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.

Database Security
Authentication
Mobile
Privacy
Compliance
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
Comments
Moving Beyond 2-Factor Authentication With ‘Context’
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
StephenC92601
50%
50%
StephenC92601,
 User Rank: Author
4/1/2019 | 9:50:13 AM
Still very timely
This is still timely today.
ODA155
50%
50%
ODA155,
 User Rank: Ninja
12/9/2014 | 4:54:22 PM
Re: A Green Thumb
@Keith Graham,... Great article... but I really do hate to sound like a pessimist... but I believe you're talking about "locking down" the network, and when has that ever happened, that's a pretty big sale you'd be making, probably in the context of compliance, maybe?

"Fortunately, there is another way keep attackers inside your network from getting what they want: " Yes there is, instead of buying the "next big thing" or some silver bullet to secure our networks why not just hire the right people with the skills we need to properly manage all of the systems we already have? Seriously, think about this... how many systems do we have already running (fully implemented or watered down, mostly watered down) that were supposed to solve these problems for us and they probably could if there were enough people to do everything required?

I know it's pie-in-the-sky, but if (and I do say if... ) most companies large or otherwise had an admin dedicated to working with HR and management to manage user roles, privilege and access required to do a specific job... how many times does a user have local admin granted to install one requested\approved application and that privilege is never reclaimed... then we complain that too many users have local admin access.

I guess the reason this bugs me so much is because we're going through this very thing right now with a product that begins with an E and ends with an S and NOBODY has been happy for the last 11 months, also it was pushed off on the security department after IT started it and decided it was consuming to much of their resources.
Keith Graham
50%
50%
Keith Graham,
 User Rank: Author
12/9/2014 | 2:29:17 PM
Re: A Green Thumb
An example may be that in the case of source IP reputation data, an attacker could hop to a node that has a 'good' IP addresss, or an IP 'unknown' to any blacklists. Thats a really simple example. While you may think 'duh' of course attackers are going to do that, I would say that you wouldnt believe the audacity that alot of attackers have in terms of 'where' they 'come in from'.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
 User Rank: Strategist
12/9/2014 | 1:35:52 PM
Re: A Green Thumb
Keith what are some of the gotchas in using 'context" in authentication? In what cases doesn't it work well?  
Keith Graham
50%
50%
Keith Graham,
 User Rank: Author
12/9/2014 | 11:39:35 AM
Re: A Green Thumb
Exactly right, and I always like to point out that while these methods on their own could be circumvented, the concept with context based auth is that these methods work together as a blend, with the idea that one or more may be able to trigger and slow down an attacker. Its about tightening that net as much as possible. I will also point out that at SecureAuth, we really do see customers using this as an effective detection and protection mechanism.
Tim.j.young25
50%
50%
Tim.j.young25,
 User Rank: Apprentice
12/9/2014 | 11:32:09 AM
Re: A Green Thumb
OK I see, so an organization would just use some of the other factors you mentioned to begin (device fingerprint, geolocation, etc.) until a stronger behavioral pattern can be established. Pretty cool stuff!
Keith Graham
50%
50%
Keith Graham,
 User Rank: Author
12/9/2014 | 11:28:59 AM
Re: A Green Thumb
That's a good question Tim. All the methods of context that I've written about, with the exception of behavioral, will work out of the gate without the need for any learning period – in short, you're correct in the point you've raised. They're vendors out there today with behavioral capabilities who can verify a user, or flag on the risk profile of the user after a few days of user analysis. However, the reality here is that if an organization has an existing behavioral analytics solution deployed (thus a baseline already exists for a user), then that baseline can be used to form a risk profile and leveraged as just another method of context based auth, as part of the overall authentication solution.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
 User Rank: Strategist
12/9/2014 | 9:16:57 AM
Locking down access
Does a janitor need access to the SOX regulated servers? Absolutely not, @Thomas Smith. Totally agree that identity management will be a major tactic in locking down enterprise security. But idea of adding various contexts to that identity is intriguing.
Tim.j.young25
50%
50%
Tim.j.young25,
 User Rank: Apprentice
12/9/2014 | 6:13:25 AM
Re: A Green Thumb
Out of curiousity, how does an organization start off using context based authentication? For elements such as behavioral elements (keystokes, mouse movement, etc.) is there a sort of "learning period" to register how each user interacts with their device? 
Thomas Smith
100%
0%
Thomas Smith,
 User Rank: Strategist
12/8/2014 | 11:27:38 AM
Re: A Green Thumb
Even if this article was to refer to biometric designs for 'fingerprinting', the article goes on to say you should be looking for more than any one method for doing two factors. I am a proponent of multifactor assessments for connections into an environment at ingress points. In my mind there are a ton of ways to secure a connection authorization that can and should occur at many different levels even prior to a user id and password being available to be input into any given connection state during the connection and authorization process. Using things like TPM indexed generated certificates, checked against your PKI issued infrastructure, to determine if a given machine even has authorization to connect to any given ingress point is a strong first method of authorization access. After which machine posture checks added with some security through obscurity and then user id/password + OTP authentication is a much safer and surer way to go. Using the concept of multifactor authorization process raises the level of comfort in knowing who is logging in from where and on what device.

Does this defeat everything? No, it does not. However the point of cyber security it not to defeat everything, we cannot defeat the human element. If a bad employee wants to hand over the keys to someone who will do something bad then no amount of security will prevent this. There is no end to the quest of a secure infrastructure; there is only higher confidence in the intelligence that what is being presented as true is true.

This is not to say it is a no win situation. We always need to look for the next level. What else can we do? Could we use our knowledge of the internet of things to determine how much access a user has rights to; not only based on the permissions a user has but also the place from which the user is logging in? For example if we reverse lookup the location of the authorization attempt and determine it's from the coffee house down the road then should that person have the same level of access as on the network internally? How about from a hotel located in a country known to have issues? Would you put it past some countries to put malware on the access points in a hotel to steal and listen in on the data flows?

For me the point of the article is to challenge us to think about what else we can do, what else can we define? Does geo-location role based security access make sense? Let me ask you, does a janitor need access to the SOX regulated servers? If not, then why do we allow this to, potentially, happen? We do not lock down access enough, not something as simple as security permission on a server infrastructure. What about the network infrastructure? I think we work very hard at doing a bunch of advanced things in our daily jobs, yet we forget the simple things all the time. Much like anything else in life if you do not constantly re-examine your own notions of what is acceptable then how would you grow?

 

 
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Our Endpoint Protection system is a little outdated... 
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industry’s conventional wisdom. Here’s a look at what they’re thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-0404
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-11
SAP Enable Now, before version 1911, leaks information about network configuration in the server error messages, leading to Information Disclosure.
CVE-2019-0405
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-11
SAP Enable Now, before version 1911, leaks information about the existence of a particular user which can be used to construct a list of users, leading to a user enumeration vulnerability and Information Disclosure.
CVE-2019-0395
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-11
SAP BusinessObjects Business Intelligence Platform (Fiori BI Launchpad), before version 4.2, allows execution of JavaScript in a text module in Fiori BI Launchpad, leading to Stored Cross Site Scripting vulnerability.
CVE-2019-0398
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-11
Due to insufficient CSRF protection, SAP BusinessObjects Business Intelligence Platform (Monitoring Application), before versions 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3, may lead to an authenticated user to send unintended request to the web server, leading to Cross Site Request Forgery.
CVE-2019-0399
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-11
SAP Portfolio and Project Management, before versions S4CORE 102, 103, EPPM 100 and CPRXRPM 500_702, 600_740, 610_740; unintentionally allows a user to discover accounting information of the Projects in Project dashboard, leading to Information Disclosure.