Tag Archives: Information Technology

Jan 25 2024
1 Comment
Blog Posts

Fear and Loathing in Security Dashboards

Recently a colleague asked for my help in understanding why he was seeing a specific security alert on a dashboard. The message said that his database instance was “exposed to a broad public IP range.” He disagreed with this assessment because it misrepresented the configuration context. While the database had a public IP, only one port was available, and it was behind a proxy. The access to this test instance was also restricted to “authorized” IP address ranges. I explained that this kind of information is what security practitioners like to know as they evaluate risk, but then thought, “is this a reasonable alert for a user or just more noise?” When did security dashboards become like the news, more information than we can reasonably take in, overloading our cognitive faculties and creating stress?

I have a complicated relationship with security dashboards. Though I understand different teams need a quick view of what they need to prioritize, findings are broadly categorized as high, medium, and low without much background. This approach can create confusion and disagreements between groups because those categories are generally aligned to the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals. Green is good, red is bad, and yellow means caution. The problem is that a lot of findings end up red and yellow, with categorization dependent upon how well the security team has tuned alerts and your organizational risk tolerance. Most nuance is lost.

The other problem is that this data categorization isn’t only seen as a prioritization technique. It can communicate danger. As humans, we have learned to associate red on a dashboard with some level of threat. This might be why some people develop fanariphobia, a fear of traffic lights. Is this an intentional design choice? Historically, Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), which explains how humans are motivated to protect themselves when threatened, has been used as a standard technique within the domain of cybersecurity to justify the use of fear appeals. But what if this doesn’t work as well as we think it does? A recent academic paper reviewed literature in this space and found conflicting data on the value of fear appeals in promoting voluntary security behaviors. It often backfires, leading to a reduction in desired responses. What does work? The researchers identify Stewardship Theory as a more efficacious approach leading to improved security behaviors by employees. They define it as “a covenantal relationship between the individual and the organization” which “connects both employee and employer to work toward a common goal, characterized by moral commitment between employees and the organization.”

Am I suggesting you should throw your security dashboards away? No, but I think we can agree that they’re a limited view, which can exacerbate conflict between teams. Instead of being the end of a conversation, they should be the beginning, a dialog tool that encourages a collaborative discussion between teams about risk.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
May 11 2023
2 Comments
Blog Posts

Trapped by Technology Fallacies

After a working in tech at several large companies over a couple of decades, I’ve observed some of the worst fallacies that cause damage to organizations. They don’t arise from malice, but from a scarcity of professional reflection in our field. Technologists often jump to problem solving before spending sufficient time on problem setting, which leads to the creation of inappropriate and brittle solutions. Donald A. Schön discusses this disconnect in his seminal work, The Reflective Practitioner,

…with this emphasis on problem solving, we ignore problem setting, the process by which we define the decision to be made, the ends to be achieved, the means which may be chosen.

Problem solving relies on selecting from a menu of previously established formulas. While many of these tactics can be effective, let’s examine some of the dysfunctional approaches used by technologists that lead to pain for their organizations.
  • Fallacy #1 – Hammer-Nail: Technologists often assume that all problems can be beaten into submission with a technology hammer.  It’s like the bride’s father in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, who believes that Windex can be used to cure any ill. Similarly, technologists think that every challenge is just missing a certain type of technology to resolve it.  This, even though we generally speak about maturity models in terms of people, process, technology, and culture. I can’t tell you how often I’ve seen someone design and implement a seemingly elegant solution only to have it rejected because it was developed without understanding the context of the problem.
  • Fallacy #2 – Best in Class. I’ve heard this so many times in my career that I just want to stand on a chair and shake my fist in the middle of a Gartner conference. Most organizations don’t need “best in class,” they need “good enough.” The business needs fast and frugal solutions to keep them productive and efficient, but technologists are often too busy navel gazing to listen.
  • Fallacy #3 – Information Technology is the center of the business universe. I once worked for a well-known bank that had an informal motto, “We’re a technology company that happens to be a bank.” The idea was that because they were so reliant on technology, it transformed them into a cool tech company. I used to respond with, “We also use a lot of electricity, does that make us a utility company?” Maybe a little hyperbolic, but I was trying to make the point that IT Doesn’t Matter. When Nicholas Carr used that phrase as the title of his Harvard Business Review article in 2003, he was considering technology in the historical context of other advances such as electricity and telephones, “When a resource becomes essential to competition but inconsequential to strategy, the risks it creates become more important than the advantages it provides.” In the early days of tech, it gave you an edge. Today, when a core system fails, it could sink your business. The best solutions are often invisible to the organization so it can focus on its core competencies.
While technology can be very effective at solving technical problems, most organizational issues are adaptive challenges. In The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, the authors identify this failure to differentiate between the two as the root cause of business difficulties,

The most common cause of failure in leadership is produced by treating adaptive challenges as if they were technical problems. What’s the difference? While technical problems may be very complex and critically important (like replacing a faulty heart valve during cardiac surgery), they have known solutions that can be implemented by current know-how. They can be resolved through the application of authoritative expertise and through the organization’s current structures, procedures, and ways of doing things. Adaptive challenges can only be addressed through changes in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits, and loyalties. Making progress requires going beyond any authoritative expertise to mobilize discovery, shedding certain entrenched ways, tolerating losses, and generating the new capacity to thrive anew.

The end goals that we’re trying to reach can’t be clearly established if we don’t sufficiently reflect on the problem. When we jump to problem solving over problem setting, we’re assuming a level of confidence that hasn’t been earned. We’ve made assumptions in the way systems should work, without thoroughly investigating how they are actually functioning. When Postmodern critic Michel Foucault speaks of “an insurrection of subjugated knowledges,” he’s questioning the certainty of our perceptions when we’ve disqualified information that might be important in gaining a broader perspective. Technologists are more effective when they recognize the inherent expertise of the non-technologists in the businesses they serve and operate as trusted partners who understand change leadership. Instead of serving the “religion of tech,” we should focus on delivering what organizations really need.
Tagged , , , ,
Jan 12 2018
1 Comment
Blog Posts

The Five Stages of Cloud Grief

Over the last five years as a security architect, I’ve been at organizations in various phases of cloud adoption. During that time, I’ve noticed that the most significant barrier isn’t technical. In many cases, public cloud is actually a step up from an organization’s on-premise technical debt.

One of the main obstacles to migration is emotional and can derail a cloud strategy faster than any technical roadblock. This is because our organizations are still filled with carbon units that have messy emotions who can quietly sabotage the initiative.

The emotional trajectory of an organization attempting to move to the public cloud can be illustrated through the Five Stages of Cloud Grief, which I’ve based on the Kubler-Ross Grief Cycle.

  1. Denial – Senior Leadership tells the IT organization they’re spending too much money and that they need to move everything to the cloud, because it’s cheaper. The CIO curls into fetal position under his desk. Infrastructure staff eventually hear about the new strategy and run screaming to the data center, grabbing onto random servers and switches. Other staff hug each other and cry tears of joy hoping that they can finally get new services deployed before they retire.
  2. Anger – IT staff shows up at all-hands meeting with torches and pitchforks calling for the CIO’s blood and demanding to know if there will be layoffs. The security team predicts a compliance apocalypse. Administrative staff distracts them with free donuts and pizza.
  3. Depression – CISO tells everyone cloud isn’t secure and violates all policies. Quietly packs a “go” bag and stocks bomb shelter with supplies. Infrastructure staff are forced to take cloud training, but continue to miss project timeline milestones while they refresh their resumes and LinkedIn pages.
  4. Bargaining – After senior leadership sets a final “drop dead” date for cloud migration, IT staff complain that they don’t have enough resources. New “cloud ready” staff is hired and enter the IT Sanctum Sanctorum like the Visigoths invading Rome. Information Security team presents threat intelligence report that shows $THREAT_ACTOR_DU_JOUR has pwned public cloud.
  5. Acceptance – 75% of cloud migration goal is met, but since there wasn’t a technical strategy or design, the Opex is higher and senior leadership starts wearing diapers in preparation for the monthly bill. Most of the “cloud ready” staff has moved on to the next job out of frustration and the only people left don’t actually understand how anything works.

AWS_consumption

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Aug 23 2017
Leave a comment
Blog Posts

Infrastructure-as-Code Is Still *CODE*

After working in a DevOps environment for over a year, I’ve become an automation acolyte. The future is here and I’ve seen the benefits when you get it right: improved efficiency, better control and fewer errors. However, I’ve also seen the dark side with Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC). Bad things happen because people forget that it’s still code and it should be subject to the same types of security controls you use in the rest of your SDLC.

That means including automated or manual reviews, threat modeling and architectural risk assessments. Remember, you’re not only looking for mistakes in provisioning your infrastructure or opportunities for cost control. Some of this code might introduce vulnerabilities that could be exploited by attackers. Are you storing credentials in the code? Are you calling scripts or homegrown libraries and has that code been reviewed? Do you have version control in place? Are you using open source tools that haven’t been updated recently? Are your security groups overly permissive?

IaC is CODE. Why aren’t you treating it that way?

devops_borat

Tagged , , , , , ,
Aug 18 2017
Leave a comment
Blog Posts

NTP Rules of the Road

There’s nothing more infuriating than watching organizations screw up foundational protocols and NTP seems to be one of the most commonly misconfigured. For some reason, people seem to think the goal is to have “perfect” time, when what is really needed is consistent organizational time. You need everything within a network to be synchronized for troubleshooting and incident management purposes. Otherwise, you’re going to waste a lot of energy identifying root causes and attacks.

It’s recommended to use a public stratum one server to synchronize with a few external systems or devices at your network perimeter, but this should only be configured if you don’t have your own stratum zero GPS with a stratum one server attached. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a network team go to the trouble to set this up and the systems people still point everything to ntp.org.

Everything inside a network should cascade from those perimeter devices, which is usually a router, Active Directory system or stratum one server.  This design reduces the possibility of internal time drift, the load on public NTP servers and your firewalls, and the organizational risk of opening up unnecessary ports to allow outgoing traffic to the Internet. Over the last few years, some serious vulnerabilities have been identified in the protocol and it can also be used as a data exfiltration port by attackers.

In addition to the IETF’s draft on NTP “best practices,” the SEI also has an excellent guidance document.

While it’s not realistic to have your own stratum zero device in the cloud, within AWS, it is recommended to use the designated NTP pool specified in their documentation.

Oh, and for the love of all that is holy, please use UTC. I cannot understand why I’m still having this argument with people.

Tagged , , , , ,
Jun 12 2017
Leave a comment
Blog Posts

Apple, I Wish I knew How to Quit You

My baptism into the world of computers occurred the Saturday my dad brought home an Apple IIc when I was a kid. He was always fascinated by electronic gadgets and this seemed to be the latest device that would sit in a room (and eventually gather dust) next to his ham radio and photography equipment.  The damn thing didn’t do much, but it still felt magical every time I had the opportunity to play games on it; that funky beige box with a square hunk of plastic on a leash moving an arrow around a screen. At the time, it didn’t feel like anything more than a fancy toy to me. I certainly had no idea that this interaction would foreshadow my own love-hate relationship with the entire technology industry.

Years later, I turned into an Apple acolyte while working in the IT department of an East Coast university. I was an MCSE and had become thoroughly exhausted battling Windows drivers and the BSOD circle of Hell.  After I moved to Unix administration, the first version of OS X felt like a relief after long days of command line combat. While it had an underlying CLI that worked similarly to the Unix platforms I was used to, Apple provided a more stable desktop that was painless for me to use. Unlike Windows, the hardware and the OS generally seemed to work. Sure, I didn’t have all the software packages I needed, but virtualization solved that problem. While I lost some of my expertise in building and fixing personal computers, I no longer seemed to have any interest in tinkering with them anymore. During a mostly effortless, decade-long relationship with Apple, I would jokingly tell friends, “Buy a Mac, it will make you stupid.”  I became an evangelist, “Technology is just a tool. Don’t love the hammer, love what you can make with it.”

But as often happens in romances, this one has hit a rocky patch. Lately, trusting the quality of Apple products feels akin to believing in Santa Claus, honest politicians or a truly benevolent God.

The relationship started to flounder about 6 months ago, when I was unlucky enough to have the hard drive fail in my 2013 27″ iMac. It had been a workhorse, but the warranty had expired a few months before and I was in the unwelcome position of choosing between options ranging from bad to worse. I could try to replace it myself, but after looking at the IFIXIT teardown, that idea was quickly nixed. The remaining choices were to pay Apple or buy a new system between release cycles.  After running the cost/benefit analysis in my head the last option made the most sense, since the warranties on both of my laptops were also expired. With some trepidation, I purchased the newly redesigned 2016 MacBook Pro with an external LG monitor. And here’s where my struggles began.

Within a few days of setting up the laptop, I noticed some flakiness with USB-C connections. Sometimes external hard drives would drop after the system was idle. In clamshell mode, I often couldn’t get the external monitor to wake from sleep. I researched the issues online, making recommended tweaks to the configuration. I upgraded the firmware on my LG monitor, even though the older MacBook Pro provided by my workplace never had any issues. Then I did what any good technology disciple would do and opened a case with Apple, dutifully sending in my diagnostic data, trusting that Support would cradle me in their beneficence. The case was escalated to Engineering with confirmation that it was a known timing issue to be addressed by a future software or firmware patch. In the meantime, I refrained from using the laptop in clamshell mode and got used to resetting the monitor connection by unplugging it or rebooting the laptop. I also bought a dock that solved my problems with external hard drives. Then I waited.

Like the rest of the faithful, I watched last week’s WWDC with bated breath. I was euphoric after seeing the new iMac Pro and already imagining my next purchase. But a few days later, after having to reset my external monitor connection four times in a 12-hour period, I emailed the Apple Support person I had been working with, Steve*, for a status update on the fix for the issue with my MacBook Pro. I happened to be in Whole Foods when he called me back and the poetic justice of arguing over a $3000.00 laptop in the overpriced organic produce aisle wasn’t lost on me.

Support Steve: Engineering is still working on it. 

Mrs. Y.: What does that mean? Do you know how long this case has been open? I think dinosaurs still roamed the earth.

Support Steve: The case is still open with Engineering.

Mrs. Y: If you’re releasing a new MacBook Pro, why can’t you fix mine? Is this a known issue with the new laptops as well? If not, can’t you just replace mine?

Support Steve: That isn’t an option.

Mrs. Y: Please escalate this case to a supervisor.

Support Steve: There’s no supervisor to escalate to. Escalation goes to engineering, I only have a supervisor for administrative purposes.

Mrs. Y: I want to escalate this case to the person you report to, because I’m not happy with how it’s being handled.

Then the line went dead.

While Support Steve never raised his voice, for the record, a polite asshole is still an asshole.

This experience has done more than sour me on Apple, it’s left me in a full-fledged, technology-induced existential crisis. How could this happen to me, one of the faithful? I follow all the rules, I always run supported configurations and patch my systems. I buy Apple Care!

I even considered going the Hackintosh route. But I don’t know if I can go back to futzing with hardware, praying that a software update won’t make my system unusable. And Apple’s slick hardware still maintains an unnatural, cult-like hold over me.

So, like a disaffected Catholic, I continue to hold out hope that Apple will restore my faith, because it’s supposed to “Think Different” and be the billion-dollar company that cares about its customers.  But I can’t even get anyone to respond on the Apple Support Twitter account, leaving me in despair over why my pleas fall on deaf ears.

brokeback_apple

*I’m not making this up, the Apple Support person’s name is actually “Steve.” But maybe that’s what they call all their support people as some kind of homage to the co-founder.

Tagged , , ,
Jun 23 2016
Leave a comment
Blog Posts

Booth Babe Shame

Yesterday on Twitter I came across the following in my feed:

Screenshot 2016-06-23 13.46.05

I was horrified and angry, responding with the following:

Screenshot 2016-06-23 14.05.41

I also posted something similar on Linkedin, Facebook and Google+.  I never heard from the vendor, but I did hear back from some pretty offended men and women, both technologists and non-technologists.

Screenshot 2016-06-23 14.15.34

Why are we still having this conversation? Why would ANY vendor think it’s appropriate to make make the staff at a technical conference dress like employees at Hooters?

There’s a bitter irony in reading article after article about improving the diversity in STEM fields and then seeing this. I’m getting pretty tired of feeling like a second class citizen in this industry. I’d like to be able to go to a conference and know that I’ll be treated with the respect due a senior-level technologist, not minimized because I happen to have a uterus. Clearly, I’m not the only person who feels this kind of behavior is no longer acceptable and shouldn’t be tolerated. I encourage anyone equally appalled to call out the vendor in question. If we can’t appeal to their morals, maybe they’ll think twice if it impacts their bottom line.

UPDATE: I’ve been corrected regarding the venue. This event took place at a Vegas night club, but I’m STILL offended. I don’t see any Booth Bros. Why did this vendor feel the need to have women promote their product this way?

UPDATE 6/28: Looks like people at Nutanix are embarrassed, but I’m not sure if this will actually translate to any awareness on their part.

“In a blog post Friday, Julie O’Brien, vice president of corporate marketing at Nutanix, apologized for the stunt while also offering an explanation of what went wrong.”

This was in my feed this morning: Nutanix CMO After Risque Conference Stunt: I Will Resign If It Happens Again.

 

Tagged , ,
Jun 04 2016
Leave a comment
Blog Posts

Fixing a Security Program

I’m still unsettled by how many security programs are so fundamentally broken. Even those managed and staffed by people with impressive credentials. But when I talk to some of these individuals, I discover the key issue. Many seem to think the root cause is bad tools. This is like believing the only thing keeping you from writing the Next Great American novel is that you don’t have John Steinbeck’s pen or Dorothy Parker’s typewriter.

In reality, most of the problems found in security programs are caused inferior processes, inadequate policies, non-existent documentation  and insufficient standards. If buying the best tools actually fixed security problems, wouldn’t we already be done? The truth is that too many employed in this field are in love with the mystique of security work. They don’t understand the business side, the drudgery, the grunt work necessary to build a successful program.

For those people, here’s my simple guide.  I’ve broken it down to the following essential tasks:

  1. Find your crap. Everything. Inventory and categorize your organization’s physical and digital assets according to risk. If you don’t have classification standards, then you must create them.
  2. Document your crap. Build run books. Make sure you have diagrams of networks and distributed applications. Create procedure documents such as IR plans. Establish SLOs and KPIs. Create policies and procedures governing the management of your digital assets.
  3. Assess your crap. Examine current state, identify any issues with the deployment or limitations with the product(s). Determine the actual requirements and analyze whether or not the tool actually meets the organization’s needs. This step can be interesting or depressing, depending upon whether or not you’re responsible for the next step.
  4. Fix your crap. Make changes to follow “best practices.” Work with vendors to understand the level-of-effort involved in configuring their products to better meet your needs. The temptation will be to replace the broken tools, but these aren’t $5 screwdrivers. Your organization made a significant investment of time and money and if you want to skip this step by replacing a tool, be prepared to provide facts and figures to back up your recommendation. Only after you’ve done this, can you go to step 6.
  5. Monitor your crap. If someone else knows your crap is down or compromised before you do, then you’ve failed. The goal isn’t to be the Oracle of Delphi or some fully omniscient being, but simply more proactive. And you don’t need to have all the logs. Identify the logs that are critical and relevant and start there: Active Directory, firewalls, VPN, IDS/IPS.
  6. Replace the crap that doesn’t work. But don’t make the same mistakes. Identify requirements, design the solution carefully, build out a test environment. Make sure to involve necessary stakeholders. And don’t waste time arguing about frameworks, just use an organized method and document what you do.

Now you have the foundation of any decent information security program. This process isn’t easy and it’s definitely not very sexy. But it will be more effective for your organization than installing new tools every 12 months.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
May 13 2016
Leave a comment
Blog Posts

Splunk Funk

Recently, I was asked to evaluate an organization’s Splunk deployment. This request flummoxed me, because while I’ve always been a fan of the tool’s capabilities, I’ve never actually designed an implementation or administered it. I love the empowerment of people building their own dashboards and alerts, but this only works when there’s a dedicated Splunk-Whisperer carefully overseeing the deployment and socializing the idea of using it as self-service, cross-functional tool.  As I started my assessment, I entered what can only be called a “dark night of the IT soul” because my findings have led me to question the viability of most enterprise monitoring systems.

The original implementer recently moved on to greener pastures and (typically) left only skeletal documentation. As I started my investigation, I discovered  a painfully confusing distributed deployment built with little to no understanding of  “best practices” for the product. With no data normalization and almost non-existent data input management, the previous admin had created the equivalent of a Splunk Wild West, allowing most data to flow in with little oversight or control. With an obscenely large number of sourcetypes and sources, the situation horrified Splunk support and they told me my only option was to rebuild, a scenario that filled me with nerd-angst.

In the past, I’ve written about the importance of using machine data for infrastructure visibility. It’s critical for security, but also performance monitoring and troubleshooting. Log correlation and analysis is a key component of any healthy infrastructure and without it, you’re like a mariner lost at sea. So imagine my horror when confronted by a heaping pile of garbage data thrown into a very expensive application like Splunk.

Most organizations struggle with a monitoring strategy because it simply isn’t sexy. It’s hard to get business leadership excited about dashboards, pie charts and graphs without contextualizing them in a report. “Yeah baby, let me show you those LOOOOW latency times in our web app.” It’s a hard sell, especially when you see the TCO for on-premise log correlation and monitoring tools. Why not focus on improving a product that could bring in more customer dollars or a new service to make your users happier?  Most shops are so focused on product delivery and firefighting, they simply don’t have cycles left for thinking about proactive service management. So you end up with infrastructure train wrecks, with little to no useful monitoring.

While a part of me still believes in using the best tools to gain intelligence and visibility from an infrastructure, I’m tired of struggling. I’m beginning to think I’d be happy with anything, even a Perl script, that works consistently with a low LOE. I need that data now and no longer have the luxury of waiting until there’s a budget for qualified staff and the right application. Lately, I’m finding it pretty hard to resist the siren song of SaaS log management tools that promise onboarding and insight into machine data within minutes, not hours. Just picture it: no more agents or on-premise systems to manage, just immediate visibility into data.  Most other infrastructure components have moved to the cloud, maybe it’s inevitable for log management and monitoring. Will I miss the flexibility and power of tools like Splunk and ELK? Probably, but I no longer have the luxury of nostalgia.

 

 

Tagged , , , , ,
Apr 14 2016
Leave a comment
Blog Posts

The Endpoint Is Dead To Me

Another day, another vulnerability. This month the big non-event was Badlock, following the recent trend of using a splashy name to catch the media’s attention so they could whip the management meat puppets into a paranoid frenzy. Many in the security community seem unperturbed by this latest bug, because let’s face it, nothing can surprise us after the last couple of really grim years.

But then more Java and Adobe Flash bugs were announced, some new iOS attack using Wi-Fi and NTP that can brick a device, followed by an announcement from Apple that they’ve decided to kill QuickTime for Windows instead of fixing a couple of critical flaws. All of this is forcing  me to admit the undeniable fact that trying to secure the endpoint is a waste of time. Even if you’re using a myriad of management tools, patching systems, vulnerability scanners, and DLP agents; you will fail, because you can never stay ahead of the game.

The endpoint must be seen for what it truly is: a limb to be isolated and severed from the healthy body of the enterprise at the first sign of gangrene. It’s a cootie-ridden device that while necessary for our users, must be isolated as much as possible from anything of value. A smelly turd to be flushed without remorse or hesitation. No matter what the user says, it is not valuable and nothing of value to the organization should ever be stored on it.

This doesn’t mean I’m advocating removing all endpoint protection or patching agents. But it’s time to get real and accept the fact that most of this corporate malware is incapable of delivering what the vendors promise. Moreover, most often these applications negatively impact system performance, which infuriates our users. But instead of addressing this issue, IT departments layer on more of this crapware on the endpoint, which only encourages users to find ways to disable it. One more security vulnerability for the organization. A dedicated attacker will figure out a way to bypass most of it anyway, so why do we bother to trust software that is often more harmful to business productivity than the malware we’re trying to block?  We might as well give out “Etch A Sketches” instead of laptops.

google_on_my_etch_a_sketch_by_pikajane-d3846dy

Tagged , , , , , ,
← Older posts