Download the Report
Advanced Threat Protection
Download the Datasheet
Let's Go Threat Hunting: Gain Visibility and Insight into Potential Threats and Risks
Download the Whitepaper
Bracing for the Tidal Wave of Data Privacy Compliance in America
View Recent Catches
Catch More Threats
September 18, 2012
SIEM Fever is a condition that robs otherwise rational people of common sense in regard to adopting and applying Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) technology for their IT Security and Compliance needs. The consequences of SIEM Fever have contributed to misapplication, misuse, and misunderstanding of SIEM with costly impact. For example, some organizations have adopted SIEM in contexts where there is no hope of a return on investment. Others have invested in training and reorganization but use or abuse the technology with new terminology taken from the vendor dictionary. Alex Bell of Boeing first described these conditions.
Before you get your knickers in a twist due to a belief that it is an attack on SIEM and must be avenged with flaming commentary against its author, fear not. There are real IT Security and Compliance efforts wasting real money, and wasting real time by misusing SIEM in a number of common forms. Let’s review these types of SIEM Fevers, so they can be recognized and treated.
Lemming Fever: A person with Lemming Fever knows about SIEM simply based upon what he or she has been told (be it true or false), without any first-hand experience or knowledge of it themselves. The consequences of Lemming Fever can be very dangerous if infectees have any kind of decision making responsibility for an enterprise’s SIEM adoption trajectory. The danger tends to increase as a function of an afflictee’s seniority in the program organization due to the greater consequences of bad decision making and the ability to dismiss underling guidance. Lemming Fever is one of the most dangerous SIEM Fevers as it is usually a precondition to many of the following fevers.
Easy Button Fever: This person believes that adopting SIEM is as simple as pressing Staple’s Easy Button, at which point their program magically and immediately begins reaping the benefits of SIEM as imagined during the Lemming Fever stage of infection. Depending on the Security Operating Center (SOC) methodology, however, the deployment of SIEM could mean significant change. Typically, these people have little to no idea at all about the features which are necessary for delivering SIEM’s productivity improvements or the possible inapplicability of those features to their environment.
One Size Fits All Fever: Victims of One Size Fits All Fever believe that the same SIEM model is applicable to any and all environments with a return on investment being implicit in adoption. While tailoring is an important part of SIEM adoption, the extent to which SIEM must be tailored for a specific environment’s context is an important barometer of its appropriateness. One Size Fits All Fever is a mental mindset that may stand alone from other Fevers that are typically associated with the tactical misuse of SIEM.
Simon Says Fever: Afflictees of Simon Says Fever are recognized by their participation in SIEM related activities without the slightest idea as to why those activities are being conducted or why they important other than because they are included in some “checklist”. The most common cause of this Fever is failing to tie all log and incident review activities to adding value and falling into a comfortable, robotic regimen that is merely an illusion of progress.
One-Eyed King Fever: This Fever has the potential to severely impact the successful adoption of SIEM and occurs when the SIEM blind are coached by people with only a slightly better understanding of SIEM. The most common symptom occurring in the presence of One-Eyed King Fever is failure to tailor the SIEM implementation to its specific context or the failure of a coach to recognize and act on a low probability of return on investment as it pertains to a enterprise’s adoption.
The Antidote: SIEM doesn’t cause the Fevers previously described, people do. Whether these people are well intended have studied at the finest schools, or have high IQs, they are typically ignorant of SIEM in many dimensions. They have little idea about the qualities of SIEM which are the bases of its advertised productivity improving features, they believe that those improvements are guaranteed by merely adopting SIEM, or have little idea that the extent of SIEM’s ability to deliver benefit is highly dependent upon program specific context.
The antidote for the many forms of SIEM Fever is to educate. Unfortunately, many of those who are prone to the aforementioned SIEM infections are most desperately in need of such education, are often unaware of what they don’t know about SIEM, are unreceptive to learning about what they don’t know, or believe that those trying to educate them are simply village idiots who have not yet seen the brightly burning SIEM light.
While I’m being entirely tongue-in-cheek, the previously described examples of SIEM misuse and misapplication are real and occurring on a daily basis. These are not cases of industrial sabotage caused by rogue employees planted by a competitor, but are instead self-inflicted and frequently continue even amidst the availability of experts who are capable of rectifying them.
Interested in getting help? Consider SIEM Simplified.
April 20, 2009
A few months ago I wrote some thoughts on cloud security and compliance.The other day I came across this interesting article in Network World about SaaS security and it got me thinking on the subject again. The Burton analyst quoted, Eric Maiwald, made some interesting and salient points about the challenges of SaaS security but he stopped short of explicitly addressing compliance issues. If you have a SaaS service and you are subject to any one of the myriad compliance regulations how will you demonstrate compliance if the SaaS app is processing critical data subject to the standard? And is the vendor passing a SAS-70 audit going to satisfy your auditors and free you of any compliance requirement?
Mr. Maiwald makes a valid point that you have to take care in thinking through the security requirements and put it in the contract with the SaaS vendor. The same can also be held true for any compliance requirement, but he raises an even more critical point where he states that SaaS vendors want to offer a one size fits all offering (rightly so, or else I would put forward we would see a lot of belly-up SaaS vendors). My question then becomes how can an SME that is generally subject to compliance mandates but lacks the purchasing power to negotiate a cost effective agreement with a SaaS vendor take advantage of the benefits such services provide? Are we looking at one of these chicken and egg situations where the SaaS vendors don’t see the demand because the very customers they would serve are unable to use their service without this enabling technology? At the very least I would think that SaaS vendors would benefit from putting in the same audit capability that the other enterprise application vendors are, and making that available (maybe for a small additional fee) to their customers. Perhaps it could be as simple as user and admin activity auditing, but it seems to me a no brainer – if a prospect is going to let critical data and services go outside their control they are going to want the same visibility as they had when it resided internally, or else it becomes a non-starter until the price is driven so far down that reward trumps risk. Considering we will likely see more regulation, not less, in the future that price may well be pretty close to zero.
– Steve Lafferty
December 15, 2008
Cloud computing has been described as a trade off between sovereignty and efficiency. Where is security (aka Risk Transfer) in this debate?
Chris Hoff notes that yesterday’s SaaS providers (Monster, Salesforce) are now styled as cloud computing providers in his post .
CIOs, under increasing cost pressure, may begin to accept the efficiency argument that cloud vendors have economies of scale in both the acquisition and operations of the data center.
But hold up…
To what extent is the risk transferred when you move data to the cloud? To a very limited extent, at most to the SLA. This is similar to the debate where one claims compliance (Hannaford, NYC and now sadly Mumbai) but attacks take place anyway, causing great damage. Would an SLA save the Manager in such cases? Unlikely.
In any case, the generic cloud vendor does not understand your assets or your business. At most, they can understand threats, in general terms. They will no doubt commit to the SLA but these usually refer to availability not security.
Thus far, general purpose, low cost utility or “cloud” infrastructure (such as Azure or EC2), or SaaS vendors (salesforce.com) do not have very sophisticated security features built in.
So as you ponder the Sovereignty v/s Efficiency tradeoff, spare a thought for security.
October 24, 2008
In a recent post I talked a little about the security and compliance issues facing companies that adopt cloud-based SaaS for any mission-critical function. I referred to this as security OF the cloud to differentiate it from a cloud-based security offering or security IN the cloud. This is going to pose a major change in the security industry if it takes off.
Take a typical small business “SmallCo” as an example – They depend on a combination of Quickbooks and an accounting firm for their financial processes. For all practical purposes SmallCo outsources the entire accounting function. They use a hosting company to host Quickbooks for a monthly fee, and their external CPA, internal management and accounts staff access the application for data processing. Very easy to manage, no upfront investment, no servers to maintain, all the usual reasons why a SaaS model is so appealing.
One can easily argue the crown jewels of SmallCo’s entire business are resident in that hosted solution. SmallCo began to question whether this critical data was secure from being hacked or stolen. Would SmallCo be compliant if they were obligated to follow a compliance standard? Is it the role of the hosting provider to ensure security and compliance? To all of those questions there was and is no clear cut answer. SmallCo is provided access to the application and can have access to any audit capability that is supported in the Quickbook product (which is not a great deal), and there is no ability to collect that audit and usage data other than to manually run a report. At the time SmallCo began it did not seem to be important but as SmallCo grew so did their exposure.
Salesforce, another poster child for SaaS, is much the same. I read a while back they were going to put the ability to monitor changes in some of their database fields in their Winter 2008 release. But there appears to be nothing for user level auditing or even admin auditing (of your staff much less theirs). A trusted user can steal an entire customer list and not even have to be in the office to do it. The best DLP technology will not help you as it can be accessed and exported through any web browser on any machine. Having used Salesforce in previous companies I can personally attest, however, that it is a fine CRM system, cost-effective, powerful and well-designed. But you have to maintain a completely separate access control list, and you have no real ability to monitor what is accessed by whom for audit purposes. For a prospect with privacy concerns is it really a viable, secure solution?
Cloud based computing changes the entire paradigm of security. Perimeter defense is the first step of a defense in depth to protect service availability and corporate data, but what happens when there is no data resident to be defended? In fact, when there are a number of services in the cloud, is event management going to be viable? Will the rules be the same when you are correlating events from different services on the cloud?
So here is the challenge I believe — as more and more mission critical processes are moved to the cloud, SaaS suppliers are going to have to provide log data in a real-time, straight forward manner, probably for their admins as well as their customers’ personnel. In fact since there is only a browser and login and no firewall, network or operating system level security to breach, auditing would have to be very, very robust. With all these cloud services is it feasible that an auditor will accept 50 reports from 50 providers and pass the company under audit? Maybe, but someone – either the end-user or a MSSP has to be responsible for monitoring for security and compliance, and unless the application and data is under the control of end-users, they will be unable to do so
So If I were an application provider like Salesforce I would be thinking really hard about being a good citizen in a cloud based world. Like providing real-time audit records for at least user log-on and log-off, log-on failures and a complete audit record of all data extracts as a first step, as well as a method to push the events out in real-time. I would likely do that before I worried too much about auditing fields in the database.
September 29, 2008
There is a lot of discussion around Security MSSPs, SaaS (Security as a Service) and Cloud Computing these days. I always felt I had a pretty good handle on MSSPs and SaaS. The way I look at it, you tend to outsource the entire task to Security MSSPs. If you outsource your firewall security, for instance, you generally have no one on staff that worries about firewall logs and you count on your MSSP partner to keep you secure – at least with regards to the firewall. The MSSP collects, stores and reviews the logs. With SaaS, using the same firewall example above, you outsource the delivery of the capability — the mechanics of the collection and storage tasks and the software and hardware that enable it, but you still have IT personnel on staff that are responsible for the firewall security. These guys review the logs, run the reports etc. This general definition is the same for any security task, whether it is email security, firewall or SIEM.
OK, so far, so good. This is all pretty simple.
Then you add Cloud Computing and everything gets a little, well, cloudy. People start to interchange concepts freely, and in fact when you talk to somebody about cloud computing and what it means to them, it is often completely different than what you thought cloud computing to be. I always try to ask – Do you mean security IN the cloud, i.e. using an external provider to manage some part of the collection, storage and analysis of your security data (If so go to SaaS or MSSP)? Or do you mean security OF the cloud — the collection/management of security information from corporate applications that are delivered via SaaS (Software as a Service, think Salesforce)?
The latter case has really nothing to do with either Security SaaS or MSSP since you could be collecting the data from the applications such as Salesforce into a security solution you own and host. The problem is an entirely different one. Think about how to collect and correlate data from applications you have no control over, or, how these outsourced applications affect your compliance requirements. Most often compliance regulations require you to review access to certain types of critical data. How do you do that when the assets are not under your control? Do you simply trust that the service provider is doing it right? And what will your auditor do when they show up to do an audit? How do you guarantee chain of custody of the log data when you have no control over how, when, and where it was created? Quickly a whole lot of questions suddenly pop up that there appear to be no easy answers.
So here are a few observations:
The combination of the above is very likely going to become a bigger and bigger issue, and if not addressed will prevent the adoption of cloud computing.