Vulnerabilities / Threats
7/7/2013
11:51 AM
Mike Rothman
Mike Rothman
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Controlling The Big 7

With limited resources, funding, and expertise, focusing on protecting the Big 7 applications will enable security professionals to reduce a large portion of their attack surface

I'm fascinated with more effective prioritization of security team activities. It's logical that given the constraints security folks face daily, figuring out how to maximize the impact of any activity is an important place to spend time. As legendary investor Warren Buffett has indicated, his most important responsibility is to effectively allocate the capital of Berkshire Hathaway. Your job is to most effectively allocate the resources, funding, and expertise of your security team.

As I discussed in my last Vulns and Threats post, understanding attack paths is one means of prioritizing your efforts. Reducing your applicable attack surface by locking down devices and aggressively segmenting networks is another way to control risk. You can also reduce attack surface by specifically protecting the select few applications frequently targeted by attackers. I call these the Big 7.

These are the applications that everyone has and uses every day -- you know, the apps that you cannot lock down or otherwise control. The ones that if they don't work, your employees cannot do their jobs. As such, they make the best targets for attackers since you can't just turn them off or lock them down. I'm talking about the browser, Java, Acrobat Reader, and Microsoft Office (Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint). If you can control those applications, then you can probably eliminate a significant portion of the attacks that compromise your machines.

So how do you protect these applications? By granularly profiling them to understand how the applications interact with the device and then watching for activities that don't fit the profile. Does that sound familiar? Of course it does: It's how HIPS (host intrusion prevention) was supposed to work. The problem was that old HIPS tried to cover too much of the opening system (basically, everything) and, as a result, threw a bunch of false positives. Customers got pissed and stopped using it.

By focusing efforts specifically on the Big 7, it's a manageable task to build and maintain those profiles. You can tune the rules to find and block anomalous behavior in those applications and stop malicious activity. Conceptually, if you could prevent the Big 7 from being compromised and ensure that even when your employees do stupid things (and they will) it won't result in a pwned device -- that dramatically reduces your attack surface.

Notice I said "conceptually" above because the controls that implement these concepts are still maturing. It's complicated and requires significant ongoing research to keep the application profiles current. You need to pay attention to user experience and walk the tightrope between protecting the users from themselves and breaking their applications. Finally, these tools need better enterprise management, reporting, and policy capabilities to scale to protect thousands of users and devices. None of these issues are showstoppers; rather, they indicate the early stage of development for a promising technology.

These capabilities are being implemented in a number of different ways. Whether it's another "agent" that runs on the device watching for those non-normal behaviors, a microvisor that isolates processes within the operating systems, or an application isolation technology that runs the applications in protected enclaves, the approach is the same. These new defenses focus much of their efforts on the Big 7, and this will have a big impact on how devices are protected during the next few years.

Mike Rothman is President of Securosis and author of The Pragmatic CSO Mike's bold perspectives and irreverent style are invaluable as companies determine effective strategies to grapple with the dynamic security threatscape. Mike specializes in the sexy aspects of security, like protecting networks and endpoints, security management, and ... View Full Bio

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.