Vulnerabilities / Threats

9/25/2017
06:30 AM
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

Security's #1 Problem: Economic Incentives

The industry rewards cutting corners rather than making software safe. Case in point: the Equifax breach.

There is plenty of blame to go around after the Equifax incident, and I'm not trying to be an apologist for the credit rating company. The problem is that the wrong incentives are driving software development. Unless we change the incentives, security will continue to be a problem. The question remains, what can we do to avoid the "next Equifax"?

The Economics of Software
Let's consider the situation from the perspective of a software organization or a developer. When was the last time that a developer got a bonus or a promotion for taking longer to complete a project because he or she wanted to improve security? When was the last time that a product manager got rewarded for stopping a software release because of a software vulnerability or because of lack of proper security reviews? When was the last time that a software vendor took responsibility for bad code rather than blaming the end users? When was the last time that a venture capitalist upped an investment's valuation because of the company's security processes?

If software were a car, we would be knowingly shipping it with faulty seatbelts or airbags with the hope that there wouldn't be an accident and making the driver sign an end-user agreement that releases all of our liability.

Fast feature delivery is the core incentive in software design. Our mantra is "prototype fast, fail fast." The subtext is "cut corners to test business models faster." The practice is to worry about security when the product is mature and has customers. In reality, this rarely happens because when a product becomes more successful other customer issues and business priorities then eclipse security concerns.

The Equifax Vulnerability
Take, for example, the now infamous Struts vulnerability, via which an attacker can create a special message in the Content-Type HTTP header and achieve remote execution of arbitrary code.

When one looks carefully at the code, it is evident that a parser didn't follow the formal specification. Section 14.17 of the IETF RFC 2616 precisely defines the language and format allowed in the Content-Type field of an HTTP header. Essentially, Content-Type can have a value of one of several media types. (Media types are well-defined here). 

Could we have designed the parser the right way? Could we have predicted all malformed content in this field and avoided the debacle? Could it have been tested ahead of time?

Applying rigorous engineering to the problem would require a formal and mathematically correct parser that would implement the exact definition of the complete standard. It would require fuzzing in unit testing that would catch all violations. We know how to do that, but there are many pages of specifications requiring several days of work that produces no "new feature." In other words, there is no value in this activity for the business. As a result, software developers don't have the time or incentive for such rigor.

Bending Standards, Breaking Security
I am speculating, but it appears that several WAF or firewall vendors had a parser that followed the RFC to the letter. In several incident responses, firewalls enforced this check immediately. I would not be surprised, though, if they were earlier forced to disable it or remove certain security precautions because some applications violated some part of the standard, such as a custom media type that would help in some application feature. Even library or framework developers often don't enforce all parts of standards because some user requires the "customization flexibility" to deliver faster.

Bending the standards or cutting corners to achieve fast software delivery is commonplace. Businesses frequently ask security engineers to remove controls because they "break" the application. Feature delivery takes precedence over security posture because it generates revenue 

Economics Is Killing the "Engineering" in Software Engineering
The behavioral and economic models of software operations provide incentives for fast delivery rather than quality and security. Security does not to add to the top line. Software engineering rigor is often considered an impediment because it would fundamentally change the profitability dynamics of the software industry. This is the fundamental underlying cause of most security vulnerabilities.

But there is hope. The fact that Equifax lost 35% of its market cap in five days, destroying several billion dollars of wealth in the process, could be the trigger to change this equation. Security expert Bruce Schneier, for one, argues for government intervention.

If the economic or regulatory incentives reward applying strict engineering rigor to software design, we will address a significant fraction of our accelerating security breaches. Until then, we will all continue to cut corners to pay the bills or risk getting a bad credit score by Equifax.

Related Content:

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two days of practical cyber defense discussions. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the INsecurity agenda here.

Dimitri Stiliadis is the CEO and co-founder of Aporeto, where he is leading the technology and company vision. Prior to Aporeto, he was the co-founder and CTO of Nuage Networks and CTO of the Non-Stop Laptop Guardian at Alcatel-Lucent. Before that, he has held several leading ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
11/22/2017 | 5:34:12 PM
Re: New Problem same discussion
Glad you brought up that accursed iOS update. Tech people preach to the hoi polloi that they should emphasize security over accessibility/usability by jumping through all sorts of password and other authentication hoops...and yet developers rush terrible updates through to release just to get some pet features out.

This is also an issue in open source -- where feature creeps are far more prevalent than passionate security testers.
rrwillsher1974
50%
50%
rrwillsher1974,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/16/2017 | 2:13:30 AM
Re: internet sercruits
The audit is there to show some off the holes in the http. This is a way to improve securities after that u have to go to the script and see what phishing and hack files have been put into the original http also a better cookies policy to stop remote access
rrwillsher1974
50%
50%
rrwillsher1974,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/15/2017 | 1:55:04 AM
Re: Software development
I have found a new company in London that has developed an interesting way to stop ppl from hacking. Also there are the basics ppl need to learn is keep virus ECT up to date several times a week, use an old system to security check usbs cds ECT check cookies for remote controls ie c. ECT when using public networks there's so many ways to be hacked but it's just as much fun to make there life hard my version off chrome has started killing some scripts so it's just a war that maybe won one day if enuf ppl start learning to defend themselves and not just relies on progs to do all the work computers have to be maintained
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
9/30/2017 | 12:25:38 PM
Commercial
> We know how to do that, but there are many pages of specifications requiring several days of work that produces no "new feature." In other words, there is no value in this activity for the business.

This may be one of the fundamental disadvantages of open source compared with proprietary.

Commercial developers of software do have an economic incentive to do a lot of this with their systems. Open-source contributors? Not so much necessarily. Therefore, open-source systems may thus put this onus on the enterprise customer...who generally almost certainly doesn't have the resources to invest in this stuff.

(To be fair, companies like Red Hat and Mirantis, which provide support for their builds/"flavors" of open-source software, also have this incentive to an extent because of their support contracts/business model. Commerce makes the world go round.)
rrwillsher1974
50%
50%
rrwillsher1974,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/29/2017 | 7:00:34 AM
Re: internet sercruits
Lol lol lol audit is gd it tells u if the basics are done but u can still see irregular file names in script http they just found a new way
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
9/29/2017 | 4:40:11 AM
Re: Software development
I'm not so sure it's off topic considering this is pretty much the same thing I thought of at first too.

Consumer IoT security flaws proliferate because of the lack of economic incentive to go the extra mile to prevent/fix them. If your fridge gets hacked for use in a botnet, it still works as a fridge just fine.

This is why many have called for legislation/regulation in this area. Meanwhile, some enterprises/professionals are trying to get industry to unite around standards so that they can avoid government stepping in.
Joe Stanganelli
100%
0%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
9/29/2017 | 4:37:10 AM
Re: internet sercruits
At the same time, a good audit score isn't the same thing as having good security practices. I can't tell you the number I've times I've observed enterprise environments/scenarios where people "check the box" when they aren't actually doing the thing that they're checking the box for.
moberdacker152
50%
50%
moberdacker152,
User Rank: Strategist
9/28/2017 | 12:49:35 PM
Re: Software development

This may be slightly off topic, but this kind of thing is exactly why I don't yet own a thermostat, or refrigerator with internet connectivity.  I love the idea of them, but as far as I've been able to tell so far, not one IoT device has much, if any built, in security.  Unfortunately, this doesn't stop enough people from buying them though to force the manufacturers to produce secure IoT appliances.

 

The way it is now the companies developing the software seem to feel features trump security.  I don't know of a software developer that produces software that is very secure but with fewer features than their competitors'.  They're afraid to try, because if it doesn't work, they could end up not being able to recover financially.  Personally if I had the choice between a secure software product with the basic features I need and an insecure one with nice to have features I'd choose the secure software every time, assuming similar costs.

jacekmaterna
100%
0%
jacekmaterna,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/27/2017 | 11:27:04 AM
moving security to the "left" in SDLC will never occur without $ incentives-
Security in the SDLC has long be an after-thought. Why would it be any different? Business owners are rewarded for KPis on speed and releases over quality. Few firms today operate in reverse. Why? Because the marketplace demands more speed and more features faster than the day before. Impossible to change that macro environment. Best that could happen is that some combo of regulation comes in to move risk management and security to the "left" - its 10x cheaper to find issues in the source code than when to do it after the products are deployed globally, etc. Human nature will always take least resistent path. I am no fan of regulation but in this case there needs to be some to create value in security in the SDLC - incentive via $$ impact will get business owmners attention. GDPR is a great step- it has real teeth (albeit being super vague).
rrwillsher1974
50%
50%
rrwillsher1974,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/26/2017 | 3:06:49 PM
Re: internet sercruits
It's simple just ask there will be a nominal cost, overheads and expenses
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Veterans Find New Roles in Enterprise Cybersecurity
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  11/12/2018
Empathy: The Next Killer App for Cybersecurity?
Shay Colson, CISSP, Senior Manager, CyberClarity360,  11/13/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Post a Comment
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Online Malware and Threats: A Profile of Today's Security Posture
Online Malware and Threats: A Profile of Today's Security Posture
This report offers insight on how security professionals plan to invest in cybersecurity, and how they are prioritizing their resources. Find out what your peers have planned today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-15759
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-19
Pivotal Cloud Foundry On Demand Services SDK, versions prior to 0.24 contain an insecure method of verifying credentials. A remote unauthenticated malicious user may make many requests to the service broker with different credentials, allowing them to infer valid credentials and gain access to perfo...
CVE-2018-15761
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-19
Cloud Foundry UAA release, versions prior to v64.0, and UAA, versions prior to 4.23.0, contains a validation error which allows for privilege escalation. A remote authenticated user may modify the url and content of a consent page to gain a token with arbitrary scopes that escalates their privileges...
CVE-2018-17190
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-19
In all versions of Apache Spark, its standalone resource manager accepts code to execute on a 'master' host, that then runs that code on 'worker' hosts. The master itself does not, by design, execute user code. A specially-crafted request to the master can, however, cause the master to execute code ...
CVE-2018-1841
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-19
IBM Cloud Private 2.1.0 could allow a local user to obtain the CA Private Key due to it being world readable in boot/master node. IBM X-Force ID: 150901.
CVE-2018-18519
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-19
BestXsoftware Best Free Keylogger 5.2.9 allows local users to gain privileges via a Trojan horse "%PROGRAMFILES%\BFK 5.2.9\syscrb.exe" file because of insecure permissions for the BUILTIN\Users group.