Vulnerabilities / Threats
6/21/2013
07:20 AM
John H. Sawyer
John H. Sawyer
Quick Hits
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Analyzing Vulnerabilities In Business-Critical Applications

Fears of downtime and broken apps complicate the vulnerability scanning process. Here are some tips to help

[The following is excerpted from "Analyzing Vulnerabilities In Business-Critical Applications," a new report posted this week on Dark Reading's Vulnerability Management Tech Center.]

There are two primary reasons the process of scanning and patching critical systems gets shot down by management. The first is that security teams are very often seen as the bad guys who make it harder for the rest of the organization to conduct day-to-day business.

The second reason is closely tied to the first: Security is not typically at the top of C-level executives' list of priorities. Making the case to management and other groups for regular scanning and patching is easily undermined by the security department's image as a bunch of heavy-handed control freaks who want to disable everything.

The reputation of the security team within an organization affects many things -- especially when it comes to interacting with the systems responsible for making the business run and, ultimately, profit.

In the past, it has often taken a breach for a company to sit up and realize it should have been focusing more on security all along. The attitudes toward security and its importance are changing, fortunately, but to be successful, security needs to put down the big stick it has been trying to use to further its agenda. Security departments need to open up the channels of communication and work much more closely with the operations team and stakeholders responsible for mission-critical applications.

These efforts should focus on understanding the concerns of business, the ins and outs of the systems in question, and the impact that vulnerability scanning and patching can have.

Sounds easy, right? It isn't. Security teams need to understand more fully the target systems they want to test. There's much more involved than simply running a vulnerability scanner like Nessus or Nexpose, finding that patches are missing, and then telling the asset owners they need to get those patches installed or they'll be hacked.

These mission-critical applications and services are likely to be unsupported due to customization during implementation. And Web applications may contain deep logic flaws that scanners are unable to detect. In addition, there may be certain times of the day, month or even year when these systems are even more critical to the organization and when there's even less tolerance for the chance of downtime.

"Folks sometimes forget that if you are testing an app, you need to check for specific blackout dates or windows that might occur on certain days where especially sensitive transactions occur, like end-of-the-month payroll on an accounting system," says Vinnie Liu, managing partner for security consulting firm Stach & Liu. "It's an easy one to overlook because most people just focus [testing] either during business hours or off-business hours."

Starting a conversation about vulnerability scanning is the first step in bridging the gap between security and the rest of the business.

It's important for security professionals to be very clear about why vulnerability scanning is needed and what the process involves. Indeed, the discussion between security pros and business stakeholders should include an explanation of what takes place from the beginning to the end so there are no questions.

This is an opportunity for security to educate operations management and application owners so that they understand the process and different methods that can be used during vulnerability discovery. Each side can discuss the potential issues that may come up and work together to make sure that scanning will have as little impact on services as possible.

To learn more steps in streamlining the vulnerability scanning process for critical applications, download the free report.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add a Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-1927
Published: 2014-10-25
The shell_quote function in python-gnupg 0.3.5 does not properly quote strings, which allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in unspecified vectors, as demonstrated using "$(" command-substitution sequences, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-1928....

CVE-2014-1928
Published: 2014-10-25
The shell_quote function in python-gnupg 0.3.5 does not properly escape characters, which allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in unspecified vectors, as demonstrated using "\" (backslash) characters to form multi-command sequences, a different vulner...

CVE-2014-1929
Published: 2014-10-25
python-gnupg 0.3.5 and 0.3.6 allows context-dependent attackers to have an unspecified impact via vectors related to "option injection through positional arguments." NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2013-7323.

CVE-2014-3409
Published: 2014-10-25
The Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) handling feature in Cisco IOS 12.2(33)SRE9a and earlier and IOS XE 3.13S and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via malformed CFM packets, aka Bug ID CSCuq93406.

CVE-2014-3636
Published: 2014-10-25
D-Bus 1.3.0 through 1.6.x before 1.6.24 and 1.8.x before 1.8.8 allows local users to (1) cause a denial of service (prevention of new connections and connection drop) by queuing the maximum number of file descriptors or (2) cause a denial of service (disconnect) via multiple messages that combine to...

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.