Face it, your security requirements suck. I’ll tell you why.  You write down controls verbatim from your catalog of controls (800-53, SoX, PCI, 27001, etc), put it into a contract, and wonder how come when it comes time for security testing, we just aren’t talking the same language.  Even worse, you put in the cr*ptastic “Contractor shall be compliant with FISMA and all applicable NIST standards”.  Yes, this happens more often than I could ever care to count, and I’ve seen it from both sides.

The problem with quoting back the “requirements” from a catalog of controls is that they’re not really requirements, they’re control objectives–abstract representations of what you need in order to protect your data, IT system, or business.  It’s a bit like brain surgery using a hammer and chisel–yes, it might work out for you, but I don’t really feel comfortable doing it or being on the receiving end.

And this is my beef with the way we manage security controls nowadays.  They’re not requirements, functionally they’re a high-level needs statement or even a security concept of operations.  Security controls need to be tailored into real requirements that are buildable, testable, measurable, and achievable.

Requirements photo by yummiec00kies.  There’s a social commentary in there about “Single, slim, and pleasant looking” but even I’m afraid to touch that one. =)

Did you say “Wrecks and Female Pigs’? In the contracting world, we have 2 vehicles that we use primarily for security controls: Statements of Work (SOW) and Engineering Requirements.

• Statements of Work follow along the lines of activities performed by people.  For instance, “contractor shall perform monthly 100% vulnerability scanning of the $FooProject.”
• Engineering Requirements are exactly what you want to have build.  For instance, “Prior to displaying the login screen, the application shall display the approved Generic Government Agency warning banner as shown below…”

Let’s have a quick exercise, shall we?

What 800-53 says: The information system produces audit records that contain sufficient information to, at a minimum, establish what type of event occurred, when (date and time) the event occurred, where the event occurred, the source of the event, the outcome (success or failure) of the event, and the identity of any user/subject associated with the event.

How It gets translated into a contract: Since it’s more along the lines of a security functional requirement (ie, it’s a specific functionality not a task we want people to do), we brake it out into multiple requirements:

The $BarApplication shall produce audit records with the following content:

• Event description such as the following:
  • Access the $Baz subsystem
  • Mounting external hard drive
  • Connecting to database
  • User entered administrator mode
• Date/time stamp in ‘YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS’ format;
• Hostname where the event occured;
• Process name or program that generated the event;
• Outcome of the event as one of the following: success, warn, or fail; and
• Username and UserID that generated the event.

For a COTS product (ie, Windows 2003 server, Cisco IOS), when it comes to logging, I get what I get, and this means I don’t have a requirement for logging unless I’m designing the engineering requirements for Windows.

What 800-53 says: The The organization configures the information system to provide only essential capabilities and specifically prohibits and/or restricts the use of the following functions, ports, protocols, and/or services: [Assignment: organization-defined list of prohibited and/or restricted functions, ports, protocols, and/or services].

How It gets translated into a contract: Since it’s more along the lines of a security functional requirement, we brake it out into multiple requirements:

The $Barsystem shall have the software firewall turned on and only the following traffic shall be allowed:

• TCP port 443 to the command server
• UDP port 123 to the time server at this address
• etc…..

If we drop the system into a pre-existing infrastructure, we don’t need firewall rules per-se as part of the requirements, what we do need is a SOW along the following lines:

The system shall use our approved process for firewall change control, see a copy here…

So what’s missing, and how do we fix the sorry state of requirements?

This is the interesting part, and right now I’m not sure if we can, given the state of the industry and the infosec labor shortage:  we need security engineers who understand engineering requirements and project management in addition to vulnerability management.

Don’t abandon hope yet, let’s look at some things that can help….

Security requirements are a “best effort” proposition.  By this, I mean that we have our requirements and they don’t fit in all cases, so what we do is we throw them out there and if you can’t meet the requirement, we waiver it (live with it, hope for the best) or apply a compensating control (shield it from bad things happening).  This is unnerving because what we end up doing is arguing all the time over whether the requirements that were written need to be done or not.  This drives the engineers nuts.

It’s a significant amount of work to translate control objectives into requirements.  The easiest, fastest way to fix the “controls view” of a project is to scope out things that are provided by infrastructure or by policies and procedures at the enterprise level.  Hmmm, sounds like explicitly stating what our shared/common controls are.

You can manage controls by exclusion or inclusion:

• Inclusion:  We have a “default null” for controls and we will explicitly say in the requirements what controls you do need.  This works for small projects like standing up a pair of webservers in an existing infrastructure.
• Exclusion:  We give you the entire catalog of controls and then tell you which ones don’t apply to you.  This works best with large projects such as the outsourcing of an entire IT department.

We need a reference implementation per technology.  Let’s face it, how many times have I taken the 800-53 controls and broken them down into controls relevant for a desktop OS?  At least 5 in the last 3 years.  The way you really need to do this is that you have a hardening guide and that is the authoritative set of requirements for that technology.  It makes life simple.  Not that I’m saying deviate from doctrine and don’t do 800-53 controls and 800-53A test procedures, but that’s the point of having a hardening guide–it’s really just a set of tailored controls specific to a certain technology type.  The work has been done for you, quit trying to re-engineer the wheel.

Use a Joint Responsibilities Matrix.  Basically this breaks down the catalog of controls into the following columns:

• Control Designator
• Control Title
• Provided by the Government/Infrastructure/Common Control
• Provided by the Contractor/Project Team/Engineer

• When Standards Aren’t Good Enough
• Opportunity Costs and the 20 Critical Security Controls
• 20 Critical Security Controls: Control-by-Control
• 20 Critical Security Controls: What They Did Right and What They Did Wrong
• NIST Cloud Conference Recap

And by “We”, I mean the security industry as a whole.  And yes, this is your public-policy lesson for today, let me drag my soapbox over here and sit for a spell while I talk at you.

By “Survive”, I mean that we need some kind of self-regulatory framework that fulfills the niche that PCI-DSS occupies currently. Keep reading, I’ll explain.

And the “Why” is a magical phrase, everybody say it after me: self-regulatory organization.  In other words, the IT industry (and the Payment Card Industry) needs to regulate itself before it crosses the line into being considered for statutory regulation (ie, making a law) by the Federal Government.

Remember the PCI-DSS hearings with the House Committe on Homeland Security (AKA the Thompson Committee)?  All the Security Twits were abuzz about it, and it did my heart great justice to hear all the cool kids become security and public policy wonks at least for an afternoon.  Well, there is a little secret here and that is that when Congress gets involved, they’re gathering information to determine if they need to regulate an industry.  That’s about all Congress can do: make laws that you (and the Executive Branch) have to follow, maybe divvy up some tax money, and bring people in to testify.  Other than that, it’s just positioning to gain favor with other politicians and maybe some votes in the next election.

Regulation means audits and more compliance.  They go together like TCP and IP.  Most regulatory laws have at least some designation for a party who will perform oversight.  They have to do this because, well, if you’re not audited/assessed/evaluated/whatever, then it’s really an optional law, which doesn’t make sense at all.

Yay Audits photo by joebeone.

Another magical phrase that the public policy sector can share with the information security world: audit burden.  Audit burden is how much a company or individual pays both in direct costs (paying the auditors) and in indirect costs (babysitting the auditors, producing evidence for the auditors, taking people away from making money to talk to auditors, “audit requirements”, etc).  I think we can all agree that low audit burden is good, high audit burden is bad.  In fact, I think that’s one of the problems with FISMA as implemented is that it has a high audit burden with moderately tangible results. But I digress, this post is about PCI-DSS.

There’s even a concept that is mulling around in the back of my head to make a metric that compares the audit burden to the amount of security that it provides to the amount of assurance that it provides against statutory regulation.  It almost sounds like the start of a balanced scorecard for security management frameworks, now if I could get @alexhutton to jump on it, his quant brain would churn out great things in short order.

But this is the lesson for today: self-regulation is preferrable to legislation.

• Self-regulation is defined by people in the industry.  Think about the State Bar Association setting the standards for who is allowed to practice law.
• Standards ideally become codified versions of “best practices”.  OK, this is if they’re done correctly, more to follow.
• Standards are more flexible than laws.  As hard/cumbersome as it is to change a standard, the time involved in changing a law is prohibitive most of the time unless you’re running for reelection.
• Standards sometimes can be “tainted” to force out competition, laws are even more so.

The sad fact here is that if we don’t figure out as an industry how to make PCI-DSS or any other forms of self-regulation work, Congress will regulate for us.  Don’t like PCI-DSS because of the audit burden, wait until you have a law that requires you to do the same controls framework.  It will be the same thing, only with bigger penalties for failure, larger audit burdens to avoid the larger penalties, larger industries created to satisfy the market demand for audit.  Come meet the new regulatory body, same as the old only bigger and meaner. =)

However, self-regulation works if you do it right, and by right I mean this:

• The process is transparent and not the product of a secret back-room cabbal.
• Representation from all the shareholders.  For PCI-DSS, that would be Visa/MasterCard, banks, processors, large merchants, small merchants, and some of the actual customers.
• The standards committee knows how to compromise and come to a consensus.  IE, we can’t have both full hard drive encryption, a WAF, code review, and sacrificing of chickens in the server room, so we’ll make one of the 4 mandatory.
• The regulatory organization has a grievance process for its constituency to present valid (AKA “Not just more whining”) discrepencies in the standards and processes for clarification or consideration for change.
• The standard is “owned” by every member of the constituency.  Right now, people governed by PCI-DSS are not feeling that the standard is their standard and that they have a say in what comprises the standard and that they are the ones being helped by the standard.  Some of that is true, some of that is an image problem.  The way you combat this is by doing the things that I mentioned in the previous bullets.

Hmm, sounds like making an ISO standard, which brings its own set of politics.

While we need some form of self-regulation, right now PCI-DSS and ISO 27001 are the closest that we have in the private sector.  Yeah, it sucks, but it sucks the least, just like our form of government.

• Observations on PCI-DSS and Circular Arguments
• Metricon 5 Wrapup
• Blow-By-Blow on S.773–The Cybersecurity Act of 2009–Part 3
• Preliminary Findings on Cybersecurity Review Now Out
• “Machines Don’t Cause Risk, People Do!”

Ack, Plans of Action and Milestones.  I love them and I hate them.

For those of you who “don’t habla Federali”, a POA&M is basically an IOU from the system owner to the accreditor that yes, we will fix something but for some reason we can’t do it right now.  Usually these are findings from Security Test and Evaluation (ST&E) or Certification and Accreditation (C&A).  In fact, some places I’ve worked, they won’t make new POA&Ms unless they’re traceable back to ST&E results.

Functions that a POA&M fulfills:

• Issue tracking to resolution
• Serves as a “risk register”
• Used as the justification for budget
• Generate mitigation metrics
• Can be used for data-mining to find common vulnerabilities across systems

But today, we’re going to talk about POA&M abuse.  I’ve seen my fair share of this.

Conflicting Goals: The basic problem is that we want POA&Ms to satisfy too many conflicting functions.  IE, if we use the number of open POA&Ms as a metric to determine if our system owners are doing their job and closing out issues but we also turn around and report these at an enterprise level to OMB or at the department level, then it’s a conflict of interest to get these closed as fast as possible, even if it means losing your ability to track things at the system level or to spend the time doing things that solve long-term security problems–our vulnerability/weakness/risk management process forces us into creating small, easily-to-satisfy POA&Ms instead of long-term projects.

Near-Term v/s Long-Term:  If we set up POA&Ms with due dates of 30-60-90 (for high, moderate, and low risks) days, we don’t really have time at all to turn these POA&Ms into budget support.  Well, if we manage the budget up to 3 years in advance and we have 90 days for high-risk findings, then that means we’ll have exactly 0 input into the budget from any POA&M unless we can delay the bugger for 2 years or so, much too long for it to actually be fixable.

Bad POA&Ms:  Let’s face it, sometimes the one-for-one nature of ST&E, C&A, and risk assessment findings to POA&Ms means that you get POA&Ms that are “bad” and by that I mean that they can’t be satisfied or they’re not really something that you need to fix.

Some of the bad POA&Ms I’ve seen, these are paraphrased from the original:

• The solution uses {Microsoft|Sun|Oracle} products which has a history of vulnerabilities.
• The project team needs to tell the vendor to put IPV6 into their product roadmap
• The project team needs to implement X which is a common control provided at the enterprise level
• The System Owner and DAA have accepted this risk but we’re still turning it into a POA&M
• This is a common control that we really should handle at the enterprise level but we’re putting it on your POA&M list for a simple web application

Plan of Action for Refresh Philly photo by jonny goldstein.

Keys to POA&M Nirvana:  So over the years, I’ve observed some techniques for success in working with POA&Ms:

• Agree on the evidence/proof of POA&M closure when the POA&M is created
• Fix it before it becomes a POA&M
• Have a waiver or exception process that requires a cost-benefit-risk analysis
• Start with”high-level” POA&Ms and work down to more detailed POA&Ms as your security program matures
• POA&Ms are between the System Owner and the DAA, but the System Owner can turn around and negotiate a POA&M as a cedural with an outsourced IT provider

And then the keys to Building Good POA&Ms:

• Actionable–ie, they have something that you need to do
• Achievable–they can be accomplished
• Demonstrable–you can demonstrate that the POA&M has been satisfied
• Properly-Scoped–absorbed at the agency level, the common control level, or the system level
• They are SMART: Specific, Manageable, Attainable, Relevant, and within a specified Timeframe
• They are DUMB: Doable, Understandable, Manageable, and Beneficial

Yes, I stole the last 2 bullets from the picture above, but they make really good sense in a way that “know thyself” is awesome advice from the Oracle at Delphi.

• Security Assessments as Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
• Observations on SP 800-37R1
• Reinventing FedRAMP
• How to Not Let FISMA Become a Paperwork Exercise
• NIST Cloud Conference Recap

One of the best things about being almost older than dirt is that I’ve seen several cycles within the security community.  Just like fashion and ladies’ hemlines, if you pay attention long enough, you’ll see history repeat itself, or something that closely resembles history.  Time for a short trip “down memory lane…”

In the early days of computer security, all eyes were fixed on Linthicum and the security labs associated with the NSA.  In the late 80’s and early 90’s the NSA evaluation program was notoriously slow – glacial would be a word one could use…  Bottom line, the process just wasn’t responsive enough to keep up with the changes and improvements in technology.  Products would be in evaluation for years before coming out of the process with their enabling technology nearly obsolete.   It didn’t matter, it was the only game in town until NIST and the Common Criteria labs  came onto the scene.  This has worked well, however the reality is, it’s not much better at vetting and moving technology from vendors to users.  The problem is, the evaluation process takes time and time means money, but it also means that the code submitted for evaluation will most likely be several revisions old by the time it emerges from evaluation.   Granted, it may only be 6 months, but it might take a year – regardless, this is far better than before.

So…  practically speaking, if the base version of FooOS submitted for evaluation is, say Version 5.0.1, several revisions —  each solving operational problems affecting the  organization — may have been released.  We may find that we need to run Version 5.6.10r3 in order to pass encrypted traffic via the network.  Because we encrypt traffic we must use FIPS-Level 2 certified code – but in the example above, the validated version of the FooOS will not work in our network…    What does the CISO do?  We’ll return to this in a moment, it gets better!

In order to reach levels of FIPS-140 goodness, one vendor in particular has instituted “FIPS Mode.”  What this does is require administration of the box from apposition directly in front  of the equipment, or at the length of your longest console cable…  Clearly, this is not suitable for organizations with equipment deployed worldwide to locations that do not have qualified administrators or network engineers.  Further, having to fly a technician to Burundi to clear sessions on a box every time it becomes catatonic is ridiculous at worst.  At best it’s not in accordance with the network concept of operations.  How does the CISO propose a workable, secure solution?

Standard Hill photo by timparkinson.

Now to my point.  (about time Vlad)   How does the CISO approach this situation?  Allow me to tell you the approach I’ve taken….

1. Accept the fact that once Foo OS has achieved a level of FIPS-140 goodness, the likelihood that the modules of code within the OS implementing cryptographic functionality in follow-on versions have not been changed.  This also means you have to assume the vendor has done a good job of documenting the changes to their baseline in their release notes, and that they HAVE modular code…

2. Delve into vendor documentation and FIPS-140 to find out exactly what “FIPS Mode” is, its benefits and the requirement.  Much of the written documentation in the standard deals with physical security of the cryptographic module itself (e.g., tamper-evident seals) – but most helpful is Table 1.

Bottom line — some “features” are indeed useful,  but this one particular vendor’s implementation into a “one-size fits all” option tends to limit the use of the feature at all in some operational scenarios (most notably, the one your humble author is dealing with.)  BTW, changing vendors is not an option.

3. Upon analyzing the FIPS requirements against operational needs, and (importantly) the environment the equipment is operating in, one has to draw the line between “operating in vendor FIPS Mode,” and using FIPS 140-2 encryption.

4. Document the decision and the rationale.

Once again, security professionals have to help managers to strike a healthy balance between “enough” security and operational requirements.   You would think that using approved equipment, operating systems, and vendors using the CC evaluation process would be enough.  Reading the standard, we see the official acknowledgement that “Your Mileage May Indeed Vary:” ^TM

“While the security requirements specified in this standard are intended to maintain the security provided by a cryptographic module, conformance to this standard is not sufficient to ensure that a particular module is secure. The operator of a cryptographic module is responsible for ensuring that the security provided by a module is sufficient and acceptable to the owner of the information that is being protected and that any residual risk is acknowledged and accepted.”     FIPS 140-2 Sec 15, Qualifications

The next paragraph constitutes validation of the approach I’ve embraced:

“Similarly, the use of a validated cryptographic module in a computer or telecommunications system does not guarantee the security of the overall system. The responsible authority in each agency shall ensure that the security of the system is sufficient and acceptable.”  (Emphasis added.)

One could say, “it depends,” but you wouldn’t think so at first glance – it’s a Standard for Pete’s sake!

Then again, nobody said this job would be easy!

Vlad

• FIPS and the Linux Kernel
• Your Security “Requirements” are Teh Suxxorz
• The 10 CAG-egorically Wrong Ways to Introduce Standards
• Analyzing Fortify’s Plan to “Fix” the Government’s Security Problem
• “Machines Don’t Cause Risk, People Do!”

So I was doing my usual “Beltway Bandit Perusal of Opportunities for Filthy Lucre” also known as diving into FedBizOps and I found this gem.  Basically what this means is that sometime this summer, NIST is going to put out an RFP for contractors to further develop SCAP using ARRA funds.

Keeping in mind that this isn’t the official list of what NIST wants done under this contract, but it’s interesting to look at from an angle of where SCAP will go over the next couple of years:

1. Evolution of the SCAP protocol and specifications thereof
2. Feasibility studies, development, documenting, prototyping, and road-mapping of SCAP expansions (e.g., remediation capability) and analog protocols (e.g., Network Event Content Automation Protocol
3. Implementation and maintenance support for the Security Automation Content Validation Program
4. Maintenance support for the SCAP Product Validation Program
5. Pilot, beta, and production support for SCAP and security automation use-cases
6. Content development, modification, and testing
7. Infrastructure and reference implementation development in JAVA, C++, and C programming languages
8. Data trust models and data provenance solutions.

So how do you play?  Well, the first thing is that you respond to the notice with a capabilities statement saying “yes, we have experience in doing what you want”–there is a list of specifics in the original notice.  Then sign up for FedBizOps and follow the announcement so you can get changes and the RFP when it comes out.

• Security Automation Developers Conference Slides
• Save a Kitten, Write SCAP Content
• NIST and SCAP; Busting a cap on intruders Part 1
• Comments on SCAP 2008
• NIST and SCAP; SCAP @ Large Part 2

Check out this blog post.  Wow, all sorts of crazies decend out of the woodwork when Bruce talks about something that’s been around for years and suddenly everyone’s redesigning the desktop from the ground up.

Quick recap on comments:

• 60-day password changes suck
• You can do this at home, the GPOs are available from NIST
• My blue-haired sheepdog can’t use the FDCC image, it’s broken for commercial use!
• You wouldn’t have to do this in Linux
• Linux is teh suxx0rz
• My computer started beeping and smoke came out of it, is this FDCC?

Proving once again that you can’t talk about Windows desktop security without it evolving into a flamewar.  Might as well pull out “vi v/s emacs” while you’re at it, Bruce.  =)

Computer Setup photo by karindalziel.  Yes, one of them is a linux box, I used this picture for that very same reason.  =)

But there is one point that people need to understand.  The magic of FDCC is not in the fact that the Government used its IT-buying muscle to get Microsoft to cooperate.  Oh no, that’s to be expected–the guys at MS are used to working with a lot of people now on requests.

The true magic of FDCC is getting the application vendors to play along.  To wit:

• The FDCC GPOs are freely available from NIST
• You can download images from NIST with a preconfigured FDCC setup
• Application vendors can test their product against FDCC in their own lab
• There is no external audit burden (yet, it might be coming) for software vendors because it’s a self-certification
• FDCC-compatible software doesn’t require administrative privileges

In other words, if your software works with FDCC, it’s probably built to run on a security-correct operating system in the first place.  This is a good thing, and in this case the Government is using its IT budget to bring the application vendors into some sort of minimal security to the rest of the world.

This statement is from the FDCC FAQ, comments in parenthesis are mine:

“How are vendors required to prove FDCC compliance?
There is no formal compliance process; vendors of information technology products must self-assert FDCC compliance. They are expected to ensure that their products function correctly with computers configured with the FDCC settings. The product installation process must make no changes to the FDCC settings. Applications must work with users who do not have administrative privileges, the only acceptable exception being information technology management tools. Vendors must test their products on systems configured with the FDCC settings, they must use SCAP validated tools with FDCC Scanner capability to certify their products operate correctly with FDCC configurations and do not alter FDCC settings. The OMB provided suggested language in this memo: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-18.pdf, vendors are likely to encounter similar language when negotiating with agencies.”

So really what you get out of self-certification is something like this:

• IBM Rational Tools FDCC compatibility
• Quest Software FDCC compatibility
• SAS FDCC compatibility

• Comments on SCAP 2008
• NIST and SCAP; Busting a cap on intruders Part 1
• Ed Bellis’s Little SCAP Project
• Federated Vulnerability Management
• Security Automation Developers Conference Slides