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. 

 

 
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
4 Security Tips as the July 15 Tax-Day Extension Draws Near
Shane Buckley, President & Chief Operating Officer, Gigamon,  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...