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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

2/6/2019
10:30 AM
Ory Segal
Ory Segal
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv

Serverless Computing: 'Function' vs. 'Infrastructure' as-a-Service

How much do companies really gain from offloading security duties to the cloud? Let's do the math.
2 of 2

2 of 2
Comment  | 
Print  | 
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
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.
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. 

 

 
I 'Hacked' My Accounts Using My Mobile Number: Here's What I Learned
Nicole Sette, Director in the Cyber Risk practice of Kroll, a division of Duff & Phelps,  11/19/2019
6 Top Nontechnical Degrees for Cybersecurity
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  11/21/2019
TPM-Fail: What It Means & What to Do About It
Ari Singer, CTO at TrustPhi,  11/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19013
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-22
A CSRF vulnerability in Pagekit 1.0.17 allows an attacker to upload an arbitrary file by removing the CSRF token from a request.
CVE-2019-3427
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-22
The version V6.01.03.01 of ZTE ZXCDN IAMWEB product is impacted by a code injection vulnerability. An attacker could exploit the vulnerability to inject malicious code into the management page, resulting in users� information leakage.
CVE-2019-3428
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-22
The version V6.01.03.01 of ZTE ZXCDN IAMWEB product is impacted by a configuration error vulnerability. An attacker could directly access the management portal in HTTP, resulting in users� information leakage.
CVE-2019-4214
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-22
IBM SmartCloud Analytics 1.3.1 through 1.3.5 does not set the secure attribute on authorization tokens or session cookies. This could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive information using man in the middle techniques. IBM X-Force ID: 159185.
CVE-2019-4215
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-22
IBM SmartCloud Analytics 1.3.1 through 1.3.5 could allow a remote attacker to hijack the clicking action of the victim. By persuading a victim to visit a malicious Web site, a remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to hijack the victim's click actions and possibly launch further attacks ag...