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.

Endpoint

5/13/2013
12:52 PM
Tim Rohrbaugh
Tim Rohrbaugh
Commentary
50%
50%

Use A Human Trust Model For Endpoints

Use anthropomorphic references to engage your brain and strengthen your approach to security

Have you ever used a feminine pronoun when talking about a boat? What about a computer program? Have you ever resented your computer after you felt it "intended" to lose your work? (I will refrain from linking to a YouTube video showing someone beating their office computer.)

People endowing inanimate objects with human characteristics is commonplace today. I believe it's also a useful approach when dealing with security design, controls, and analysis. Just as analogies and metaphors aid in helping the brain process new information, thinking of your endpoints as having human intentions (regardless of whether a real one is there at the moment) is also a very useful aid because it engages the two ancient almond-shaped regions of your brain called the amygdala.

She trusts me, she trusts me not, she ...

One type of the human trust model takes three forms: Trust no one at any time, trust some of the people some of the time, and trust all of the people all of the time. It is best when designing your network to match up devices, applications, and people based on this trust model. Why? So you can focus your efforts in the most effective way when defining controls, processing logs, and correlating events. By "effective" I mean likely to increase your security posture.

Do you trust everyone and everything the same?

How about the computers used by your road warriors? What about the systems exposed to the Internet? How about security software? Vendor-hosted systems? No, you don't trust all of these the same. You create zones of trust. You and everyone around you, regardless of their job roles, are experts at risk analysis. Why? Because they have survived walking across busy streets. Now all you need to do is apply these evolved senses to modern-day technology challenges by training your brain and linking human traits to those that live on your network.

How does it work?

Start with a pattern like this:

  • Trust no one at any time (I don't trust you) = trust 3
  • Trust some of the people some of the time (I trust you, but will verify) = trust 2
  • Trust all of the people all of the time (I trust you) = trust 1

Note: There is a trust 0 (something akin to subconscious) and trust 4 (enemy) AND the higher trust number = less trust

Next:

Place trust # entities together; when they're mismatched over time, classify/reclassify them as the highest trust number between them. Focus your controls, log capture, and analysis on those you do not trust, then verify those you do trust with the leftover team hours.

Sample: You see traffic coming from these examples ... How will you trust them?

  • Web server in a demilitarized zone (DMZ) [trust 3] uses standalone accounts or ones that have no privileges [trust 3] in inner layers
  • Development workstation in development area [trust 2] with users who are not admins, but developers [trust 2]
  • Production database server with no outside access [trust 1] with no interactive users (no one logged on) [trust 1]

Have kings been toppled by their inner circle? Sure they have. But did those in the inner circle responsible commingle with the untrusted at some point? Did they transition to the inner circle through other levels of trust? Yes, they did. Do you feel like arguing this point, linking your argument to an historical event, and/or taking this approach (called profiling) personally? Then you get my point. It's hard to be passionate and accurate when dealing with, "IP address: X connecting to Y with a byte count of X." So engage your amygdala by endowing endpoints with the expectation of trust ... as you do people.

Tim Rohrbaugh VP. Information Security for Intersections Inc. Tim Rohrbaugh is an information security practitioner who used military (comsec) experience to transition, in the mid 90's, to supporting Government Information Assurance (IA) projects. While splitting time between penetration testing and teaching at DISA, Mr. Rohrbaugh ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Commentary
Cyberattacks Are Tailored to Employees ... Why Isn't Security Training?
Tim Sadler, CEO and co-founder of Tessian,  6/17/2021
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
7 Powerful Cybersecurity Skills the Energy Sector Needs Most
Pam Baker, Contributing Writer,  6/22/2021
News
Microsoft Disrupts Large-Scale BEC Campaign Across Web Services
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/15/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
In this report learn how enterprises are building their incident response teams and processes, how they research potential compromises, how they respond to new breaches, and what tools and processes they use to remediate problems and improve their cyber defenses for the future.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-34390
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty TLK contains a vulnerability in the NVIDIA TLK kernel function where a lack of checks allows the exploitation of an integer overflow on the size parameter of the tz_map_shared_mem function.
CVE-2021-34391
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty TLK contains a vulnerability in the NVIDIA TLK kernel�s tz_handle_trusted_app_smc function where a lack of integer overflow checks on the req_off and param_ofs variables leads to memory corruption of critical kernel structures.
CVE-2021-34392
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty TLK contains a vulnerability in the NVIDIA TLK kernel where an integer overflow in the tz_map_shared_mem function can bypass boundary checks, which might lead to denial of service.
CVE-2021-34393
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty contains a vulnerability in TSEC TA which deserializes the incoming messages even though the TSEC TA does not expose any command. This vulnerability might allow an attacker to exploit the deserializer to impact code execution, causing information disclosure.
CVE-2021-34394
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty contains a vulnerability in all TAs whose deserializer does not reject messages with multiple occurrences of the same parameter. The deserialization of untrusted data might allow an attacker to exploit the deserializer to impact code execution.