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.

Comments
Cartoon: Cloud Conundrum
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
freespiritny25
50%
50%
freespiritny25,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/1/2014 | 4:24:57 PM
Re: Cartoon: Cloud Conundrum
LOL so true- pointing the blame!
Kelly Jackson Higgins
50%
50%
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
7/10/2014 | 4:29:24 PM
Re: SOC v CSP: Chicken or the egg?
This actually applies to a lot of things in security, so it's a wise joke well-taken. 
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
7/8/2014 | 4:59:55 PM
Re: SOC v CSP: Chicken or the egg?
Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed reply @aws0513. I hope you will tell us how your checklist approach works to cloud services assessment works. When do you thnk you will see some results?
aws0513
100%
0%
aws0513,
User Rank: Ninja
7/8/2014 | 12:45:09 PM
Re: SOC v CSP: Chicken or the egg?
In my experiences, the following rule always applies:

"The data owner is responsible for protecting the data they manage and use for their business operations."

This means that no matter where the data is stored, the data owner must ensure that necessary security controls are in place to help protect the data.  If the choice is to use cloud services of any kind, they data owner must validate (accredit) and audit the cloud services that will be utilized... on a consistent and continuous basis.

The hard part is that cloud services often tout their product as a secure environment without providing security control implementation specifics.  I have yet to see any cloud service provide a security control "mapping" to NIST (or other framework) controls in detail that was sufficient.  They will brush some sales lines on a few common security controls, but I am still waiting on that "comprehensive" security control implementation documentation.

I am currently working with my employer (government entity) to establish a common security requirement "checklist" approach to cloud services assessment.  We plan to tell data owners within the organization that if a cloud service is going to be used for any solution our organization establishes, the service will be reviewed as if it were an extension of the organization and subject to the same auditing requirements.  In general, for us this means that NIST controls will need to be mapped to the cloud service equivalent where applicable.  The cloud service vendor(s) will need to provide an acceptable control implementation/solution for each required control that our risk assessment team (management) has deemed necessary to protect the data.  If there are any issues with how the cloud service supports or provides a specific controls, along with how they will be audited and monitored, they will likely not get any of our business unless our management can establish compensating controls or assume ownership of the control requirement.  Risk acceptance is a reality as well, but it is our hope that we can reduce the risk on all points possible before any risk acceptance takes place.

I know that what we are trying to do will very likely make things difficult for cloud service vendors to get our business, but the glaring fact is if there is an unauthorized breach of our data environments, all the finger pointing in the world would not take my employers name out of the newspapers and very likely will not protect my employer from legal filings unless the risk assumption is fully documented in the contract with the vendor.  Even if the contract is specificially established, my employer would still get a black eye in the reputation arena.

So...  big foot stomping hint to you cloud vendors out there.... Make it easier for organizations that handle sensitive or regulatory affected data to know EXACTLY how security controls are implemented in your environments...  from the physical to the virtual.  A to Z...  top to bottom.  And be prepared to provide auditing capabilities that are verifiable via 3rd party were necessary. 
I suggest NIST SP800-53 as a starting point.  Be ready to talk to other risk management frameworks (ISO anyone?). 
And NO...  a fancy letter from an external auditing firm does not come close to acceptable.  The devil is in the details...  so break out all the details as much as possible for your potential customers.  You want extra points?  Provide verifiable case documentation of security events that your environment identified and/or thwarted.  Full disclosure is a good thing!!
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
7/8/2014 | 10:52:07 AM
SOC v CSP: Chicken or the egg?
The chicken or the egg metaphor is a great analogy for the cloud security debate. So I ask you all, when it comes to cloud security, who's bears the greatest resposible? the CSP or the SOC team? 


Cybersecurity Team Holiday Guide: 2019 Gag Gift Edition
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer,  12/2/2019
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-2019-19647
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
radare2 through 4.0.0 lacks validation of the content variable in the function r_asm_pseudo_incbin at libr/asm/asm.c, ultimately leading to an arbitrary write. This allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via crafted input.
CVE-2019-19648
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
In the macho_parse_file functionality in macho/macho.c of YARA 3.11.0, command_size may be inconsistent with the real size. A specially crafted MachO file can cause an out-of-bounds memory access, resulting in Denial of Service (application crash) or potential code execution.
CVE-2019-19642
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
On SuperMicro X8STi-F motherboards with IPMI firmware 2.06 and BIOS 02.68, the Virtual Media feature allows OS Command Injection by authenticated attackers who can send HTTP requests to the IPMI IP address. This requires a POST to /rpc/setvmdrive.asp with shell metacharacters in ShareHost or ShareNa...
CVE-2019-19637
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is an integer overflow in the function sixel_decode_raw_impl at fromsixel.c.
CVE-2019-19638
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is a heap-based buffer overflow in the function load_pnm at frompnm.c, due to an integer overflow.