Cloud
Guest Blog // Selected Security Content Provided By Intel
What's This?
7/16/2014
04:45 PM
Tom Quillin
Tom Quillin
Guest Blogs
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

Create a Foundation for Cloud Security

Security and operations don't have to be at odds. You can turn security into an operations tool, creating a secure and agile environment that extends your tools and processes.

Statistics and trends support the notion that cloud computing has become a business requirement, rather than an optional capability. However, the adoption of cloud services continues to be inhibited by lack of trust and confidence related to concerns around the security of sensitive data and regulatory issues.

There appear to be two main culprits: the inability of traditional data center security tools to adapt to cloud services models and a lack of transparency and control. Both issues affect public, private, and hybrid clouds. The traditional data center security environment is static, slow to change, contained (e.g., DMZ), single tenant, and physical. Cloud security environments are dynamic (e.g., live-migration, burst), fast (e.g., automated, scale change), distributed (e.g., hybrid), multi-tenant, and abstracted. On top of these differences, managing external cloud service providers brings coordination costs and risks. Cloud service providers and users must agree on how to create confidence that implementations are trustworthy from top to bottom.

Within these challenges lies an opportunity. We are used to thinking of security as a tradeoff -- better security is often considered synonymous with worse performance, agility, and user experience. As a result, there is a constant tug-of-war between operations and security. The opportunity is to turn security into a tool for operations, resulting in an environment that is more secure, more agile, and extends tools and processes.

To do this, instead of thinking in terms of managing security based on physical objects (that is, specific servers), you can substitute logical objects for them. A logical object attribute could be a "trusted server" that's established via measured boot and attestation process characteristics. We can associate other configuration information with the trustworthiness of the server (e.g., its physical location or tenant association). We can now create pools of trusted servers and manage against the pool association of a given server (e.g., deploy pools of workloads of certain types on predefined resource pools = "trusted compute pools"), as opposed to against that server's specific identity. Management applications can consume the trust attributes to execute policy and record event logs. This approach leverages measured boot -- a protection against attacks that target lower levels of the launch environment to form pools of trusted servers that can be used securely for mission-critical workloads.

What action can I take today? If you have an interest in implementing secure, trusted computing environments, either within your own infrastructure or working with cloud providers, the Trusted Computing Group offers resources for implementing standards-based architecture and solution stacks.

Follow me on Twitter: @TomQuillin.

Tom Quillin is the Director of Cyber Security for Technologies and Initiatives at Intel Corp. He is responsible for identifying security risks, as well as contributing to product planning that addresses future security challenges. He also manages Intel's policy positions on ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-4293
Published: 2015-07-30
The packet-reassembly implementation in Cisco IOS XE 3.13S and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption or packet loss) via fragmented (1) IPv4 or (2) IPv6 packets that trigger ATTN-3-SYNC_TIMEOUT errors after reassembly failures, aka Bug ID CSCuo37957.

CVE-2014-7912
Published: 2015-07-29
The get_option function in dhcp.c in dhcpcd before 6.2.0, as used in dhcpcd 5.x in Android before 5.1 and other products, does not validate the relationship between length fields and the amount of data, which allows remote DHCP servers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory c...

CVE-2014-7913
Published: 2015-07-29
The print_option function in dhcp-common.c in dhcpcd through 6.9.1, as used in dhcp.c in dhcpcd 5.x in Android before 5.1 and other products, misinterprets the return value of the snprintf function, which allows remote DHCP servers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corru...

CVE-2015-2977
Published: 2015-07-29
Webservice-DIC yoyaku_v41 allows remote attackers to create arbitrary files, and consequently execute arbitrary code, via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2015-2978
Published: 2015-07-29
Webservice-DIC yoyaku_v41 allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and complete a conference-room reservation via unspecified vectors, as demonstrated by an "unintentional reservation."

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
What’s the future of the venerable firewall? We’ve invited two security industry leaders to make their case: Join us and bring your questions and opinions!