OK, I know you’re shocked…I’m saying something controversial.  But hear me out on this one, I’ll explain.

Now this is my major beef with the way we write SSPs today:  this is all information that is contained in other artifacts that I have to pay people to do cut-and-paste to get it into a SSP template.  As practiced, we seriously have a problem with polyinstantiation of data in various lifecycle artifacts that is cut-and-pasted into an SSP.  Every time you change the upstream document, you create a difference between that document and the SSP.

This is a practice I would like to change, but I can’t do it all by myself.

This is the skeleton outline of an SSP from Special Publication 800-18, the guide to writing an SSP:

1. Information System Name/Title–On the investment/FISMA inventory, the Exhibit 300/53, etc
2. Information System Categorization–usually on a FIPS-199 memorandum
3. Information System Owner–In an assignment memo
4. Authorizing Official–In an assignment memo
5. Other Designated Contacts–In an assignment memo
6. Assignment of Security Responsibility–In assignment memos
7. Information System Operational Status–On the investment/FISMA inventory, the Exhibit 300/53, etc
8. Information System Type–On the investment/FISMA inventory, the Exhibit 300/53, etc
9. General System Description/Purpose–In the design document, Exhibit 300/53
10. System Environment–Common controls not inside the scope of our system
11. System Interconnections/Information Sharing–from Interconnection Security Agreements
12. Related Laws/Regulations/Policies–Should be part of the system categorization but hardly ever is on templates
13. Minimum Security Controls–800-53 controls descriptions which can easily be done in a Requirements Traceability Matrix
14. Information System Security Plan Completion Date–specific to each document
15. Information System Security Plan Approval Date–specific to each document

Now some of this has changed in practice a little bit–# 10 can functionally be replaced with a designation of common controls and hybrid controls.

So my line of thinking is that if we provide a 2-6-page system description with the names of the “guilty parties” and some inventory information, controls-specific Requirements Traceability Matrix, and a System Design Document, then we have the functional equivalent of an SSP.

Why have I declared an InfoSec fatwah against SSPs as currently practiced?

Well, my philosophy for operation is based on some concepts I’ve picked up through the years:

• Why run when you can walk, why walk when you can sit, why sit when you can lay down.  There is a time to spend effort on determining what the security controls are for a project.  You need to have them documented but it’s not cost-effective to be worried about format, which we do probably too much of today.
• Make it easy to do the right thing.  If we polyinstantiate security information, we have made something harder to maintain.  Easier to maintain means that it will get maintained instead of being shelfware.  I would rather have updated and accurate security information than overly verbose and well-polished documents that are inaccurate.
• Security is not a “security guy thing”–most problems are actually a management and project team problem.  My idea uses their SDLC artifacts instead of security-specific versions of artifacts.  My idea puts the project problems back in the project space where it belongs.
• If I have a security engineer who has a finite amount of hours in a day, I have to choose what they spend their time on.  If it’s a matter of vulnerability mitigation, patching, etc, or correcting SSP grammar, I know what I want him to do.  Then again, I’m still an infantryman deep down inside and I realize I have biases against flowery writing.

Criticisms to not writing a dedicated SSP document:

“My auditors are used to seeing the information in the same format at someplace they worked previously”. Believe it or not, I hear this quite a bit.  My response is along the lines of the fact that if you make your standard be what I’m suggesting for a security plan, then you’ve met all of the FISMA and 800-53 requirements and my personal requirement to “don’t do stupid stuff if you can help it”.

“My auditors will grill me to death if they have to page back and forth between several documents”.  This one also I’ve heard.  There are a couple of ways to deal with this.  One way to deal with this is that in your 800-53 Requirements Traceability Matrix you reference the source document.  Most auditors at this point bring up that you need to reference the official name, date of publication, and specific page/section of the reference and I think they need to get a life because they’ve taken us back to the maintainability problem.

“This is all too new-school and I can’t get over it”. Then you are a dinosaur and your kind deserves extinction.  =)

.

This blog post is for grecs at novainfosecportal.com who perked up instantly when I mentioned the concept months ago.  Finally got around to putting the text somewhere.

How to Plan the Perfect Dinner Party photo by kevindooley.

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

Eh? What’s that mean?  Developer Days is a weeklong conference where they get down into the weeds about the various SCAP schemas and how they fit into the overall program of security automation. 

Highlights and new ideas:

Remedial Markup Language: Fledgeling schema to describe how to remediate a vulnerability.  A fully automated security system would scan and then use the RML content to automagically fix the finding… say, changing a configuration setting or installing a patch.  this would be much awesome if combined with the CVE/CWE so you have a vulnerability scanner that scans and fixes the problem.  Also needs to be kept in a bottle because the operations guys will have a heartattack if we are doing this without any human intervention.

Computer Network Defense: There is a pretty good scenario slide deck on using SCAP to automate hardening, auditing, monitoring, and defense.  The key from this deck is how the information flows using automation.

Common Control Identifier:  This schema is basically a catalog of controls (800-53, 8500.2, PCI, SoX, etc) in XML.  The awesomeness with this is that one control can contain a reference implementation for each technology and the checklist to validate it in XCCDF.  At this point, I get all misty…

Open Checklist Interactive Language: This schema is to capture questionaires.  Think managerial controls, operational controls, policy, and procedure captured in electronic format and fed into the regular mitigation and workflow tools that you use so that you can view “security of the enterprise at a glance” across technical and non-technical security.

Network Event Content Automation Protocol:  This is just a concept floating around right now on using XML to describe and automate responses to attacks.  If you’re familiar with ArcSight’s Common Event Format, this would be something similar but on steroids with workflow and a pony!

Attendance at developer days is limited, but thanks to all the “Powar of teh Intarwebs, you can go here and read the slides!

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

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

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

Some of my friends (and maybe myself) will be teaching the NIST Framework for FISMA in May and June with Potomac Forum.   This really is an awesome program.  Some highlights:

• Attendance is limited to Government employees only so that you can talk openly with your peers.
• Be part of a cohort that trains together over the course of a month.
• The course is 5 Fridays so that you can learn something then take it back to work the next week.
• We have a Government speaker ever week, from the NIST FISMA guys to agency CISOs and CIOs.
• No pitching, no marketing, no product placement (OK, maybe we’ll go through DoJ’s CSAM but only as an example of what kinds of tools are out there) , no BS.

See you all there!

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

We’ve got another good US Government Security Certification and Accreditation (C&A) Seminar/Workshop coming up at the end of March with Potomac Forum.

Graydon McKee (Ascension Risk Management and associated blog) and Dan Philpott (Fismapedia Mastermind and Guerilla-CISO Contributor) are going to the core of the instruction, with a couple others thrown in to round it all out.  I might stop by if I have the time.

What we promise:

• An opportunity to hear NIST’s version of events and what they’re trying to accomplish
• An opportunity to ask as many questions as you possibly can in 2 days
• Good materials put together
• An update on some of the recent security initiatives
• An opportunity to commiserate with security folks from other agencies and contractors
• No sales pitches and no products

See you all there!

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

The Consensus Audit Guidelines (CAG) appear, at this point, to be a reasonable set of guidelines for mediating some human threats. I’m looking forward to seeing what CAG offers and have no doubt there will be worthwhile and actionable controls in the document. That said, there are significant reasons approach CAG with skepticism and assess it critically.

The motivation for CAG is described in a set of slides at the Gilligan Group site. It starts with a focus on what CIO’s fear most: attacks, reduced operational capability, public criticism, data loss, etc. Then it rightly questions whether FISMA is adequately addressing those problems. It doesn’t and this is the genesis of the CAG.

Consensus photo by Eirik Newth.

Unfortunately CAG subsequently develops by pairing this first valid premise with a set of false premises.  These propositions are drawn from slides at gilligangroupinc.com, attributed to John Gilligan or Alan Paller:

1. All that matters are attacks. The central tenet of Bush’s Comprehensive National Cyber Initiative (CNCI) is adopted as the CAG theme: “Defense Must Be Informed by the Offense”. CAG envisions security as defense against penetration attacks. As any seasoned security practitioner knows, attacks are a limited subset of the threats to confidentiality, integrity and availability that information and information systems face.
2. Security through obscurity. CAG seems to have taken the unspoken CNCI theme to heart too, “The most effective security is not exposed to public criticism.” Since its very public December 11th announcement no drafts have been made publicly available for comment.
3. False dichotomy. CAG has been promoted as an alternative to the OMB/NIST approach to FISMA. It isn’t. An alternative would target a fuller range of threats to information and information system security. CAG should be considered a complement to NIST guidance, an addendum of security controls focused on defense against penetration by hackers. NIST has even acted on this approach by including some CAG controls into the 800-53 Rev. 3 catalog of controls.
4. There is too much NIST guidance! This is the implication of one CAG slide that lists 1200 pages of guidance, 15 FIPS docs and the assorted Special Publications not related to FISMA as detriments to security. It’s like complaining that Wikipedia has too many articles to contribute to improved learning. Speaking as someone who scrambled to secure Federal systems before FISMA and NIST’s extensive guidance, having that documentation greatly improves my ability to efficiently and effectively secure systems.
5. NIST guidance doesn’t tell me how to secure my systems! NIST’s FISMA guidance doesn’t step you through securing your SQL Server. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs also doesn’t deliver your milk. Why not? It’s not their job. NIST’s FISMA guidance helps you to assess the risks to the system, decide how to secure it, secure it accordingly, check that a minimum of controls are in place and then accept responsibility for operating the system. NIST also provides documents, checklists, repositories, standards, working groups and validation of automated tools that help with the actual security implementation.
6. Automated security controls negate human errors. With the premise of all threats being attacks this is nearly a plausible premise. But not all security is technical. Not all threats come from the Internet. DHS, NIST, Mitre, and their partners have pursued automated security controls to enforce and audit security controls for years but automated security controls can only go so far. Human errors, glitches, unexpected conflicts and operational requirements will always factor into the implementation of security.
7. Audit compatibility as a hallmark of good security. There is a conflict of focus at the heart of the CAG, it seeks to both improve its subset of security and improve audit compatibility. For technical controls this is somewhat achievable using automation, something NIST has pursued for years with government and industry partners. For operational and management controls it results in audit checklists. But audits are fundamentally concerned with testing the particular and repeatable, security needs focus on evaluating the whole to ensure the necessary security results. An audit sees if antivirus software is installed, an evaluation sees if the antivirus software is effective.
8. Metrics, but only these metrics over here. When selecting the current crop of CAG controls decisions on what to include were reportedly based on metrics of the highest threats. Great idea, a quantitative approach often discovers counter-intuitive facts. Only the metrics were cherry picked. Instead of looking at all realized threats or real threat impacts only a count of common penetration attacks were considered.
9. With a sample of 1. As a basis for determining what security should focus on the whole breadth of the security profession was queried, so long as they were penetration testers. Yes, penetration testers are some very smart and talented people but penetration testing is to security what HUMINT is to intelligence services. Important players, expert practitioners but limited in scope and best used in conjunction with other intelligence assets.
10. Assessments rely on paper artifacts. The NIST guidance does not require paper artifacts. The first line in the NIST SP 800-53A preface is, “Security control assessments are not about checklists, simple pass-fail results, or generating paperwork to pass inspections or audits-rather, security controls assessments are the principal vehicle used to verify that the implementers and operators of information systems are meeting their stated security goals and objectives.” NIST SP 800-37 specifically and repeatedly states, “Security accreditation packages can be submitted in either paper or electronic format.”

CAG is a missed opportunity. Of the myriad problems with our current FISMA regime a lot of good could be achieved. The problems with guidance have many causes but can be addressed through cooperative development of best practices outside of NIST. The Assessment Cases for SP 800-53A is an example of how cooperative development can achieve great results and provide clear guidance. Other problems exist and can be addressed with better training and community developments.

My hope is that the Consensus Audit Guidelines will move towards a more open, collaborative development environment. The first release is sure to deliver useful security controls against penetration attacks. As with all good security practices it will likely need to go through a few iterations and lots of critical assessment to mature. An open environment would help foster a more complete consensus.

Consensus photo by mugley.

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites