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.

Database Security
Authentication
Mobile
Privacy
Compliance
Careers and People
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
Comments
Serverless Computing: 'Function' vs. 'Infrastructure' as-a-Service
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
orysegal
50%
50%
orysegal,
 User Rank: Author
2/8/2019 | 4:50:01 AM
Re: Who controls policy?
You make a good point, however, when adopting FaaS/Serverless on public clouds, you have no control over the infrastructure, networking and underlying servers (I will get back to this later). As such, you can't really apply network segmentation or deploy a network firewall. Networking security in those cases is handled by the cloud provider, on a level much lower than what you control. The cloud provider is responsible for making sure that unauthorized traffic to the server/hosting OS is not allowed, and the cloud provider is responsible for only allowing API calls to invoke your functions when relevant.

Your only chance of actually controlling network connectivity is by deploying the function inside a VPC and then running a NAT gateway or a virtual firewall on an EC2 instance, but then, you have to deal with a new set of problems, not to mention that you just "de-serverlessed" (I need to trademark this term) the application.

There are alternatives to VPC, especially around outbound networking - you could use a library like FunctionShield (free), which enables you to regain controls over where/who/what the function can communicate with (proper disclosure - my team developed that library). More information on the github project: https://github.com/puresec/FunctionShield/

To your last point - application/business layer security should always remain the responsibility of the application owner, both because of liability, but also because the owner is the only one who really understands the business logic.

FaaS platforms will evolve to be more intelligent and tailored to specific use cases, and together with serverless-native app security solutions and cloud-native mind-set, I'm certain that the overall security posture is about to get a serious boost. 

 

 
drmikelloyd
50%
50%
drmikelloyd,
 User Rank: Author
2/7/2019 | 6:03:36 PM
Who controls policy?
I agree with your analysis, Ory.  The problem I see is that the FaaS split pushes a couple of items over to the provider that make no sense.  Most of the items are standard, one-size-fits-all - things like keeping up with patches, or hardening.  But anything custom - about the specific needs of one customer - belong under the customer's control and responsibility, not the provider.  Consider your items "network segmentation" and "network firewalls".  Segmentation is custom - as I build my app, I need to control what is kept separate from what.  What goes into a firewall is a statement of business intent - "I want this to talk to that, but not the other".  None of that is generic, one-size-fits-all.  If that is handed over from the customer to the provider, how does the customer specify their particular needs?

 

This, to me, is why we've seen years of evolution of exactly the cutoff you're talking about - who does which parts?  The dream is "customer only deals with customer business logic", but the practice is closer to "customer has to deal with business logic AND business-specific security controls".  This prevents the line moving too far up the stack for workloads that really matter.


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Concerns over supply chain vulnerabilities and attack visibility drove some significant changes in enterprise cybersecurity strategies over the past year. Dark Reading's 2021 Strategic Security Survey showed that many organizations are staying the course regarding the use of a mix of attack prevention and threat detection technologies and practices for dealing with cyber threats.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-41154
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-18
Tuleap is a Free & Open Source Suite to improve management of software developments and collaboration. In affected versions an attacker with read access to a "SVN core" repository could execute arbitrary SQL queries. The following versions contain the fix: Tuleap Community Edition 11.1...
CVE-2021-41155
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-18
Tuleap is a Free & Open Source Suite to improve management of software developments and collaboration. In affected versions Tuleap does not sanitize properly user inputs when constructing the SQL query to browse and search revisions in the CVS repositories. The following versions contain the fix...
CVE-2021-41152
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-18
OpenOlat is a web-based e-learning platform for teaching, learning, assessment and communication, an LMS, a learning management system. In affected versions by manipulating the HTTP request an attacker can modify the path of a requested file download in the folder component to point to anywhere on t...
CVE-2021-41153
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-18
The evm crate is a pure Rust implementation of Ethereum Virtual Machine. In `evm` crate `< 0.31.0`, `JUMPI` opcode's condition is checked after the destination validity check. However, according to Geth and OpenEthereum, the condition check should happen before the destination validity check. Thi...
CVE-2021-41156
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-18
anuko/timetracker is an, open source time tracking system. In affected versions Time Tracker uses browser_today hidden control on a few pages to collect the today's date from user browsers. Because of not checking this parameter for sanity in versions prior to 1.19.30.5601, it was possible to craft ...