisco’s revitalized technology refresh for "secure" access switches in the wiring closets.  Caymas, Array, and Vernier (amongst many) are perfect examples.

When it comes down to it, in the markets Crossbeam serves — and especially the largest enterprises — they are happy with their switches, they just want the best security choice on top of it provided in a consolidated, agile and scalable architecture to support it.

Amen.

/Hoff

In May I blogged what I thought was an interesting question regarding the legality and liability of reverse engineering in security vulnerability research.  That discussion focused on the reverse engineering and vulnerability research of hardware and software products that were performed locally.

I continued with a follow-on discussion and extended the topic to include security vulnerability research from the web-based perspective in which I was interested to see how different the opinions on the legality and liability were from many of the top security researchers as it relates to the local versus remote vulnerability research and disclosure perspectives.

As part of the last post, I made reference to a working group organized by CSI whose focus and charter were to discuss web security research law.  This group is made up of some really smart people and I was looking forward to the conclusions reached by them on the topic and what might be done to potentially solve the obvious mounting problems associated with vulnerability research and disclosure.

The first report of this group was published yesterday. 

Unfortunately, the conclusions of the working group is an inditement of the sad state of affairs related to the security space and further underscores the sense of utter hopelessness many in the security community experience.

What the group concluded after 14 extremely interesting and well-written pages was absolutely nothing:

The meeting of minds that took place over the past two months advanced the group’s collective knowledge on the issue of Web security research law.  Yet if one assumed that the discussion advanced the group’s collective understanding of this issue, one might be mistaken.

Informative though the work was, it raised more questions than answers.  In the pursuit of clarity, we found, instead, turbidity.

Thus it follows, that there are many opportunities for further thought, further discussion, further research and further stirring up of murky depths.  In the short term, the working group has plans to pursue the following endeavors:

• Creating disclosure policy guidelines — both to help site owners write disclosure policies, and for security researchers to understand them.
• Creating guidelines for creating a "dummy" site.
• Creating a more complete matrix of Web vulnerability research methods, written with the purpose of helping attorneys, lawmakers and law enforcement officers understand the varying degrees of invasiveness

Jeremiah Grossman, a friend and one of the working group members summarized the report and concluded with the following: "…maybe within the next 3-5 years as more incidents like TJX occur, we’ll have both remedies."  Swell.

Please don’t misunderstand my cynical tone and disappointment as a reflection on any of the folks who participated in this working group — many of whom I know and respect.  It is, however, sadly another example of the hamster wheel of pain we’re all on when the best and brightest we have can’t draw meaningful conclusions against issues such as this.

I was really hoping we’d be further down the path towards getting our arms around the problem so we could present meaningful solutions that would make a dent in the space.  Unfortunately, I think where we are is the collective shoulder shrug shrine of cynicism perched periously on the cliff overlooking the chasm of despair which drops off into the trough of disillusionment.

Gartner needs a magic quadrant for hopelessness. <sigh>  I feel better now, thanks.

/Hoff

I posited the potential risks of vulnerability research in this blog entry here.   Specifically I asked about reverse engineering and implications related to IP law/trademark/copyright, but the focus was ultimately on the liabilities of the researchers engaging in such activities.

Admittedly I’m not a lawyer and my understanding of some of the legal and ethical dynamics are amateur at best, but what was very interesting to me was the breadth of the replies from both the on and off-line responses to my request for opinion on the matter. 

I was contacted by white, gray and blackhats regarding this meme and the results were divergent across legal, political and ideological lines.

KJH (Kelly Jackson Higgins — hey, Kel!) from Dark Reading recently posted an interesting collateral piece titled "Laws Threaten Security Researchers" in which she outlines the results of a CSI working group chartered to investigate and explore the implications that existing and pending legislation would have on vulnerability research and those who conduct it.  Folks like Jeremiah Grossman (who comments on this very story, here) and Billy Hoffman participate on this panel.

What is interesting is the contrast in commentary between how folks responded to my post versus these comments based upon the CSI working group’s findings:

In the report, some Web researchers say that even if they
find a bug accidentally on a site, they are hesitant to disclose it to
the Website’s owner for fear of prosecution. "This opinion grew
stronger the more they learned during dialogue with working group
members from the Department of Justice," the report says.

I believe we’ve all seen the results of some overly-litigious responses on behalf of companies against whom disclosures related to their products or services have been released — for good or bad.

Ask someone like Dave Maynor if the pain is ultimately worth it.  Depending upon your disposition, your mileage may vary. 

That revelation is unnerving to Jeremiah Grossman, CTO and
founder of WhiteHat Security and a member of the working group. "That
means only people that are on the side of the consumer are being
silenced for fear of prosecution," and not the bad guys.

…

"[Web] researchers are terrified about what they can and
can’t do, and whether they’ll face jail or fines," says Sara Peters,
CSI editor and author of the report. "Having the perspective of legal
people and law enforcement has been incredibly valuable. [And] this is
more complicated than we thought."

This sort of response didn’t come across that way at all from folks who both privately or publicly responded to my blog; most responses were just the opposite, stated with somewhat of a sense of entitlement and immunity.   I expect to query those same folks again on the topic. 

Check this out:

The report discusses several methods of Web research, such as
gathering information off-site about a Website or via social
engineering; testing for cross-site scripting by sending HTML mail from
the site to the researcher’s own Webmail account; purposely causing
errors on the site; and conducting port scans and vulnerability scans.

Interestingly, DOJ representatives say that using just one of
these methods might not be enough for a solid case against a [good or
bad] hacker. It would take several of these activities, as well as
evidence that the researcher tried to "cover his tracks," they say. And
other factors — such as whether the researcher discloses a
vulnerability, writes an exploit, or tries to sell the bug — may
factor in as well, according to the report.

Full disclosure and to whom you disclose it and when could mean the difference between time in the spotlight or time in the pokey!

/Hoff

Now that I’ve annoyed you by suggesting that network security will over time become irrelevant given lost visibility due to advances in OS protocol transport and operation, allow me to give you another nudge towards the edge and further reinforce my theories with some additionally practical data-centric security perspectives.

If any form of network-centric security solution is to succeed in adding value over time, the mechanics of applying policy and effecting disposition on flows as they traverse the network must be made on content in context.  That means we must get to a point where we can make “security” decisions based upon information and its “value” and classification as it moves about.

It’s not good enough to only make decisions on how flows/data should be characterized and acted on with the criteria being focused on the 5-tupule (header,) signature-driven profiling or even behavioral analysis that doesn’t characterize the content in context of where it’s coming from, where it’s going and who (machine, virtual machine and “user”) or what (application, service) intends to access and consume it.

In the best of worlds, we like to be able to classify data before it makes its way though the IP stack and enters the network and use this metadata as an attached descriptor of the ‘type’ of content that this data represents.  We could do this as the data is created by applications (thick or thin, rich or basic) either using the application itself or by using an agent (client-side) that profiles the data prior to storage or transmission.

Since I’m on my Jericho Forum kick lately, here’s how they describe how data ought to be controlled:

Access to data should be controlled by security attributes of the data itself.

• Attributes can be held within the data (DRM/Metadata) or could be a separate system.
• Access / security could be implemented by encryption.
• Some data may have “public, non-confidential” attributes.
• Access and access rights have a temporal component.

You would probably need client-side software to provide this
functionality.  As an example, we do this today with email compliance solutions that have primitive versions of
this sort of capability that force users to declare the classification
of an email before you can hit the send button or even the document info that can be created when one authors a Word document.

There are a bunch of ERM/DRM solutions in play today that are bandied about being sold as “compliance” solutions, but there value goes much deeper than that.  IP Leakage/Extrusion prevention systems (with or without client-side tie-ins) try to do similar things also.

Ideally, this metadata would be used as a fixed descriptor of the content that permanently attaches itself and follows that content around so it can be used to decide what content should be “routed” based upon policy.

If we’re not able to use this file-oriented static metadata, we’d like then for the “network” (or something in/on it) to be able to dynamically profile content at wirespeed and characterize the data as it moves around the network from origin to destination in the same way.

So, this is where Applied Data & Application Policy Tagging (ADAPT) comes in.  ADAPT is an approach that can make use of existing and new technology to profile and characterize content (by using content matching, signatures, regular expressions and behavioral analysis in hardware or software) to then apply policy-driven information “routing” functionality as flows traverse the network by using an 802.1 q-in-q VLAN tags (open approach) or applying a proprietary ADAPT tag-header as a descriptor to each flow as it moves around the network.

Think of it like a VLAN tag the describes the data within the packet/flow which is defined as seen fit;

The ADAPT tag/VLAN is user defined and can use any taxonomy that best suits the types of content that is interesting; one might use asset classification such as “confidential” or uses taxonomies such as “HIPAA” or “PCI” to describe what is contained in the flows.  One could combine and/or stack the tags, too.  The tag maps to one of these arbitrary categories which could be fed by interpreting metadata attached to the data itself (if in file form) or dynamically by on-the-fly profiling at the network level.

As data moves across the network and across what we call boundaries (zones) of trust, the policy tags are parsed and disposition effected based upon the language governing the rules.  If you use the “open” version using the q-in-q VLAN’s, you have something on the order of 4096 VLAN IDs to choose from…more than enough to accomodate most asset classification and still leave room for VLAN usage.  Enforcing the ACL’s can be done by pretty much ANY modern switch that supports q-in-q, very quickly.

Just like an ACL for IP addresses or VLAN policies, ADAPT does the same thing for content routing, but using VLAN ID’s (or the proprietary ADAPT header) to enforce it.

To enable this sort of functionality, either every switch/router in the network would need to either be q-in-q capable (which is most switches these days) or ADAPT enabled (which would be difficult since you’d need every network vendor to support the protocols.)  You could use an overlay UTM security services switch sitting on top of the network plumbing through which all traffic moving from one zone to another would be subject to the ADAPT policy since each flow has to go through said device.

Since the only device that needs to be ADAPT aware is this UTM security service switch (see the example below,) you can let the network do what it does best and utilize this solution to enforce the policy for you across these boundary transitions.  Said UTM security service switch needs to have an extremely high-speed content security engine that is able to characterize the data at wirespeed and add a tag to the frame as it moves through the switching fabric and processed prior to popping out onto the network.

Clearly this switch would have to have coverage across every network segment.  It wouldn’t work well in virtualized server environments or any topology where zoned traffic is not subject to transit through the UTM switch.

I’m going to be self-serving here and demonstrate this “theoretical” solution using a Crossbeam X80 UTM security services switch plumbed into a very fast, reliable, and resilient L2/L3 Cisco infrastructure.  It just so happens to have a wire-speed content security engine installed in it.  The reason the X-Series can do this is because once the flow enters its switching fabric, I own the ultimate packet/frame/cell format and can prepend any header functionality I like onto the structure to determine how it gets “routed.”

Take the example below where the X80 is connected to the layer-3 switches using 802.1q VLAN trunked interfaces.  I’ve made this an intentionally simple network using VLANs and L3 routing; you could envision a much more complex segmentation and routing environment, obviously.

This network is chopped up into 4 VLAN segments:

1. General Clients (VLAN A)
2. Finance & Accounting Clients (VLAN B)
3. Financial Servers (VLAN C)
4. HR Servers (VLAN D)

Each of the clients/servers in the respective VLANs default routes out to an IP address which belongs to the firewall cluster IP addresses which is proffered by the firewall application modules providing service in the X80.

Thus, to get from one VLAN to another VLAN, one must pass through the X80 and profiled by this content security engine and whatever additional UTM services are installed in the chassis (such as firewall, IDP, AV, etc.)

Let’s say then that a user in VLAN A (General Clients) attempts to access one or more resources in the VLAN D (HR Servers.)

Using solely IP addresses and/or L2 VLANs, let’s say the firewall and IPS policies allow this behavior as the clients in that VLAN have a legitimate need to access the HR Intranet server.  However, let’s say that this user tries to access data that exists on the HR Intranet server but contains personally identifiable information that falls under the governance/compliance mandates of HIPAA.

Let us further suggest that the ADAPT policy states the following:

Rule  Source                Destination            ADAPT Descriptor           Action
==============================================================

1        VLAN A             VLAN D                    HIPAA, Confidential        Deny
IP.1.1               IP.3.1

2        VLAN B             VLAN C                    PCI                                 Allow
IP.2.1             IP.4.1

Using rule 1 above, as the client makes the request, he transits from VLAN A to VLAN D.  The reply containing the requested information is profiled by the content security engine which is able to  characterize the data as containing information that matches our definition of either “HIPAA or Confidential” (purely arbitrary for the sake of this example.)

This could be done by reading the metadata if it exists as an attachment to the content’s file structure, in cooperation with an extrusion prevention application running in the chassis, or in the case of ad-hoc web-based applications/services, done dynamically.

According to the ADAPT policy above, this data would then be either silently dropped, depending upon what “deny” means, or perhaps the user would be redirected to a webpage that informs them of a policy violation.

Rule 2 above would allow authorized IP’s in VLANs to access PCI-classified data.

You can imagine how one could integrate IAM and extend the policies to include pseudonymity/identity as a function of access, also.  Or, one could profile the requesting application (browser, for example) to define whether or not this is an authorized application.  You could extend the actions to lots of stuff, too.

In fact, I alluded to it in the first paragraph, but if we back up a step and look at where consolidation of functions/services are being driven with virtualization, one could also use the principles of ADAPT to extend the ACL functionality that exists in switching environments to control/segment/zone access to/from virtual machines (VMs) of different asset/data/classification/security zones.

What this translates to is a workflow/policy instantiation that would use the same logic to prevent VM1 from communicating with VM2 if there was a “zone” mis-match; as we add data classification in context, you could have various levels of granularity that defines access based not only on VM but VM and data trafficked by them.

Furthermore, assuming this service was deployed internally and you could establish a trusted CA with certs that would support transparent MITM SSL decrypts, you could do this (with appropriate scale) with encrypted traffic also.

This is data-centric security that uses the network when needed, the host when it can and the notion of both static and dynamic network-borne data classification to enforce policy in real-time.

/Hoff

[Comments/Blogs on this entry you might be interested in but have no trackbacks set:

MCWResearch Blog

Rob Newby’s Blog

Alex Hutton’s Blog

Security Retentive Blog

No, not entirely as it’s really about the data, but
I had an epiphany last week. 

I didn’t get any on me, but I was really excited about the — brace yourself — future of security in a meeting I had with Microsoft.  It reaffirmed my belief that while some low-hanging security fruit will be picked off by the network, the majority of the security value won’t be delivered by it.

I didn’t think I’d recognize just how much of it — in such a short time — will ultimately make its way back into the host (OS,) and perhaps you didn’t either.

We started with centralized host-based computing, moved to client-server.  We’ve had Web1.0, are in the  beginnings of WebX.0 and I ultimately believe that we’re headed back to a centralized host-based paradigm now that the network transport is fast, reliable and cheap.

That means that a bunch of the stuff we use today to secure the "network" will gravitate back towards the host. I’ve used Scott McNealy’s mantra as he intended it to in order to provide some color to conversations before, but I’m going to butcher it here. 

While I agree that in abstract the "Network is the Computer," in order to secure it, you’re going to have to treat the "network" like an OS…hard to do.   That’s why I think more and more security will make its way back to the actual
"computer" instead.

So much of the strategy linked to large security vendors sees an increase in footprint back on the host.  It’s showing back up there today in the guise of AV, HIPS, configuration management, NAC and Extrusion Prevention, but it’s going to play a much, much loftier role as time goes on as the level of interaction and interoperability must increase.  Rather than put 10+ agents on a box, imagine if that stuff was already built in?

Heresy, I suppose.

I wager that the "you can’t trust the endpoint" and "all security will make its way into the switch" crowds will start yapping on this point, but before that happens, let me explain…

The Microsoft Factor

I was fortunate enough to sit down with some of the key players in Microsoft’s security team last week and engage in a lively bit of banter regarding some both practical and esoteric elements of where security has been, is now and will be in the near future. 

On the tail of Mr. Chambers’ Interop keynote, the discussion was all abuzz regarding collaboration and WebX.0 and the wonders that will come of the technology levers in the near future as well as the, ahem, security challenges that this new world order will bring.  I’ll cover that little gem in another blog entry.

Some of us wanted to curl up into a fetal position.  Others saw a chance to correct material defects in the way in which the intersection of networking and security has been approached.  I think the combination of the two is natural and healthy and ultimately quite predictable in these conversations.

I did a bit of both, honestly.

As you can guess, given who I was talking to, much of what was discussed found its way back to a host-centric view of security with a heavy anchoring in the continued evolution of producing more secure operating systems, more secure code, more secure protocols and strong authentication paired with encryption.

I expected to roll my eyes a lot and figured that our conversation would gravitate towards UAC and that a bulk-helping of vapor functionality would be dispensed with the normal disclaimers urging "…when it’s available one day" as a helping would be ladled generously into the dog-food bowls the Microsofties were eating from.

I am really glad I was wrong, and it just goes to show you that it’s important to consider a balanced scorecard in all this; listen with two holes, talk with one…preferably the correct one 😉

I may be shot for saying this in the court of popular opinion, but I think Microsoft is really doing a fantastic job in their renewed efforts toward improving security.  It’s not perfect, but the security industry is such a fickle and bipolar mistress — if you’re not 100% you’re a zero.

After spending all this time urging people that the future of security will not be delivered in the network proper, I have not focused enough attention on the advancements that are indeed creeping their way into the OS’s toward a more secure future as  this inertia orthogonally reinforces my point.

Yes, I work for a company that provides network-centric security offerings.  Does this contradict the statement I just made?  I don’t think so, and neither did the folks from Microsoft.  There will always be a need to consolidate certain security functionality that does not fit within the context of the host — at least within an acceptable timeframe as the nature of security continues to evolve.  Read on.

The network will become transparent.  Why?

In this brave new world, mutually-authenticated and encrypted network communications won’t be visible to the majority of the plumbing that’s transporting it, so short of the specific shunts to the residual overlay solutions that will still be present to the network in forms of controls that will not make their way to the host, the network isn’t going to add much security value at all.

The Jericho Effect

What I found interesting is that I’ve enjoyed similar discussions with the distinguished fellows of the Jericho Forum wherein after we’ve debated the merits of WHAT you might call it, the notion of HOW "deperimeterization," "reperimeterization," (or my favorite) "radical externalization,"  weighs heavily on the evolution of security as we know it.

I have to admit that I’ve been a bit harsh on the Jericho boys before, but Paul Simmonds and I (or at least I did) came to the realization that my allergic reaction wasn’t to the concepts at hand, but rather the abrasive marketing of the message.  Live and learn.

Both sets of conversations basically see the pendulum effect of security in action in this oversimplification of what Jericho posits is the future of security and what Microsoft can deliver — today:

Take a host with a secured OS, connect it into any network using whatever means you find
appropriate, without regard for having to think about whether you’re on the "inside" or "outside." Communicate securely, access and exchange data in policy-defined "zones of trust" using open, secure, authenticated and encrypted protocols.

If you’re interested in the non-butchered more specific elements of the Jericho Forum’s "10 Commandments," see here.

What I wasn’t expecting in marrying these two classes of conversation is that this future of security is much closer and notably much more possible than I readily expected…with a Microsoft OS, no less.   In fact, I got a demonstration of it.  It may seem like no big deal to some of you, but the underlying architectural enhancements to Microsoft’s Vista and Longhorn OS’s are a fantastic improvement on what we have had to put up thus far.

One of the Microsoft guys fired up his laptop with a standard-issue off-the-shelf edition of Vista,  authenticated with his smartcard, transparently attached to the hotel’s open wireless network and then took me on a tour of some non-privileged internal Microsoft network resources.

Then he showed me some of the ad-hoc collaborative "People Near Me" peer2peer tools built into Vista — same sorts of functionality…transparent, collaborative and apparently quite secure (gasp!) all at the same time.

It was all mutually authenticated and encrypted and done so transparently to him.

He didn’t "do" anything; no VPN clients, no split-brain tunneling, no additional Active-X agents, no SSL or IPSec shims…it’s the integrated functionality provided by both IPv6 and IPSec in the NextGen IP stack present in Vista.

And in his words "it just works."   Yes it does.

He basically established connectivity and his machine reached out to an reachable read-only DC (after auth. and with encryption) which allowed him to transparently resolve "internal" vs. "external" resources.  Yes, the requirements of today expect that the OS must still evolve to prevent exploit of the OS, but this too shall become better over time.

No, it obviously doesn’t address what happens if you’re using a Mac or Linux, but the pressure will be on to provide the same sort of transparent, collaborative and secure functionality across those OS’s, too.

Allow me my generalizations — I know that security isn’t fixed and that we still have problems, but think of this as a half-glass full, willya!?

One of the other benefits I got form this conversation is the reminder that as Vista and Longhorn default to IPv6 natively (they can do both v4&v6 dynamically,) as enterprises upgrade, the network hardware and software (and hence the existing security architecture) must also be able to support IPv6 natively.  It’s not just the government pushing v6, large enterprises are now standardizing on it, too.

Here are some excellent links describing the Nextgen IP stack in Vista, the native support for IPSec (goodbye VPN market,) and IPv6 support.

Funny how people keep talking about Google being a threat to Microsoft.  I think that the network giants like Cisco might have their hands full with Microsoft…look at how each of them are maneuvering.

/Hoff
{ Typing this on my Mac…staring @ a Vista Box I’m waiting to open to install within Parallels 😉 }

[Live from Interop’s Data Center Summit]

Jon Oltsik crafted an interesting post today regarding the bifurcation of opinion on where the “intelligence” ought to sit in a networked world: baked into the routers and switches or overlaid using general-purpose compute engines that ride Moore’s curve.

I think that I’ve made it pretty clear where I stand.   I submit that you should keep the network dumb, fast, reliable and resilient and add intelligence (such as security) via flexible and extensible service layers that scale both in terms of speed but also choice.

You should get to define and pick what best of breed means to you and add/remove services at the speed of your business, not the speed of an ASIC spin or an acquisition of technology that is neither in line with the pace and evolution of classes of threats and vulnerabilities or the speed of an agile business. 

The focal point of his post, however, was to suggest that the real issue is the fact that all of this intelligence requires exposure to the data streams which means that each component that comprises it needs to crack the packet before processing.   Jon suggests that you ought to crack the packet once and then do interesting things to the flows.  He calls this COPM (crack once, process many) and suggests that it yields efficiencies — of what, he did not say, but I will assume he means latency and efficacy.

So, here’s my contentious point that I explain below:

Cracking the packet really doesn’t contribute much to the overall latency equation anymore thanks to high-speed hardware, but the processing sure as heck does!  So whether you crack once or many times, it doesn’t really matter, what you do with the packet does.

Now, on to the explanation…

I think that it’s fair to say that many of the underlying mechanics of security are commoditizing so things like anti-virus, IDS, firewalling, etc. can be done without a lot of specialization – leveraging prior art is quick and easy and thus companies can broaden their product portfolios by just adding a feature to an existing product.

Companies can do this because of the agility that software provides, not hardware.  Hardware can give you scales of economy as it relates to overall speed (for certain things) but generally not flexibility. 

However, software has it’s own Moore’s curve or sorts and I maintain that unfortunately its lifecycle, much like what we’re hearing @ Interop regarding CPU’s, does actually have a shelf life and point of diminishing return for reasons that you’re probably not thinking about…more on this from Interop later.

John describes the stew of security componenty and what he expects to see @ Interop this week:

I expect network intelligence to be the dominant theme at this week’s Interop show in Las Vegas. It may be subtle but its definitely there. Security companies will talk about cracking packets to identify threats, encrypt bits, or block data leakage. The WAN optimization crowd will discuss manipulating protocols and caching files, Application layer guys crow about XML parsing, XSLT transformation, and business logic. It’s all about stuffing networking gear with fat microprocessors to perform one task or another.

That’s a lot of stuff tied to a lot of competing religious beliefs about how to do it all as Jon rightly demonstrates and ultimately highlights a nasty issue:

The problem now is that we are cracking packets all over the place. You can’t send an e-mail, IM, or ping a router without some type of intelligent manipulation along the way.

<nod>  Whether it’s in the network, bolted on via an appliance or done on the hosts, this is and will always be true.  Here’s the really interesting next step:

I predict that the next bit wave in this evolution will be known as COPM for "Crack once, process many." In this model, IP packets are stopped and inspected and then all kinds of security, acceleration, and application logic actions occur. Seems like a more efficient model to me.

To do this, it basically means that this sort of solution requires Proxy (transparent or terminating) functionality.  Now, the challenge is that whilst “cracking the packets” is relatively easy and cheap even at 10G line rates due to hardware, the processing is really, really hard to do well across the spectrum of processing requirements if you care about things such as quality, efficacy, and latency and is “expensive” in all of those categories.

The intelligence of deciding what to process and how once you’ve cracked the packets is critical. 

This is where embedding this stuff into the network is a lousy idea. 

How can a single vendor possibly provide anything more than “good enough” security in a platform never designed to solve this sort of problem whilst simultaneously trying to balance delivery and security at line rate? 

This will require a paradigm shift for the networking folks that will either mean starting from scratch and integrating high-speed networking with general-purpose compute blades, re-purposing a chassis (like, say, a Cat65K) and stuffing it with nothing but security cards and grafting it onto the switches or stack appliances (big or small – single form factor or in blades) and graft them onto the switches once again.   And by the way, simply adding networking cards to a blade server isn’t an effective solution, either.  "Regular" applications (and esp. SOA/Web 2.0 apps) aren’t particularly topology sensitive.  Security "applications" on the other hand, are wholly dependent and integrated with the topologies into which they are plumbed.

It’s the hamster wheel of pain.

Or, you can get one of these which offers all the competency, agility, performance, resilience and availability of a specialized networking component combined with an open, agile and flexible operating and virtualized compute architecture that scales with parity based on Intel chipsets and Moore’s law.

What this gives you is an ecosystem of loosely-coupled BoB security services that can be intelligently combined in any order once cracked and ruthlessly manipulated as it passes through them governed by policy – and ultimately dependent upon making decisions on how and what to do to a packet/flow based upon content in context.

The consolidation of best of breed security functionality delivered in a converged architecture yields efficiencies that is spread across the domains of scale, performance, availability and security but also on the traditional economic scopes of CapEx and OpEx.

Cracking packets, bah!  That’s so last Tuesday.

/Hoff

I was reading Joseph Tardo’s (Nevis Networks) new Illuminations blog and found the topic of his latest post ""Built-in, Overlay or Something More Radical?" regarding the possible future of network security quite interesting.

Joseph (may I call you Joseph?) recaps the topic of a research draft from Stanford funded by the "Stanford Clean Slate Design for the Internet" project that discusses an approach to network security called SANE.   The notion of SANE (AKA Ethane) is a policy-driven security services layer that utilizes intelligent centrally-located services to replace many of the underlying functions provided by routers, switches and security products today:

Ethane is a new architecture for enterprise networks which provides a powerful yet simple management model and strong security guarantees.  Ethane allows network managers to define a single, network-wide, fine-grain policy, and then enforces it at every switch.  Ethane policy is defined over human-friendly names (such as "bob, "payroll-server", or "http-proxy) and  dictates who can talk to who and in which manner.  For example, a policy rule may specify that all guest users who have not authenticated can only use HTTP and that all of their traffic must traverse a local web proxy.

Ethane has a number of salient properties difficult to achieve
with network technologies today.  First, the global security policy is enforced at each switch in a manner that is resistant to poofing.  Second, all packets on an Ethane network can be
attributed back to the sending host and the physical location in
which the packet entered the network.  In fact, packets collected
in the past can also be attributed to the sending host at the time the packets were sent — a feature that can be used to aid in
auditing and forensics.  Finally, all the functionality within
Ethane is provided by very simple hardware switches.
      

The trick behind the Ethane design is that all complex
functionality, including routing, naming, policy declaration and
security checks are performed by a central controller (rather than
in the switches as is done today).  Each flow on the network must
first get permission from the controller which verifies that the
communicate is permissible by the network policy.  If the controller allows a flow, it computes a route for the flow to
take, and adds an entry for that flow in each of the switches
along the path.
      

With all complex function subsumed by the controller, switches in
Ethane are reduced to managed flow tables whose entries can only be populated by the controller (which it does after each succesful permission check).  This allows a very simple design for Ethane
      switches using only SRAM (no power-hungry TCAMS) and a little bit
of logic.
   

I like many of the concepts here, but I’m really wrestling with the scaling concerns that arise when I forecast the literal bottlenecking of admission/access control proposed therein.

Furthermore, and more importantly, while SANE speaks to being able to define who "Bob"  is and what infrastructure makes up the "payroll server,"  this solution seems to provide no way of enforcing policy based on content in context of the data flowing across it.  Integrating access control with the pseudonymity offered by integrating identity management into policy enforcement is only half the battle.

The security solutions of the future must evolve to divine and control not only vectors of transport but also the content and relative access that the content itself defines dynamically.

I’m going to suggest that by bastardizing one of the Jericho Forum’s commandments for my own selfish use, the network/security layer of the future must ultimately respect and effect disposition of content based upon the following rule (independent of the network/host):

Access to data should be controlled by security attributes of the data itself.

• Attributes can be held within the data (DRM/Metadata) or could be a separate system.
• Access / security could be implemented by encryption.
• Some data may have “public, non-confidential” attributes.
• Access and access rights have a temporal component. 

 

Deviating somewhat from Jericho’s actual meaning, I am intimating that somehow, somewhere, data must be classified and self-describe the policies that govern how it is published and consumed and ultimately this security metadata can then be used by the central policy enforcement mechanisms to describe who is allowed to access the data, from where, and where it is allowed to go.

…Back to he topic at hand, SANE:

As Joseph alluded, SANE would require replacing (or not using much of the functionality of) currently-deployed routers, switches and security kit.  I’ll let your imagination address the obvious challenges with this design.

Without delving deeply, I’ll use Joseph’s categorization of “interesting-but-impractical”

/Hoff

(Ed.: I wanted to clarify that issues external to security
vulnerabilities and advanced technology most definitely caused the impact and commentary
noted here — global economic dynamics nothwithstanding, I’m just
surprised at the lack of chatter around the ol’ Blogosphere on this)

From the "I meant to comment on this last week" Department…

A couple of weeks ago, analyst reports announced that Cisco was indicating a general slow-down of their enterprise business and they were placing pressure on the service provider business units to make up the difference.  Furthermore, deep discounts to the channel and partners were crafted in order to incentivize  Q2 customer purchases:

Cisco is headed for a disappointing quarter, according to a cautionary research note issued Monday from a research analyst, reports Barron’s Online.

Samuel Wilson, an analyst at JMP Securities writes that the slow down in U.S. enterprise business during Cisco’s fiscal second quarter has continued into its current quarter, according to Barron’s.

According to the Barron’s story: "Wilson writes that ‘according to
resellers, top Cisco sales staff have recently expressed concerns about
making their April quarter numbers.” He says that the company has
apparently increased “partner-focused incentives’ designed to shift
business in from the July quarter. ‘Based on the past three months,
many resellers now believe that U.S. enterprises have begun to delay
discretionary spending above and beyond normal seasonality typical of
the [calendar] first quarter.’

Wilson also wrote that Cisco has cut headcount and expenses in its
enterprsie switching business unit. He forecasts Cisco’s fiscal third
quarter revenue to be $38.1 billion, down from the consensus estimates
of $39.4 billion, according to Barron’s.

Given how Cisco is a bellweather stock for not only IT but in many case an indicator of overall enterprise spend trends, why isn’t there more concern in the air?  Maybe it’s just rumor and innuendo, but when analysts start press releases about Mr. Chambers’ neighborhood, they’re usually pretty conservative.

Rothman practically needed a Wet-Nap when he commented on Cisco’s Q1 announcement (Cisco Takes it to the Next Level) but nary a word from the "All things including the kitchen sink will go into a Cat65K" camp on this news?  What, no gleeful prognostication on rebounds or doom?

Interestingly, from here, Goldman advises to buy ahead of Q3 announcement:

We believe that management will put concerns around slower U.S. large
cap tech spending to rest. It represents only 13% of sales and we
believe is seeing indications of a rebound. We believe management is
likely to reaffirm positive longer-term trends in emerging markets, new
technologies and the impact of video on networks as key drivers of
sustained double-digit top-line growth.

We’ll see.  Focusing on all the advanced technology projects and not focusing on core competencies can bite a company — even Cisco — when they least expect it.  Couple that with the continued vulnerabilities in their security products (another one today across Pix/ASA) and I’d say folks might start talking…

I wonder how the security products have weathered through all this?

…but that’s just me.  Lash away, boys.

/Hoff

Jeff Bardin over on the CSO blog pitched an interesting stake in the ground when he posited "Connectivity As A Utility: Where are My Clean Pipes?"

Specifically, Jeff expects that his (corporate?) Internet service functions in the same manner as his telephone service via something similar to a "do not call list."  Basically, he opts out by placing himself on the no-call list and telemarketers cease to call. Others might liken it to turning on a tap and getting clean, potable water; you pay for a utility and expect it to be usable.  All of it.

Many telecommunications providers want to charge you for having
clean pipes, deploying a suite of DDoS services that you have to buy to
enhance your security posture.   Protection of last mile bandwidth is
very key to network availability as well as confidentiality and
integrity. If I am subscribing for a full T1, shouldn’t I get the full
T1 as part of the price and not just a segment of the T1? Why do I have
to pay for the spam, probes, scans, and malicious activity that my
telecommunications service provider should prevent at 3 miles out
versus my having to subscribe to another service to attain clean pipes
at my doorstep?

I think that most people would agree with the concept of clean pipes in principle.  I can’t think of any other utility where the service levels delivered are taken with such a lackadaisical best effort approach and where the consumer can almost always expect that some amount (if not the majority) of the utility is unusable. 

Over the last year, I’ve met with many of the largest ISP’s, MSSP’s, TelCo’s and Mobile Operators on the planet and all are in some phase of deploying some sort of clean pipes variant.  Gartner even predicts a large amount of security to move "into the cloud."

In terms of adoption, EMEA is leaps and bounds ahead of the US and APAC in these sorts of services and will continue to be.  The relative oligopolies associated with smaller nation states allows for much more agile and flexible service definition and roll-outs — no less complex, mind you.  It’s incredible to see just how disparate and divergent the gap is between what consumers (SME/SMB/Mobile as well as large enterprise) are offered in EMEA as opposed to the good-ol’ U S of A.

However, the stark reality is that the implementation of clean pipes by your service provider(s) comes down to a balance of two issues: efficacy and economics, with each varying dramatically with the market being served; the large enterprise’s expectations and requirements look very, very different from the SME/SMB.

Let’s take a look at both of these elements.

ECONOMICS

If you ask most service providers about so-called clean pipes up to a year ago, you could expect to get an answer that was based upon a "selfish" initiative aimed at stopping wasteful bandwidth usage upstream in the service provider’s network, not really protecting the consumer. 

The main focus here is really on DDoS and viri/worm propagation.  Today, the closest you’ll come to "clean pipes" is usually some combination of the following services deployed both (still) at the customer premises as well as somewhere upstream:

• DoS/DDoS
• Anti-Virus
• Anti-Spam
• URL Filtering/Parental Controls
• Managed Firewall/IDS/IPS

What is interesting about these services is that they basically define the same functions you can now get in those small little UTM boxes that consolidate security functionality at the "perimeter."  The capital cost of these devices and the operational levies associated with their upkeep are pretty close in the SME/SMB and when you balance what you get in "good enough" services for this market as well as the overall availability of these "in the cloud" offerings, UTM makes more sense for many in the near term.

For the large enterprise, the story is different.  Outsourcing some level of security to an MSSP (or perhaps even the entire operation) or moving some amount upstream is a matter of core competence and leveraging the focus of having internal teams focus on the things that matter most while the low hanging fruit can be filtered out and monitored by someone else.  I describe that as filtering out the lumps.  Some enormous companies have outsourced not only their security functions but their entire IT operations and data center assets in this manner.  It’s not pretty, but it works.

I’m not sure they are any more secure than they were before, however.  The risk simply was transferred whilst the tolerance/appetite for it didn’t change at all.  Puzzling.

Is it really wrong to think that companies (you’ll notice I said companies, not "people" in the general sense) should pay for clean pipes?  I don’t think it is.  The reality is that for non-commercial subscribers such as home users, broadband or mobile users, some amount of bandwidth hygiene should be free — the potable water approach.

I think, however, that should a company which expects elevated service levels and commensurate guarantees of such, want more secure connectivity, they can expect to ante up.  Why?  Because the investment required to deliver this sort of service costs a LOT of money — both to spin up and to instantiate over time.  You’re going to have to pay for that somewhere.

I very much like Jeff’s statistics:

We stop on average for our organization nearly 600
million malicious emails per year at our doorstep averaging 2.8
gigabytes of garbage per day. You add it up and we are looking at
nearly a terabyte of malicious email we have to stop. Now add in probes
and scans against HTTP and HTTPS sites and the number continues to
skyrocket.

Again, even though Jeff’s organization isn’t small by any means, the stuff he’s complaining about here is really the low-hanging fruit.  It doesn’t bear a dent against the targeted, malicious and financially-impacting security threats that really demands a level of service no service provider will be able to deliver without a huge cost premium.

I won’t bore you with the details, but the level of high-availability,
resilience, performance, manageability, and provisioning required to
deliver even this sort of service is enormous.  Most vendors simply can’t do
it and most service providers are slow to invest in proprietary
solutions that won’t scale economically with the operational models in
place.

Interestingly, vendors such as McAfee even as recently as 2005 announced with much fanfare that they were going to deliver technology, services and a united consortium of participating service providers with the following lofty clean pipe goals (besides selling more product, that is):

The initiative is one
part of a major product and services push from McAfee, which is
developing its next generation of carrier-grade security appliances and
ramping up its enterprise security offerings with NAC and secure
content management product releases planned for the first half of next
year, said Vatsal Sonecha, vice president of market development and
strategic alliances at McAfee, in Santa Clara, Calif.

Clean Pipes will be a major expansion of McAfee’s managed
services offerings. The company will sell managed intrusion prevention;
secure content management; vulnerability management; malware
protection, including anti-virus, anti-spam and anti-spyware services;
and mobile device security, Sonecha said.

McAfee is working with Cable
and Wireless PLC, British Telecommunications PLC (British Telecom),
Telefónica SA and China Network Communications (China Netcom) to tailor
its offerings through an invitation-only group it calls the Clean Pipes
Consortium.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1855188,00.asp

Look at all those services!  What have they delivered as a service in the cloud or clean pipes?  Nada. 

The chassis-based products which were to deliver these services never materialized and neither did the services.  Why?  Because it’s really damned hard to do correctly.  Just ask Inkra, Nexi, CoSine, etc.  Or you can ask me.  The difference is, we’re still in business and they’re not.  It’s interesting to note that every one of those "consortium members" with the exception of Cable and Wireless are Crossbeam customers.  Go figure.

EFFICACY

Once the provider starts filtering at the ingress/egress, one must trust that the things being filtered won’t have an impact on performance — or confidentiality, integrity and availability.  Truth be told, as simple as it seems, it’s not just about raw bandwidth.  Service levels must be maintained and the moment something that is expected doesn’t make its way down the pipe, someone will be screaming bloody murder for "slightly clean" pipes.

Ask me how I know.  I’ve lived through inconsistent application of policies, non-logged protocol filtering, dropped traffic and asymmetric issues introduced by on-prem and in-the-cloud MSSP offerings.  Once the filtering moves past your prem. as a customer, your visibility does too.  Those fancy dashboards don’t do a damned bit of good, either.  Ever consider the forensic impact?

Today, if you asked a service provider what constitutes their approach to clean pipes, most will refer you back to the same list I referenced above:

• DoS/DDoS
• Anti-Virus
• Anti-Spam
• URL Filtering/Parental Controls
• Managed Firewall/IDS/IPS

The problem is that most of these solutions are disparate point products run by different business units at different parts of the network.  Most are still aimed at the perimeter service — it’s just that the perimeter has moved outward a notch in the belt.

Look, for the SME/SMB (or mobile user,) "good enough" is, for the most part, good
enough.  Having an upstream provider filter out a bunch of spam and
viri is a good thing and most firewall rules in place in the SME/SMB
block everything but a few inbound ports to DMZ hosts (if there are
any) and allow everything from the inside to go out.  Not very
complicated and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how, from the
perspective of what is at risk, that this service doesn’t pay off
handsomely.

From the large enterprise I’d say that if you are going to expect that operational service levels will be met, think again.  What happens when you introduce web services, SOA and heavy XML onto externally-exposed network stubs.  What happens when Web2/3/4.x technologies demand more and more security layers deployed alongside the mechanics and messaging of the service?

You can expect issues and the lack of transparency will be an issue on all but the most simple of issues.

Think your third party due diligence requirements are heady now?  Wait until this little transference of risk gets analyzed when something bad happens — and it will.  Oh how quickly the pendulum will swing back to managing this stuff in-house again.

This model doesn’t scale and it doesn’t address the underlying deficiencies in the most critical elements of the chain: applications, databases and end-point threats such as co-opted clients as unwilling botnet participants.

But to Jeff’s point, if he didn’t have to spend money on the small stuff above, he could probably spend it elsewhere where he needs it most.

I think services in the cloud/clean pipes makes a lot of sense.  I’d sure as hell like to invest less in commoditizing functions at the perimeter and on my desktop.  I’m just not sure we’re going to get there anytime soon.

/Hoff

*Image Credit: CleanPipes

Read more…