The Daily Incite - July 22, 2008
July 22, 2008 - Volume 3, #63
Good Morning:
The first day back from vacation is always fun. Even though I did a
decent job of keeping up with the news (so my RSS reader wasn't
overflowing), there were a lot of details, follow-ups, deliverables,
and the like that needed to be addressed once back in the saddle. There
always are, and that makes the first couple of days back pretty intense.

Yes, it's just like whack-a-mole. No matter how many of those little
critters you whack, there is always another one ready to poke his ugly
little head up at you, demanding more attention. Of course, one way to
handle the situation is to think about all the things on your list, and
all the things that aren't getting done.
I track my daily commitments on a 2x2 piece of scrap paper. I figure if
I can't fit it on that little paper, then it probably won't get done
anyway. Though on days like yesterday, I forget how small I can
write.
So I ended the day with about 75% of the list not finished. It's a
pretty crappy feeling, but it's not worth getting crazy about. More
will get done today and everything will be done by tomorrow. I ended
vacation relaxed, but ready to get back to business. Why let some
internally generated angst take me right back into the muck?
When I had a real job, I used to see that all the time. Folks would go
on holiday. It would take them 3 days to unwind from all their angst.
Three days before they come back they'd start worrying about
what's not getting done and have more angst. If their vacation was only
a week, they'd have a sum total of one day of relaxation. They'd return
from vacation totally stressed out because they were away for a week
and all this crap piled up.
That used to be me. But not anymore.
You wonder why folks are dropping dead from stress in their 40's and
50's? I don't. It's this 24/7 totally connected "lifestyle." Just as
trees don't grow to the sky, you cannot continue to improve
productivity 10% every year, year after year after year. Yet, that's
what seems to be expected in today's business environment. It's not
rational, it's not sustainable, and it's making most of us miserable.
Chew on that. Have a great, stress-free, satisfying day. I dare you!
Photo: "whack"
originally uploaded
by simplerich
Technorati: Information
Security, CSO,Security
Mike, Internet
Security
![]() The Pragmatic CSO: Available Now! Read the Intro and Get "5 Tips to be a Better CSO" www.pragmaticcso.com |
Get Your Special Report: 6 Easy Steps to Protect Your Identity and get access to Security Mike's Portal today www.securitymike.com ![]() |
Top Security News
You dirty rat(proxy)
So what? -
This is kind of old, but still important. The folks at Google have made their internal
web application assessment tool - called ratproxy - freely available.
It's not the tool that is interesting, but it gives me yet another
opportunity to reinforce the need to be constantly testing your stuff
(networks, systems, web apps, etc.) from the bad guy's view. No one
tool is totally comprehensive, so you need to use many tools. No one
person is totally comprehensive either, so you need to use many people
- some internal, some external. Of course, this is gated by the value
of the information accessible via the web app. Obviously you don't pay
a bunch of money to test applications that don't house private data -
UNLESS that application would provide a path to the vault. That's why
segmentation (physical, logical, otherwise) is so important. Even the
least important app can kill you if it provides a path to some
important data. So application architecture and operational
provisioning continue to be important, and not only when you first roll
out the application. It makes sense to revisit the entire application
eco-system every so often (maybe quarterly) just to make sure the
architecture and segmentation plan make sense.
Link to this
How clouds will rain on your
parade
So what? -
Before everyone unplugs their existing data centers and moves
everything to the crowd, I guess we should think about the security
implications of that. It would be a first (to actually think about
security before doing something), but there is a first for everything.
The good news is that the big G is thinking about such issues, which
they can do with 25 analyst covering little, old security. This NetworkWorld summary points out
some of the issue to be concerned with. Fact is, these are things we
need to worry about in any kind of computing environment. You know,
things like privileged user access and compliance. There are some
unique aspects to worry about relative to cloud computing, but it's not
anything we haven't seen before. And that's a key idea in this
cloud-based, web 2.0 reality we all seem to be rushing headlong into.
None of this stuff is turning security on it's ear. 90% of it is doing
the stuff we should already be doing right. Of course, if you aren't
doing that stuff right - then it's another issue.
Link to this
We've got to count something, no?
So what? -
One of the things that hit right before I left for holiday was the
Mogull's initiative with Mozilla to institute a model to track risk
within Firefox over time. I get the need for this type of
initiative, especially given the fact that bug counting in browser code
is irrelevant to the true security of the application. The most
important aspect of the initiative is that Mozilla is going to be
tracking these numbers over time, and presumably (though I shouldn't
assume anything) use that trend analysis to pinpoint issues in their
development process. Of course, we really shouldn't confuse counting
aspects of the dev process (like the time to route an issue to the
appropriate developer) with the risk presented by that bug. Maybe this
will positively impact Mozilla's dev process, maybe it won't.
Ultimately I don't think it matters. This is about marketing against
an entrenched competitor who has done a good job of equating security
with bug counting (in the minds of most customers anyway). When it's
hard to win, change the rules. And that's what Mozilla is attempting to
do.
Link to this
The Laundry
List
- Switching is switching is switching. At least that's what Brocade hopes will happen when they drop $3 BILLION on Foundry. Big is the new small, even in the networking space (which would include storage networking). - Brocade release
- He's baaaack. Jim Bidzos takes over at VRSN, while they search for yet another CEO. Sure he knows the company, but Bidzos has never run a $50 million dollar company, certainly not a billion dollar one. - VeriSign release
- Head I win, tails you lose. Check Point goes high end with their appliance and further competes with their appliance customers (who license CHKP software to run on their boxes). They should have done this years ago. - Check Point release
- Patent litigators start your engines. McAfee loses IPS case to DeepNines for $18 million. Sure they'll appeal, but Sourcefire and TippingPoint and probably all the UTM folks should be expecting their law suits. I guess when you can't compete in the market, it makes sense to compete in the courtroom. - Barron's blog
Top Blog Postings
DNS hole: $10,000. Seeing Thomas with
his hat in his hand: Priceless
You know it right when it happens. You don't have a pit in your
stomach, it feels like you ate a watermelon whole. And you
know because you totally screwed up. I've been there, and I don't envy
Matasano Thomas, who is there right now. Of course, I'm referring to
the fiasco with Dan Kaminsky's DNS flaw. Dan truly did the unbelievable
in getting a whole lot of vendors to coordinate patches and start to
fix the issue. It was very impressive. But without details, the
loudmouths in the security research community called the issue
"marketing" and figured it was hype for Dan's Black Hat speech. So the hyper-connected Mogull gets smart Matasano's on the line to verify that
it's a big issue. Of course, based on the law of
unintended consequences, Halvar's generic speculation led
to a domino effect of Matasano inadvertently spilling the beans. Of
which Thomas had to make a public and gut wrenching apology. The moral
of the story, you can't
have your cake and eat it too. Dan played with fire in
terms of pre-announcing the DNS flaw when the patches were release, and
that created the environment where someone was going to figure it out.
Security by obscurity works, but only if you are truly obscure and thus
not a target. Dan put a big target on the DNS flaw by talking about it,
and this is what happens.
http://www.matasano.com/log/1105/regarding-the-post-on-chargen-earlier-today/
Link
to this
Tiger team or pen test? Does it
matter?
pdp goes through some gyrations in this post to draw differences
between a "tiger team" and a pen test. I guess wikipedia (which is
always right) has determined the terms to be synonymous, pdp disagrees.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of getting caught up in vernacular. Both
terms indicate you are going to Hack Yourself, which I think is a great
thing. How much quality, pricing and time frame you can afford is up to
you and your organization, culture, value of protected data, etc.
Though it is much cooler to say "I'm part of a Tiger Team," rather than
I'm a penetration tester. Though in some sections of LA I figure
anything having to do with penetration is highly sought after,
especially if it comes with video skills. Kidding aside, I don't care
what you call it, but you need to be familiar with tiger teams, pen
tests, and anything else that will help you understand how you can be
compromised. Remember
that surprise is the enemy of the security professional.
http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/tiger-team-operations-vs-penetration-tests/
Link
to this
Crystal ball, Mogull-style
Another series that bears mentioning is Rich's attempts to project
where application and data security are going. The first post really sets the stage
by going over a bunch of assumptions. Are the assumptions accurate? Who
knows? That's the problem with assumptions. If they aren't right, then
everything else you say is crap. Thankfully Rich waters things down to
a few statements (like bad guys are focused on web apps, and code is
generally insecure), which I'd say are fact. Yet it's the second post
that really gets interesting. Basically it's Rich's short manifesto on
why monitoring is the only way to address the issue. He adds a bit of
protection to that (making the acronym ADMP - application and database
monitoring and protection), but that's more because some folks will
actually try to block stuff and they should (for the most obvious
issues). Rich also goes through a potential use case that I think has
some legs in building a somewhat isolated, application specific
experience that will wall off the computing from everything else on the
device. For banking applications (most like high value banking), this
approach makes a lot of sense. Philosophically, there are abstractions
we can take from these ideas. I'm all about the monitoring because (as
I've probably said about a million times) we don't know what tomorrow
will bring us. But we do know if it causes some unexpected behavior,
traffic patterns, transactions, etc. If you are aren't collecting data
from all aspects of the system (from browser to database, as Rich
says), then you can't really get the big picture. Of course, it's still
very hard to collect and make sense of all this data, but it's our best
near-term hope for addressing the gaping hole that are web
applications. Longer term, we have to change the game and secure the
data directly, but that is a LONG way off.
http://securosis.com/2008/06/27/the-future-of-application-and-database-security-part-2-browser-to-wafgateway/
Link
to this



Post new comment