Risk
Guest Blog // Selected Security Content Provided By Intel
What's This?
12/13/2013
05:49 PM
Guest Blogs
Guest Blogs
Guest Blogs
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%
Repost This

Stronger Defense Against Malware Happens Below App Level

We need to build security solutions on strong foundations that ensure we can 'start secure' and 'run secure'

I think most of you'd agree that among the toughest challenges in fighting malware is sorting out what ought to run from what needs to be stopped. Your increasingly sophisticated adversaries hide, run 0-days, and design advanced attacks that evade common detection tools. Sadly, the adversaries will grow only more sophisticated. Future security solutions must do more to keep pace. And to successfully keep pace, we need to build security solutions on strong foundations that ensure we can "start secure" and "run secure."

"Starting secure" is crucial. At power-on and start-up phases, our system and infrastructure are at their most vulnerable because defensive systems have not been brought online to protect them. The industry has definitely made some progress here. For example, modern operating systems have helped ease deployment of secure boot capabilities -- effectively slamming shut the door on malware trying to penetrate and corrupt boot-time operations. For the highest level of protection, industry standards-based technology, such as that from Secure Boot or the Trusted Computing Group, is available today that measures each element of code executing through the boot sequence, and permits execution of that element only if it can be verified as legit. And the same capabilities that harden boot operations can be extended into new applications to help strengthen cloud security.

To improve the odds of "running secure," new capabilities in processors and popular operating can effectively increase your system's immunity to attack. New innovations build on baseline microprocessor architecture to restrict how, when, and where code can execute. For example, Intel and AMD introduced capabilities more than 10 years ago to stop code from executing in certain regions of memory reserved for data. Today, operating systems and new PC and server processors have greatly enhanced capabilities that can defeat some classes of malware associated with buffer overflow attacks. One recent enhancement from Intel comes in a capability called Intel® OS Guard, which prevents some types of privilege escalation attacks. So instead of relying solely on recognizing malware, the system itself becomes stronger and better able to resist malware.

To learn more about emerging systems and infrastructure that "run secure," look for combinations of hardware and operating systems that enable deeper system behavior monitoring at low levels of the computing stack. By taking advantage of processor technologies embedded in the silicon, the software provides something like close inspection and repair of plumbing or wiring in an apartment building, detecting and preventing malicious intent at the hardware level.

If you need the strongest possible foundation and support for your anti-malware regimen, then look below the application layer to assess what new OS and hardware capabilities can do to enhance your defenses.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
macker490
50%
50%
macker490,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/14/2014 | 1:02:32 PM
re: Stronger Defense Against Malware Happens Below App Level
there are two principle rules for secure computers:
1. the O/S must not permit itself to be modified by an application program. updates must be via an authorized update system only.
2. the system owner or operator must be able to regulate what an application program is allowed to access or update.

(1) depends on the computer chip offering protected mode operation. This became standard on IBM System/360 in 1964, and to x86 with 80386 in 1985. PGP became available in 1992.
(2) depends on security software running in portected mode checking and granting access to system resources based on owner/operator specifications. RACF was added to System/360/370 in 1974. Apparmor appeared in 1998.

the first step in recovering the security debauch is in general education. people should know the general mess we have on our hands now -- is not necessary.
macker490
50%
50%
macker490,
User Rank: Apprentice
12/17/2013 | 12:21:52 PM
re: Stronger Defense Against Malware Happens Below App Level
as usual, a very insightful and excellent essay!!

==>"And to successfully keep pace, we need to build security solutions on
strong foundations that ensure we can "start secure" and "run secure." "

what this means: we do not run un-authorized programming. not in an application. not in the o/s.

modern documents must be treated as executable files. as a result it will be necessary to control what a user can do when using a particular program. for example, you would not want your web browser to open and access a PeopleSoft directory -- even though you -- as the workstation operator -- have access to that resource.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Latest Comment: LOL.
Current Issue
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2011-3154
Published: 2014-04-17
DistUpgrade/DistUpgradeViewKDE.py in Update Manager before 1:0.87.31.1, 1:0.134.x before 1:0.134.11.1, 1:0.142.x before 1:0.142.23.1, 1:0.150.x before 1:0.150.5.1, and 1:0.152.x before 1:0.152.25.5 does not properly create temporary files, which allows local users to obtain the XAUTHORITY file conte...

CVE-2013-2143
Published: 2014-04-17
The users controller in Katello 1.5.0-14 and earlier, and Red Hat Satellite, does not check authorization for the update_roles action, which allows remote authenticated users to gain privileges by setting a user account to an administrator account.

CVE-2014-0036
Published: 2014-04-17
The rbovirt gem before 0.0.24 for Ruby uses the rest-client gem with SSL verification disabled, which allows remote attackers to conduct man-in-the-middle attacks via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-0054
Published: 2014-04-17
The Jaxb2RootElementHttpMessageConverter in Spring MVC in Spring Framework before 3.2.8 and 4.0.0 before 4.0.2 does not disable external entity resolution, which allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files, cause a denial of service, and conduct CSRF attacks via crafted XML, aka an XML External ...

CVE-2014-0071
Published: 2014-04-17
PackStack in Red Hat OpenStack 4.0 does not enforce the default security groups when deployed to Neutron, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions and make unauthorized connections.

Best of the Web