I recently visited a trade show dedicated to physical security.
Almost every vendor was advertising IP-enabled ‘smart’ technology, with accompanying apps, that would log and alert on access or motion, prevent tail-gating, recognise smartphones or RFID tags, or track faces or number plates automatically. The sheer number of CCTV vendors alone was stunning, although, truth be told, as a physical-security novice, I struggled to spot any discernable difference between them all!
There were firms who were crossing over into ‘smart home’ technology – selling a series of sensors to control temperature and light; detect issues such as movement, flooding or smoke; and remotely unlock the front door of homes, or secure areas. Although mainly sold on a ‘home security’ premise, these systems were also cleverly brought together into packages which could be used to monitor the activity of an elderly relative, sending alerts if regular patterns of behaviour, or safe limits, were transgressed (i.e. Has the shower been on too long suggesting a fall? Has the box containing essential pills been opened at around the right time? Has the front door been opened at 2am? Etc.)
I spoke to six or seven vendors of similar technology sets and asked how they managed the logical security around their product. Almost every response began with a pause.... then came, “well, you know that nothing can ever be totally secure”, and then they abruptly ended with “we have encryption!”. It became abundantly clear that few, if any, vendors, had thought through the logical security issues and none were including it in their sales training. Other responses, somewhat worryingly, included “our engineers look after that”, “they wouldn’t let us sell it unless it was secure”, and the classic “I’m sure it’s fine….”
The Internet of Things (IoT) is a hot phrase right now, and every vendor is talking about the huge potential of continual connectivity and interaction with smart devices to optimize the asset and transform the customer experience. The potential is undeniably huge and developers are right to be excited, but it’s not all "hugs and puppies."
As S&R professionals, we have to balance the excitement of innovation with pragmatism and caution, and the IoT is a turmoil of innovation right now. With so much change, it can be difficult to focus in on the key issues, so let's choose an area where there has been a lot of discussion and hype for years (or even decades) but not much in the way of actual consumer adoption; let's use the "connected car" as an example to crystalize a few of the risk scenarios.
Picture courtesy of Dave Gray on Flikr
Today’s cars operate on computers, and mechanical functionality breaks down when the computer is not there to manage it. It’s not quite an aerodynamically unstable plane, such as the B-2, or indeed most modern fighter jets, which are kept in the sky by instantaneous computer feedback and corrections, but it’s not dissimilar. As we move toward the connected car, think through these scenarios:
The information security profession is built on three fundamental tenets, those of confidentiality, availability, and integrity. Increasingly, however, I see two things happening:
- Organizations are reprioritising these to reflect their significance within their organization, with confidentiality often trailing to availability and integrity; or
- Additional aspects such as authentication, authorization, non-repudiation etc. are supplementing the CIA triad.
It seems that there may be a growing group of S&R professionals who are dissatisfied with these concepts, feeling that they are ambiguous or incomplete, and some find it troublesome that they lack standard units of measurement.
It was with interest, therefore, that I noted a competition issued by the O-ISM3 Consortium, an organization that focuses on fostering alignment between security objectives and business goals. Their challenge lays out a use case for participants to navigate. It involves a mock audit on a travel company and presents entrants with the audit findings. The participants are then challenged to create a set of audit questions that would lead to these responses, but they have to choose one of two alternative paths – either their questions must all include references to C, I, and A, or none of them may.
Communication is an essential part of the CISO's role, but too often we get it horribly wrong. That was the message laid out by communications expert David Porter at the RSA Conference in Europe recently.
We know that a large part of the CISO’s role is to influence, cajole and encourage our business leaders to make the right choices, enabling our firms to manage risk and move forward safely. Creating compelling communications is a differentiator, but too few CISOs excel in this area and this is holding back their credibility, their career and the risk posture of their employers.
David Porter proposed spending a great deal more time than most of us would be used to, refining the introduction to any piece of communication, and actively crafting it to flow from ‘Situation’ (“Once upon a time there was a beautiful princess..”) to ‘Complication’ (“..who was imprisoned in a tall tower by her wicked step-mother”). That sounds pretty standard, but it was interesting how David then analysed different RSAC submissions and showed how even the professionally written ones deviated from this model, and how much clearer they were once the rule had been applied.
This simple setup opens up the readers/listener's mind and plants questions that seek to understand how the story can be resolved, and stories are powerful communication tools.
As individuals get better access to the technology that enables their participation in the information age, so privacy has to be considered and regulation applied to raise standards to those that are acceptable across that society. It was interesting, therefore, to note the cultural recoil that occurred in response to the NSA’s recently discovered, and rather widespread, caller record collection (not to mention other 'PRISM' related data!) - it’s clear that this has crossed a boundary of acceptability.
This isn’t however, just a US problem. A news story recently broke in India highlighting that local law enforcement agencies had, over the past six months, compelled mobile phone companies to hand over call detail records for almost 100,000 subscribers. The requisitions originated from different sources and levels within the police force and their targets included many senior police officers and bureaucrats.
Unlike the NSA scrutiny, which although potentially unreasonable, at least appears legal, the vast majority of these data requests did not have the required formal documentation to uphold or justify the demand, yet they were fulfilled. This revelation was revealed by Gujarat’s State Director General of Police, Amitabh Pathak, and came hot on the tail of a similar story originating from New Dehli where the mobile phone records of a senior political leader, Arun Jaitley, were also acquired by a very junior law enforcement officer.
For years we have talked about the requirement to make the top security and risk (S&R) role increasingly business-facing, and this is now turning into a reality. Surprisingly, however, we see an increasing number of non-IT security folk stepping up to take the CISO role, often ahead of experienced IT professionals.
These "next-gen" CISOs are commonly savvy business professionals, experienced at implementing change and evolving processes, and adept at dealing with strategies, resource plans and board-level discussions. Their placement into these S&R roles often comes as an unwelcome surprise to those that have been working within the IT security teams; however, we have to recognise that this new breed are simply filling a gap. Unfortunately, although we have talked about the professionalization of the role and the need for greater business engagement, many S&R professionals are still not ready for the leap, and this opens up an opportunity for others to steal their way in.
Make no mistake; this is a significant change in the traditional S&R professional career path.
Undoubtedly, most of you will have seen the amazing story about the developer who secretly outsourced his own role to China, investing 20% of his annual salary to free up almost all his work time. The ruse came to light when the firm, who were pushing forward with a more flexible working package, noticed anomalous VPN activity and called in their telecom provider to investigate. The logs indicated that their lead programmer, "Bob," was apparently regularly telecommuting from Shenyang despite being peacefully sat at his desk surfing the Internet for amusing cat videos.
It transpires that "Bob" had FedExed his SecurID token to China and was allowing the remote development company VPN access to his employer's network so that they could do his day job for him.
Irrespective of the terrible security implications here, and they are pretty horrid, "Bob" was delivering high-quality code to schedule. In fact, his performance review regularly identified him as the best developer they had! And what "Bob" did here was not difficult – many sites offer the services of dedicated professionals such as developers, designers, proofreaders, even lawyers, for a small price.
In a business environment where we encourage flexible working, allow personal devices, and seek to incentivize workers for innovation, excellence, and performance, "Bob" could be held up as a role model, but at what cost to the enterprise?
As 2012 came to a close, we studied the financial position of many CISOs and asked about their expectations for 2013. Unsurprisingly, it was apparent that 2012 was another difficult year and that CISOs had been keeping their belts tight once again. When compared with the other IT departments, however, it became clear that this budgetary flat-line actually represented quite a success, as 2012 had seen most other teams face further cutbacks and spending restrictions.
When we looked ahead to 2013, we saw the usual hopeful optimism from the CISOs – proving once again that any allegation of a correlation between ‘pessimists’ and ‘security professionals’ is complete nonsense. It was interesting, however, to note a marked difference in attitudes dependent upon which side of the Atlantic the respondent was located. Put simply, North American based CISOs had a much more buoyant view of security related finances in 2013 than their European peers.
A little while ago I bumped into a journalist friend at a trade conference. We chatted about the event to try and identify hot topics and trends from our discussions and supplier meetings, and both sat there deflated when the stories that came to the surface were the same old ones of fear-mongering around APT and “cyber” threats.
“CISOs have a habit of missing the boat,” I said, thinking of how virtualization, social media, and consumerization had all crept into wide-scale adoption before many security teams had managed to turn their attention to them, “so, what topic should we be looking ahead to that CISOs are not talking about?” This question was much more interesting and we came to realize that the elephant that is currently pushing its way into the room is the Internet of Things (IoT).
My friend pointed out that he had raised this topic with several CISOs and was surprised at their lack of appreciation for the potential change that the IoT could bring to industry, consumers, and the Security & Risk (S&R) role — as the digital and physical world entwine, for example, we can envisage huge safety risks that the CISO would be best placed to address. We also decided that the stakes were surprisingly high, as the IoT has the potential to revolutionize technology innovation to such an extent that the eCommerce and social media bubbles will appear both sluggish and trivial by comparison.
I recently went for coffee with a very interesting gentleman who had previously been responsible for threat and vulnerability management in a global bank – our conversation roamed far and wide but kept on circling back to one or two core messages – the real fundamental principles of information security. One of these principles was “know your assets.”
Asset management is something that many CISO tend to skip over, often in the belief that information assets are managed by the business owners and hardware assets are closely managed by IT. Unfortunately, I’m not convinced that either of these beliefs is true to any great extent.
Take, for example, Anonymous’ recent hack of a forgotten VM server within AAPT’s outsourced infrastructure. VM "sprawl" is one of the key risks that Forrester discusses, and this appears to be a classic example – a virtual server created in haste and soon forgotten about. Commonly, as these devices fall off asset lists, they get neglected – malware and patching updates are skipped and backups are overlooked – yet they still exist on the network. It’s the perfect place for an attacker to sit unnoticed and, if the device exists in a hosted environment, it can also have the negative economic impact of monthly cost and license fees. One anecdote I heard was of a system administrator who, very cautiously and very successfully, disabled around 200 orphaned virtual servers in his organisation – with no negative business impact whatsoever.