The Rise of Continuous Attack Surface Management

In the merry-go-round world of InfoSec technologies and “what’s old is new again,” this year we should include Attack Surface Management with a dash of Continuous.

Twenty years ago, the first commercial “ethical hacking” training courses taught defenders the mystic arts and methodologies of targeted intrusion. Back then, a lengthy opening chapter would cover the ethics of hacking and the legal consequences of employing the skills students were about to learn. It wasn’t until chapter two that students got to roll up their sleeves and learn through doing — beginning with passive information gathering and enumerating the attack surface of a target (typically the student’s own employer).

Any technical CISO and greying SecOps professional worth their salt can recollect their first ethical hacking experience and foray into mapping the attack surface of their business and being both excited and shocked at the long list of security-related findings they had uncovered with their own hands.

Two decades later, as businesses expand upon their digital transformation investments, their internet-exposed surface has grown exponentially and with it so too have the vectors for attack. In an increasingly cloudified world, identifying what business systems are publicly accessible and what confidential insights or vulnerabilities they may expose has risen to critical importance. Ad hoc point-in-time enumerations of an organization’s external attack surface are being superseded by continuous attack surface management (CASM).

Although CASM is a new label, there’s already a mix of several dozen old and new startup companies focused on external attack surface enumeration and public asset attribution — with an array of integration options into existing threat intelligence platforms (TIP), vulnerability assessment management (VAM) systems, cloud security posture management (CSPM) and SIEM solutions. Although diverse in their offerings, vendors can be roughly divided into three value propositions.

1. “Traditional” external attack security enumerators that focus on cyclically mapping and inventorying the entire internet, often with limited attribution or asset ownership insights. Their data tends to be most useful and consumable from a TIP perspective.
2. Digital Risk Protection services that fuse attack surface information with other intelligence sources (e.g., dark web monitoring) to provide customers with enterprise risk insights. Often delivered as part of brand protection and fraud campaign detection services.
3. Continuous automated external testing of an enterprise’s (known) assets for an outside-in and attacker’s perspective for the prioritization of vulnerability and asset remediation (often as part of VAM).

Enumerating and understanding an organization’s outside-in security posture and attack surface through continuous scanning and probing, although clearly a valuable component of modern enterprise security and risk management, is yet another noisy alert generator that contributes enormously to SOC alert fatigue if not well integrated into more advanced workflows. 

Impactful operational security benefits of CASM typically come from deep (single pane of glass) integration with continuous vulnerability assessment and security posture management solutions. 

Internet-spanning scanning, basic asset discovery and service enumeration, and ownership attribution are solved problems and represent a low technology threshold for those choosing to build their own CASM solutions, which helps explain why so many startups incorporate them. 

The mix of low cost of market entry, increasing customer alert fatigue, competitive service pricing pressure, and classification as a feature rather than a standalone solution will likely result in churn of single-solution and dedicated CASM vendors over the coming year. A lucky few CASM startups will inevitably be acquired along the way — but probably at much lower valuations than expected, despite the value of the risks they help customers identify.

Enterprise security teams are hungry for the visibility CASM offers them and are pushing their larger and preferred security vendors to incorporate outside-in attack surface intelligence into their more expansive security suites as a feature. CISOs should anticipate that CASM will quickly become a check-box feature in existing enterprise-grade security solutions and plan accordingly.

-- Gunter Ollmann

First Published: SecurityWeek - May 25, 2021

The Cusp of a Virtual Analyst Revolution

Security Analytics and Threat Investigation Are in the Midst of a Sea Change

Once live stomping around vendor-packed expo halls at security conferences returns, it is highly probable that “Virtual Analyst” will play a starring role in buzzword bingo. Today, the loosely defined term represents an aspiration for security vendors and managed service providers but may be perceived as a threat by internal day-to-day security operations and threat hunting teams.

For context, security analytics and threat investigation are in the midst of a sea change. Cloud log analytics platforms now enable efficient and timely analysis of ever-increasing swathes of enterprise logs, events, and alerts dating back years. Threat Intelligence platforms are deeply integrated into cloud SIEM solutions—enabling both reactive and proactive threat hunting and automated incident investigation—and are entwined with a growing stack of sophisticated AI and ML capabilities. However, smart event correlation and alert fusion engines automatically triage the daily deluge of suspiciousness down to a manageable stack of high-priority incidents—replete with kill-chain reassembly and data enrichment.

In many environments the traditional tier-one security analyst responsibilities for triaging events (removing false positives and “don’t care” noise) and maintaining operational health of scale-limiting SOC systems (e.g., device connectors, log retention and storage parameters, ticket response management) have already been subsumed by modern SIEM solutions. Meanwhile, platform-native no-code/low-code-powered orchestration and automation capabilities, along with growing libraries of community-sourced investigation and response playbooks, have greatly accelerated incident response and efficacy for tier-two analysts—alleviating time-consuming repetitive tasks and increasing focus on new and novel incidents.

Arguably, the Virtual Analyst is already here—captured within the intelligent automation and efficiencies of modern cloud SIEM— and I believe the journey has just begun.

The near future evolution of the Virtual Analyst is being driven by two competing and intwined motions —the growing need for real-time threat response, and the inaccessibility of deep security knowledge and expertise.

Real-time threat response has long been thought an achievable target for in-house security operations teams and has underpinned many historic CISO security purchasing decisions. As the enterprise attack surface has grown, adversaries (external and internal) have increased the breadth and pace of attack, and in response businesses continue to invest heavily in instrumenting their environments with an “assume breach” mindset—widening the visibility aperture and exponentially increasing the volume and timeliness of threat-relatable data. Advanced log analytics capabilities and AI-powered event fusion processes are identifying more incidents earlier along the kill-chain and consequently providing more opportunities to conditionally mitigate a budding threat or disrupt a sequence of suspicious events. 

To successfully capitalize on that shrinking window of opportunity, responses need to occur at super-human speeds. The speed bump introduced by requiring a human in that response loop will increasingly materialize as the difference between having been attacked versus being breached. In this context, the Virtual Analyst represents the super-human capabilities AND responsibilities for real-time threat identification AND trusted automated mitigation of a live incident.

Although that Virtual Analyst capability will be tightly bound to a product (e.g., Cloud SIEM, SOC-as-a-Service), the second Virtual Analyst motion centers around access to deep security expertise.

If a product-bound Virtual Analyst can be considered a quick-learning high-speed generalist, the second motion can be thought of as a flexible “on-call” specialist—augmenting the security operations team’s investigative and response capabilities as needed—and may be conceptually akin to the on-demand specialist services provided by traditional managed security service and incident response providers. 

The differentiated value of cloud-based Virtual Analyst solutions will lie in leveraging broader internet-spanning datasets for threat detection and attribution, and powerful, rapid, ad hoc forensic-level investigation of incidents and response. For example, the in-house SOC team may engage the Virtual Analyst to augment an ongoing investigation by temporarily connecting it to their on-premises SIEM, and receive targeted direction for capturing and collecting incident-relevant non-SIEM data (e.g., PCAPs, VM images, storage snapshots, configuration files) that are uploaded and automatically investigated by the virtual analyst as well as incorporated for real-time instruction on system recovery and attack mitigation.

It’s tempting to think that on-premises security analysts’ days are numbered. Virtual analyst advancements will indeed increase the speed, fidelity, and efficacy of threat detection and incident response within the enterprise—replacing almost all repeated and repeatable analyst tasks. But AI-powered virtual analyst solutions will do so with little knowledge or context about the business and its priorities. 

With the day-to-day noise and incident investigation drudgery removed, security operations teams may evolve into specialist business advisors—partnering with business teams, articulating technology risks, and providing contextual security guidance.

-- Gunter Ollmann

First Published: SecurityWeek - March 23, 2021

Reinventing Managed Security Services’ Detection and Response

Managed security services are undergoing a timely and significant transformation, armed with new hyper-scalable technology stacks, hybrid enterprise and cross-cloud protection complexities, and a demand to evolve from 24/7 eyes-on-glass into hands-on customer-integrated early warning and response. If it wasn’t a tired industry cliché we’d probably be adding “next-generation” or NG prefixes to many of these newly transformed managed services.

That transformation of traditional managed security services provider (MSSP) offerings, combined with an explosion of software product vendors and consulting services providers entering the fray with their newly hybridized managed detection and response solutions, is confusing to many. Whether from an MSSP, security product vendor or a consulting services provider pitch, the same vocabulary and acronyms increasingly mean different things.

Endpoint protection platforms (EPP) have evolved over the past decade from alert-generating megaphones into standalone, powerful endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions. Key to that evolution is the incorporation of progressively advanced machine learning threat detection capabilities and automated remediation. Although EDR continues to grow smarter and more capable, a diverse portfolio of managed services is being welded to them to enhance threat protection and remedy capabilities.

As such, in broad strokes EDR solutions (and the market in general) is evolving into managed detection and response (MDR). 

For product vendors, MDR is tied to advanced manageability and proprietary services almost exclusively built around enhancing their own stand-alone EDR product (and may extend to data ingestion and analytics of integrated partnered products). For MSSPs and consulting services providers, MDR typically refers to the addition of human-led detection and response capabilities provided 24/7 and layered upon EDR suites from one or more vendors.

Recently the term XDR (extended detection and response) has become a catch-all for combined endpoint, network, and cloud-based detection and response. MSSPs tend to imply that “XDR” is a managed service and often a component of an outsourced and managed SOC (security operations center) offering. 

Tight product integrations and security ecosystem fusions with automation have made it exponentially easier to provide managed detection and response across a broader range of security products and technologies — and easier for service providers to offer highly scalable and managed XDR (or EDR, NDR or MDR) detection and response solutions. 

Meanwhile, some software and SaaS vendors have launched stand-alone XDR products that aggregate detection alerts and automate response across multivendor EDR, NDR (Network Detection and Response) and CSPP (Cloud Security Protection Platform) products — enabling third-party human specialists to transform their XDR product into a managed service. 

It can feel like a Monty Python sketch when speaking with a product vendor: XDR and managed XDR (MXDR) are different solutions, but EDR and MDR may mean the same thing because vendor-provided management is often part of the product purchase subscription. For an MSSP, managed EDR is different from MDR, but MDR and XDR may be the same thing. 

The inclusion and advancement of machine learning is the key ingredient to modern managed detection and response solutions. For example, supervised and deep learning methods play such a fundamental role in bulky detection triage processes that they’ve effectively eliminated the traditional mind-numbing tier-one security analyst role. Meanwhile, Natural Language Processing (NLP) and anomaly clustering, along with no-code playbook automation, is simplifying threat hunting and response — removing the daily grind tier-two analysts tend to face. “Virtual analyst” is the term we’ll hear with growing regularity.

MSSPs and EDR vendors may have commenced their detection and response journeys from different starting points, but they are converging to roughly the same solution and reinventing the managed security services market along the way. Virtual analyst technology (and the advances in ML and AI that lay behind its efficacy) will assuredly drive further innovation in managed services, with the next click-stop on this journey likely being autonomous SOC (or SOC-as-a-Service).

-- Gunter Ollmann

First Published: SecurityWeek - Feb 9th, 2021

Attesting to the Security of Data-in-Use

The pace at which new confidential computing solutions are penetrating enterprise security architectures and data protection strategies appears to be catching security leaders off balance. COVID-19-accelerated digital transformation saw years’ worth of cloud migration, “zero trust” management and online collaboration tool rollouts squeezed into a few short months. Solutions engineering and security teams that thought they’d have a couple years to learn and master the next set of security- and privacy-preserving technologies are suddenly playing catch-up in the newly “cloudified” enterprise.

Having already mastered and commodified “data-at-rest” and “data-in-transit” security, security leaders are under pressure to support companies’ adoption of confidential computing technologies and newly enabled trusted execution enclave (TEE) services. If 2020 represented a step function for digital transformation and cloud adoption for businesses, 2021 will be the year of rapid, measurable “data-in-use” security and privacy. 

As the list of new and pending TEE-enabled products and services from major public cloud providers grows, where should CISOs and security architects begin? For most organizations, the two most influential confidential computing building blocks will be enclave attestation and enclave-enabled relational databases.

Whether the organization is planning on utilizing in-house or cloud computing builds atop Intel SGX or AMD SEV chip architectures (or Arm, NVIDA, etc. in the future), attestation lays at the heart of confidential computing trust. Enclave provisioning and trust will quickly become as fundamental to enterprise security as identity management, certificate management and key management.

Enclave attestation services are designed to verify and validate that the confidential computing workload is provisioned and executed securely in a TEE environment. Remote attestation services will necessarily vary in environmental specifics, but they generally validate the integrity — the root of trust, hardware status, firmware status, security patch status, etc. — of the TEE (hardware or virtualized) before releasing sensitive data into the enclave. It is therefore the attestation service’s responsibility to cryptographically ensure that the underlying hardware and firmware is not in a vulnerable state before use, that the workload assigned to the enclave is transferred securely and, upon execution, that the enclave remains secure and the workload’s computing functions and output were not tampered with in any way. In essence, confidential computing attestation tells you if the results that your code generated within the TEE are trustworthy.

It won’t be long before CISSP study materials include attestation mechanics with an “Alice and Bob” explanation, like those used to teach data flows that constitute asymmetric cryptography and key exchange mechanics. For most InfoSec professionals, a basic understanding of enclave attestation will be adequate for traffic routing and troubleshooting. A deeper understanding will be required for architects and DevOps teams tasked with deploying and trusting new confidential compute workloads.

In parallel to incorporating enclave attestation service design into new business application architectures, security and privacy leaders will need to leverage enclave-enabled relational databases — especially if they’re to meet toughening regulatory requirements linked to customer data privacy. 

In the database world, balancing privacy and “data-at-rest” encryption with data utility and business application performance has been a delicate, often compromising, affair. Encrypted column data (for example, customer names, addresses and blood types) logically makes it more difficult to perform searches and match records. The use of deterministic encryption techniques (for instance, encryption that always generates the same encrypted value for any plain text value) is vulnerable to some predictive attack vectors. However, randomized encryption techniques are more secure but make most common query types impossible.

To protect sensitive data from malware and high privileged unauthorized users of the database server, traditional non-TEE data encryption processes protect the data by encrypting it on the client side. This means disallowing the data or corresponding cryptographic keys from appearing in plaintext inside the database engine. When deterministic encryption is used, the only operations the database engine can perform are equity comparisons. All other operations, including cryptographic operations (initial data encryption or key rotation) or rich computations (for example, pattern matching), are not supported inside the database. Users need to move their data outside the database to perform these operations on the client side. These actions are completed as a secure software agent to transport encrypted column data to a remote host or system to decrypt and perform query actions upon the data, then re-encrypt data that needs to be written back to the protected column.

For operations teams tasked with regulatory data discovery, labeling and protection throughout the enterprise, the mechanics of securing client agents and shuffling encrypted data between systems —temporarily duplicating data in the process — is inefficient and burdensome. TEE-enabled database services ensure the encrypted data remains within the system, allowing computations on plaintext data inside the secure enclave with no way to view data or code inside the enclave from the outside (even with a debugger). In addition, rich computations, such as operations on encrypted columns, are possible, and cryptographic operations on sensitive data, like initial data encryption or rotating a column encryption key, are performed within the enclave and do not require moving the data outside the database.

As confidential compute services become ubiquitous, enclave attestation and enclave-enabled relational database technologies will be fundamental building blocks for post-COVID-19 business application design and delivery. CISOs and their security teams need to quickly master these technologies if they’re to successfully partner with in-house development teams and secure “data-in-use.”

-- Gunter Ollmann

First Published: SecurityWeek - December 22, 2020