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.

Risk

5/13/2019
10:30 AM
Timothy Winters
Timothy Winters
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

How Open Testing Standards Can Improve Security

When creating security metrics, it's critical that test methodologies cover multiple scenarios to ensure that devices perform as expected in all environments.

Networks are a complex collection of components defined by many different standards. These standards help solve network problems ranging from security to performance and usability.

An open standard is a publicly available standard that can be consumed in a variety of ways for deploying a secure solution for a network. Readers of open security standards use them to understand how a technology might be useful to solve security on the network. Implementers of open standards can create solutions to address documented security issues. Network operators read standards to understand how the different implementations work together to make a complete security solution.

These network solutions often come from different sources, which leads to the creation of a variety of testing procedures and methodologies to ensure that network components support all the security and performance requirements of the network users. Since the majority of standards are also open, it would make sense that the methods for testing are also open. But often this isn't the case, and I think it should be.

The Case for Open Security Testing Standards
The argument I often hear against open testing standards is because network component engineers can see the test and create a solution based on the known criteria. This, to use a grade school analogy, seems like cheating since the test questions are known in advance, making it possible for a network operator to engineer their products to pass the test. If the tests have full coverage for the security features that a network operator wants, then it doesn't matter if they know what is being tested. The outcome of the testing will be a network component that shows compliance to the full coverage of test cases. By creating an open testing environment, network component engineers can build a solution that will meet the network operators' requirements.

When creating security metrics, it's critical that test methodologies cover multiple scenarios to ensure that devices perform as expected in all environments. For security test methodologies, it may be necessary to randomize input parameters to cover all use cases in order to detect devices that have tuned device performance to meet test case needs rather than the needs of real use cases. For example, when measuring if a firewall detects CVEs, it's important to run a traffic mix with vulnerabilities to ensure the device detects and blocks attacks under a variety of conditions.

Another advantage of open testing standards is that they give users and network operators the ability to see what security testing is performed and how testing is performed. Knowing what security test cases are being performed allows the operator to confirm that the test meets specific requirements. If not, they can add additional tests.

Creating a Feedback Loop
If there is an organization responsible for maintaining the standard, operators can feed that information back to cover missing areas so that in the future the network operator won't have to run additional testing. Knowing how network components are tested also lets network operators and users better understand the meaning of results because results alone often don't give enough context about the testing conditions of the network component. For example, it's important to understand if a device passes security tests when there is no load but doesn't detect attacks when it's under load.

It's also important to compare security results from different networking providers as a means of increasing transparency into testing methodologies, which also leads to better decision-making processes. In other words, open testing standards provide an "apples to apples" comparison opportunity. In security performance testing, for example, the results of a bandwidth test on a firewall can change greatly based on the security features that are enabled. If no open standard exists to specify that information, a user might be looking at results for two different implementations and not understand that the results differ depending on what features are enabled.

Implementers of security standards are aided by having open testing standards offering better visibility into what network operators are interested in validating. Network operators are aided by open standards testing to allow them to achieve comparisons that make network decisions easier.

Related Content:

 

 

 Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry's most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

Timothy Winters is a senior manager at the University of New Hampshire InterOperability Laboratory (UNH-IOL). He works with companies from all over the world to develop broad-based, flexible testing strategies to cost-effectively meet network interoperability ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Windows 10 Migration: Getting It Right
Kevin Alexandra, Principal Solutions Engineer at BeyondTrust,  5/15/2019
Baltimore Ransomware Attack Takes Strange Twist
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  5/14/2019
When Older Windows Systems Won't Die
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  5/17/2019
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
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-12184
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-19
There is XSS in browser/components/MarkdownPreview.js in BoostIO Boostnote 0.11.15 via a label named flowchart, sequence, gallery, or chart, as demonstrated by a crafted SRC attribute of an IFRAME element, a different vulnerability than CVE-2019-12136.
CVE-2019-12173
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-18
MacDown 0.7.1 (870) allows remote code execution via a file:\\\ URI, with a .app pathname, in the HREF attribute of an A element. This is different from CVE-2019-12138.
CVE-2019-12172
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-17
Typora 0.9.9.21.1 (1913) allows arbitrary code execution via a modified file: URL syntax in the HREF attribute of an AREA element, as demonstrated by file:\\\ on macOS or Linux, or file://C| on Windows. This is different from CVE-2019-12137.
CVE-2019-12168
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-17
Four-Faith Wireless Mobile Router F3x24 v1.0 devices allow remote code execution via the Command Shell (aka Administration > Commands) screen.
CVE-2019-12170
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-17
ATutor through 2.2.4 is vulnerable to arbitrary file uploads via the mods/_core/backups/upload.php (aka backup) component. This may result in remote command execution. An attacker can use the instructor account to fully compromise the system using a crafted backup ZIP archive. This will allow for PH...