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
Making the Case for a Cybersecurity Moon Shot
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
drmikelloyd
50%
50%
drmikelloyd,
 User Rank: Author
2/26/2019 | 7:36:41 PM
Re: A network that understands hardness
Sure - how about:

Abandon the "permitted by default" network model.  Endpoints must prove to networks that they are ready to be exposed to anything beyond their immediate neighborhood.  Moderate access requires only basic proof of hygeine, while a new Internet-facing web server (or container) must demonstrate being hardened and ready before the flood gates are opened.
adamshostack
50%
50%
adamshostack,
 User Rank: Apprentice
2/26/2019 | 6:58:42 PM
Re: A network that understands hardness
I think I see where you're going -- can you rewrite it as a moonshot goal?
drmikelloyd
50%
50%
drmikelloyd,
 User Rank: Author
2/25/2019 | 8:43:26 PM
Re: A network that understands hardness
Right - there is a big distinction between general purpose endpoints and special purpose "things".  Laptops get patched regularly, and have decent internal firewalls.  That said, the market for network firewalls has not gone away - it's interesting to look at reasons why. 

Laptops are great and all, but they aren't where most of the value resides.  Data centers are fragile in one way - huge uptime pressure, and an unwillingness to patch.  IoT devices are fragile in a completely different way - they lack a decent patching infrastructure, and are generally designed to a pricepoint, not about flexible response to a changing security landscape.

My response to your moonshot question comes from a point of view that "between" still matters.  Security tech is either placed on endpoints, or between them.  The endpoint security products face challenges (too many agents, not to mention endpoints that aren't built to accomodate agents - does your fridge?).  That's why there is still a large challenge space around "between" controls.  It's the old debate - shiould the network just be dumb pipes, or should it provide intelligent services and controls?

I'm suggesting a moonshot for a network that can enforce intelligent controls *between* endpoints as the way forward.  This is a moonshot because today, endpoints do not have to play along, or follow any hygeine standards, or register what kind of object they are.  We've stacked up some ways to lock down laptops, and messed around with MDM, but what about all the things that are neither?
adamshostack
50%
50%
adamshostack,
 User Rank: Apprentice
2/25/2019 | 6:09:50 PM
Re: A network that understands hardness
Hi thanks Mike!

 

Is this still a problem? I was under the impression that most mainstream systems were fairly firewalled these days, but perhaps I'm thinking more of desktops and less of IoT?

 

Adam
drmikelloyd
50%
50%
drmikelloyd,
 User Rank: Author
2/20/2019 | 2:39:43 PM
A network that understands hardness
Nice question, Adam.  How about a project to ensure a machine directly exposed to the Internet does not immediately succumb to all the known "background radiation" out there? 

There are a range of possible implementations (proactive vs reactive hardening).  But similar to your goal of "email payloads should never be detonated", I'm thinking "maintain a living battery of tests that must pass as basic hygeine before a machine can be exposed widely".  It's not NAC - it's more like the inverse.  NAC says you can't even access a local network unless you're "clean" to a specified level.  This project flips that, to say the level of hardening required depends on breadth of exposure to others.

The moonshot aspect of this is to teach the network (where access policy is enforced) about the quality or hardness of each endpoint.  In an IoT future, this may be essential - consumer IoT is too weak to be treated like other endpoints.
schopj
50%
50%
schopj,
 User Rank: Strategist
2/19/2019 | 4:31:31 PM
Moonshot
Getting Microsoft to log at least as much as Sysmon and to start better protecting those logs so they cant be easily deleted, or if they can, can also be easily recovered.  I shouldnt have to install a third party app, or any app, just to get detailed logs monitoring process hashes and who started what from what program, or any of the other things that advanced logging applications log.  It is an MS operating system and it should log everything that is done on it, period.  


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...