Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Cloud

7/2/2014
03:15 PM
John Klossner
John Klossner
Cartoon Contest
100%
0%

Cartoon: Cloud Conundrum

John Klossner has been drawing technology cartoons for more than 15 years. His work regularly appears in Computerworld and Federal Computer Week. His illustrations and cartoons have also been published in The New Yorker, Barron's, and The Wall Street Journal. Web site: ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
freespiritny25
50%
50%
freespiritny25,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/1/2014 | 4:24:57 PM
Re: Cartoon: Cloud Conundrum
LOL so true- pointing the blame!
Kelly Jackson Higgins
50%
50%
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
7/10/2014 | 4:29:24 PM
Re: SOC v CSP: Chicken or the egg?
This actually applies to a lot of things in security, so it's a wise joke well-taken. 
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
7/8/2014 | 4:59:55 PM
Re: SOC v CSP: Chicken or the egg?
Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed reply @aws0513. I hope you will tell us how your checklist approach works to cloud services assessment works. When do you thnk you will see some results?
aws0513
100%
0%
aws0513,
User Rank: Ninja
7/8/2014 | 12:45:09 PM
Re: SOC v CSP: Chicken or the egg?
In my experiences, the following rule always applies:

"The data owner is responsible for protecting the data they manage and use for their business operations."

This means that no matter where the data is stored, the data owner must ensure that necessary security controls are in place to help protect the data.  If the choice is to use cloud services of any kind, they data owner must validate (accredit) and audit the cloud services that will be utilized... on a consistent and continuous basis.

The hard part is that cloud services often tout their product as a secure environment without providing security control implementation specifics.  I have yet to see any cloud service provide a security control "mapping" to NIST (or other framework) controls in detail that was sufficient.  They will brush some sales lines on a few common security controls, but I am still waiting on that "comprehensive" security control implementation documentation.

I am currently working with my employer (government entity) to establish a common security requirement "checklist" approach to cloud services assessment.  We plan to tell data owners within the organization that if a cloud service is going to be used for any solution our organization establishes, the service will be reviewed as if it were an extension of the organization and subject to the same auditing requirements.  In general, for us this means that NIST controls will need to be mapped to the cloud service equivalent where applicable.  The cloud service vendor(s) will need to provide an acceptable control implementation/solution for each required control that our risk assessment team (management) has deemed necessary to protect the data.  If there are any issues with how the cloud service supports or provides a specific controls, along with how they will be audited and monitored, they will likely not get any of our business unless our management can establish compensating controls or assume ownership of the control requirement.  Risk acceptance is a reality as well, but it is our hope that we can reduce the risk on all points possible before any risk acceptance takes place.

I know that what we are trying to do will very likely make things difficult for cloud service vendors to get our business, but the glaring fact is if there is an unauthorized breach of our data environments, all the finger pointing in the world would not take my employers name out of the newspapers and very likely will not protect my employer from legal filings unless the risk assumption is fully documented in the contract with the vendor.  Even if the contract is specificially established, my employer would still get a black eye in the reputation arena.

So...  big foot stomping hint to you cloud vendors out there.... Make it easier for organizations that handle sensitive or regulatory affected data to know EXACTLY how security controls are implemented in your environments...  from the physical to the virtual.  A to Z...  top to bottom.  And be prepared to provide auditing capabilities that are verifiable via 3rd party were necessary. 
I suggest NIST SP800-53 as a starting point.  Be ready to talk to other risk management frameworks (ISO anyone?). 
And NO...  a fancy letter from an external auditing firm does not come close to acceptable.  The devil is in the details...  so break out all the details as much as possible for your potential customers.  You want extra points?  Provide verifiable case documentation of security events that your environment identified and/or thwarted.  Full disclosure is a good thing!!
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
7/8/2014 | 10:52:07 AM
SOC v CSP: Chicken or the egg?
The chicken or the egg metaphor is a great analogy for the cloud security debate. So I ask you all, when it comes to cloud security, who's bears the greatest resposible? the CSP or the SOC team? 
Major Brazilian Bank Tests Homomorphic Encryption on Financial Data
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/10/2020
Exploits Released for As-Yet Unpatched Critical Citrix Flaw
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  1/13/2020
Microsoft Patches Windows Vuln Discovered by the NSA
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/14/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
[Just Released] How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
[Just Released] How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-20003
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-17
Feldtech easescreen Crystal 9.0 Web-Services 9.0.1.16265 allows Stored XSS via the Debug-Log and Display-Log components. This could be exploited when an attacker sends an crafted string for FTP authentication.
CVE-2019-3686
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-17
openQA before commit c172e8883d8f32fced5e02f9b6faaacc913df27b was vulnerable to XSS in the distri and version parameter. This was reported through the bug bounty program of Offensive Security
CVE-2019-3683
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-17
The keystone-json-assignment package in SUSE Openstack Cloud 8 before commit d7888c75505465490250c00cc0ef4bb1af662f9f every user listed in the /etc/keystone/user-project-map.json was assigned full "member" role access to every project. This allowed these users to access, modify, create and...
CVE-2019-3682
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-17
The docker-kubic package in SUSE CaaS Platform 3.0 before 17.09.1_ce-7.6.1 provided access to an insecure API locally on the Kubernetes master node.
CVE-2019-17361
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-17
In SaltStack Salt through 2019.2.0, the salt-api NEST API with the ssh client enabled is vulnerable to command injection. This allows an unauthenticated attacker with network access to the API endpoint to execute arbitrary code on the salt-api host.