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.

Comments
Tough Love: Debunking Myths about DevOps & Security
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
mdwydick
50%
50%
mdwydick,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/20/2019 | 10:14:54 AM
How is "Shifting security to the left" a 'myth' ?
Hello!

Overall, I feel like this is an article trying to play 'devil's advocate' for DevOps teams and developers. I understand where you are coming from for most of the claims made on the post and can even get behind some of the 'myths' but the "Shift-left" one does not really make sense. You are not supporting the case that "Shifting security to the left" is a myth, you are merely saying that legacy tools shouldn't be pushed on DevOps teams. A stronger claim would try to explaining that 'shift left' is an impossible task or that it does not result in cost savings, which, is quite the opposite; but that's what I would do if I am trying to debunk that claim.  

Also, shifting secuirty to the left is not just about the tools but also about processes that need to be in place to support secuirty through the pipeline. An example of this would be architecting an application with security in mind, threat modeling, having 'security standards' in place so developers can reference them as they start to code, providing training to developers and DevOps team on application security topics so they can have an existing awareness prior to start building their applications. I feel like the article is norrowing the definition of shift left security to 'archaic tools' when it's quite the oposite (At least in my experience). 

Finally, I would have added a final myth saying that "Security is only the responsability of security professionals" because that is not the case.  In this day and age, everyone in a corporation is responsible for security and should be held accountable for it; if I click on a phishing email, I am sure I would get in as much trouble (if not more) as the team managing the email security tool. So, ultimetely, a better approach would be to marry development and security and have DevSecOps instead of just SecOps. 

Hope to see more DevOps and AppSec articles! :)


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 7/9/2020
Omdia Research Launches Page on Dark Reading
Tim Wilson, Editor in Chief, Dark Reading 7/9/2020
Mobile App Fraud Jumped in Q1 as Attackers Pivot from Browsers
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  7/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
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
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
This report describes some of the latest attacks and threats emanating from the Internet, as well as advice and tips on how your organization can mitigate those threats before they affect your business. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15105
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
Django Two-Factor Authentication before 1.12, stores the user's password in clear text in the user session (base64-encoded). The password is stored in the session when the user submits their username and password, and is removed once they complete authentication by entering a two-factor authenticati...
CVE-2020-11061
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
In Bareos Director less than or equal to 16.2.10, 17.2.9, 18.2.8, and 19.2.7, a heap overflow allows a malicious client to corrupt the director's memory via oversized digest strings sent during initialization of a verify job. Disabling verify jobs mitigates the problem. This issue is also patched in...
CVE-2020-4042
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
Bareos before version 19.2.8 and earlier allows a malicious client to communicate with the director without knowledge of the shared secret if the director allows client initiated connection and connects to the client itself. The malicious client can replay the Bareos director's cram-md5 challenge to...
CVE-2020-11081
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
osquery before version 4.4.0 enables a priviledge escalation vulnerability. If a Window system is configured with a PATH that contains a user-writable directory then a local user may write a zlib1.dll DLL, which osquery will attempt to load. Since osquery runs with elevated privileges this enables l...
CVE-2020-6114
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
An exploitable SQL injection vulnerability exists in the Admin Reports functionality of Glacies IceHRM v26.6.0.OS (Commit bb274de1751ffb9d09482fd2538f9950a94c510a) . A specially crafted HTTP request can cause SQL injection. An attacker can make an authenticated HTTP request to trigger this vulnerabi...