Tuesday, August 27, 2024

Not a SOC FAQ! This is SOC FMD!

Somebody asked me this profound question that (a) I feel needs an answer and that (b) I’ve never answered in the past:


Somebody asked me this profound question that (a) I feel needs an answer and that (b) I’ve never answered in the past:

If you run a SOC (or an equivalent D&R team), what things should you require (demand, request, ask, beg … depending on the balance of corporate power) of other teams?

Dall-E via Copilot image gen, steampunk

Think of this not as SOC FAQs, but SOC FMDs — Frequently Made Demands…

To frame this a but, this is not about executive sponsorship (you should always “request” executive support, otherwise some efforts are not even worth starting, frankly), or other SOC success “pre-requisites.” This is about the key ongoing “asks” SOC makes of other teams and departments so that it has a chance of being successful with its mission over time.

So when asked this question, my ex-analyst mind went and produced a 3 pillar framework:

  1. Assets information
  2. Useful signals delivery
  3. Triage partnership

Let’s review these three.

Assets Information

If a SOC is tasked with detection and response, they better know the lay of the land that they are defending. “Defender’s Advantage” and all that. If you don’t know the terrain better than the attacker, you already lost.

There is of course a lot of nuance to it, but at some basic level, there should be a way for a team deploying anything to report this to SOC for coverage, and for a SOC to ask a team for their list of assets to be monitored for threats. Assets here may mean servers (hey, the 1990s are NOT reality over, joking aside), cloud assets, SaaS services, applications, etc (it would also be handy for ZT efforts).

Summary: if your mission is to protect assets, ask for the list of assets (sorry, this came out very Capt Obvious, but this is in fact missed in some cases)

Useful Signals Delivery

You should ask for logs! Duh, is that you, Captain Obvious, again? Well, you should ask for specific logs relevant to your mission, you should ask for compliance with a sensible logging policy, and to cover custom applications, you should ask for compliance with a sensible (this means: short!) log standard.

Don’t just ask for “logs”, ask for logs and other telemetry you can use given the tools, process and people you have. Ask for relevant context data too. If you need EDR deployed, ask. If you need to sniff traffic because EDR cannot go there, ask for NDR.

If you need logging enabled, ask for types you need (logging policy, short and sweet). If you need them delivered, ask for access to supported log pipelines or mechanisms. If they need to develop logs for custom applications, offer a log standard, then ask for compliance with it (log standard must be short and thus implementable by unmotivated developers…)

Don’t fall victim to “application is deployed, app owner never provides logs, app owner assumes that SOC will detect any threat” syndrome (this is real, please don’t laugh!). If you cannot get the logs, ask for Plan B (you do have a Plan B?).

Basic Plan B examples may include: I really want EDR here, but I can’t have it; I can then ask for logs + NDR to mitigate the visibility gap. Another: I really want logs from this application, but can’t have it. I can get OS logs, would it help? Yes, but only if I get these events, and also get logs from another system that this one connects to.

Triage Partnership

You have assets, you have signals … what do you do with all this? Well, to be very fair to many solid SOC teams, sometimes the answer is “not a whole lot” or “who the hell knows.” Unless… unless the team that runs the system (IT, DevOps, etc) and/or the team that owns the system (business, etc) helps figure out what the thing is saying via those logs.

This means you do need to ask for alert triage help. Yes, I know, I know: many SOCs are not used to this, and prefer to ad hoc it for those “rare” cases where they need help. My favorite example where ad hoc does NOT work well is DLP alerts. Back in my analyst days, there was a lively debate among the analysts covering DLP about who should own DLP, security or business (!). In that vision, even if security owns DLP, business has to play an equal role otherwise “X emailed Y about Z” and “X uploaded Y to Z” alerts destroy the SOC due to its lack of capability to understand whether this is apocalyptic, merely bad, or perfectly normal, just rare.

Distributed alert response is a thing at some elite D&R teams (famous example, more current example). But even if SOC owns triage, it needs to ask for help. This is needed even more for data related alerts (What is this data and how valuable is it? Can it go out that way?) and application security alerts (What is the app threat model? Can the app do that? Should it?). As a side note, there is probably another blog here about how to plan appsec to D&R collaboration…

Anything BIG I missed? Anything else you as a SOC leader demanded from other units and departments?

Related blogs:


Originally published at Medium.

Wednesday, August 21, 2024

The Great Cloud Security Debate: CSP vs. Third-Party Security Tools

Do I go to my Cloud Service Provider (CSP) for cloud security tooling or to a third party vendor?


Do I go to my Cloud Service Provider (CSP) for cloud security tooling or to a third party vendor?

Who will secure my cloud use, a CSP or a focused specialty vendor?

Who is my primary cloud security tools provider?

This question asked in many ways has haunted me since my analyst days, and I’ve been itching for a good, fiery debate on this. So, we did this on our Cloud Security Podcast by Google where the co-hosts divided the positions, researched the arguments in advance of the debate and then just … WENT AT EACH OTHER :-)

The results were so fun and interesting that this blog was born!

The Case for Third-Party Vendor Tooling

These arguments hinge on three primary concerns: trust, consistency, and innovation.

Some observers also highlight the theoretical conflict of interest when a CSP is responsible for both building and securing the cloud (no idea why people say this, as IMHO there is no conflict here). This side also stressed the importance of consistency across multi-cloud environments and argued that dedicated security vendors are more likely to innovate more rapidly. They also may address client needs faster, especially narrow vertical needs.

  • You just can’t trust the cloud builder to secure their own stuff (or “letting the cat guard the cream” as somebody weirdly opined on social media). Third-party vendors promise unbiased security analysis and can uncover security issues that CSPs might deprioritize, benefiting the broader public and individual users. This separation of duties suggests a more objective evaluation of cloud security.
  • Consistency is super critical for multicloud. Third-party tools provide a consistent security framework across multiple cloud platforms. This simplifies management and reduces the need for specialized knowledge in each CSP’s unique security offerings.
  • Startups just build better tools; this is their focus and sole mission; CSPs suffer from “security from a big company” syndrome, being slow and political. Third-party vendors, whose core business is security, are more likely to develop innovative and effective security solutions compared to CSPs, who may view security as a secondary concern.
  • Auxiliary argument: Would you ever trust the CSP to secure the network/environment that belongs to their competitor?

The Case for CSP-Native

These arguments hinged on three primary concerns: deep platform knowledge, built-in security, and seamless stack.

Deep platform knowledge that CSPs possess suggests both robust and “automatic”, default security. The seamlessness of CSP-native tools and the vast (we mean it, BTW!) resources that CSPs dedicate to security also play a key role. CSPs are very well positioned to keep pace with the rapid evolution of cloud services, and secure them as they are built.

  • CSP knows the platform and cloud in general best, can use unlisted or poorly documented capabilities to secure the cloud. Security deeply integrated into the platform is “more secure”, and also better linked with asset tracking, and other IT ops / DevOps capabilities. This deep knowledge translates into superior security capabilities, both practical and conceptual.
  • Built-in beats bolt-on, with fewer seams to break and break through. CSP-native tools offer seamless integration with other services, streamlining workflows, and reducing the risk of security gaps that can arise from stitching together disparate tools. This results in a simpler and more manageable security stack. Recent breaches highlight the risks associated with these integration points, underscoring the advantage of built-in security.
  • Using native tools reduces the number of third-party vendors and solutions you need to manage, leading to a simpler security stack and less administrative overhead. When cloud platforms and security tools share the same foundation, operational teams benefit from streamlined access and workflows.
  • Auxiliary argument: CSP keeps pace with securing new services as they are being launched. And there are a lot of cloud services being launched.

The Verdict

  • “It depends” wins! It really does. No, we are not hedging or fudging. Are you disappointed?
  • To make it practical, we need to answer “depends on what?” Organizational realities: how you use cloud, what cloud, how many clouds, what is your threat model, etc.
  • None of the arguments from either side include a “killer” or a clincher argument that stops the debate and hands the victory to one side.
  • Often starting with CSP-native tools and then supplementing with third-party solutions to address any gaps (if any) is the way to go (this also was Gartner advice in my days, BTW)

Listen to the audio version (better jokes!). And, yes, do read “Snow Crash” if you somehow failed to, before.

Resources:


Originally published at Medium.

The Great Cloud Security Debate: CSP vs. Third-Party Security Tools

Do I go to my Cloud Service Provider (CSP) for cloud security tooling or to a third party vendor?


Do I go to my Cloud Service Provider (CSP) for cloud security tooling or to a third party vendor?

Who will secure my cloud use, a CSP or a focused specialty vendor?

Who is my primary cloud security tools provider?

This question asked in many ways has haunted me since my analyst days, and I’ve been itching for a good, fiery debate on this. So, we did this on our Cloud Security Podcast by Google where the co-hosts divided the positions, researched the arguments in advance of the debate and then just … WENT AT EACH OTHER :-)

The results were so fun and interesting that this blog was born!

The Case for Third-Party Vendor Tooling

These arguments hinge on three primary concerns: trust, consistency, and innovation.

Some observers also highlight the theoretical conflict of interest when a CSP is responsible for both building and securing the cloud (no idea why people say this, as IMHO there is no conflict here). This side also stressed the importance of consistency across multi-cloud environments and argued that dedicated security vendors are more likely to innovate more rapidly. They also may address client needs faster, especially narrow vertical needs.

  • You just can’t trust the cloud builder to secure their own stuff (or “letting the cat guard the cream” as somebody weirdly opined on social media). Third-party vendors promise unbiased security analysis and can uncover security issues that CSPs might deprioritize, benefiting the broader public and individual users. This separation of duties suggests a more objective evaluation of cloud security.
  • Consistency is super critical for multicloud. Third-party tools provide a consistent security framework across multiple cloud platforms. This simplifies management and reduces the need for specialized knowledge in each CSP’s unique security offerings.
  • Startups just build better tools; this is their focus and sole mission; CSPs suffer from “security from a big company” syndrome, being slow and political. Third-party vendors, whose core business is security, are more likely to develop innovative and effective security solutions compared to CSPs, who may view security as a secondary concern.
  • Auxiliary argument: Would you ever trust the CSP to secure the network/environment that belongs to their competitor?

The Case for CSP-Native

These arguments hinged on three primary concerns: deep platform knowledge, built-in security, and seamless stack.

Deep platform knowledge that CSPs possess suggests both robust and “automatic”, default security. The seamlessness of CSP-native tools and the vast (we mean it, BTW!) resources that CSPs dedicate to security also play a key role. CSPs are very well positioned to keep pace with the rapid evolution of cloud services, and secure them as they are built.

  • CSP knows the platform and cloud in general best, can use unlisted or poorly documented capabilities to secure the cloud. Security deeply integrated into the platform is “more secure”, and also better linked with asset tracking, and other IT ops / DevOps capabilities. This deep knowledge translates into superior security capabilities, both practical and conceptual.
  • Built-in beats bolt-on, with fewer seams to break and break through. CSP-native tools offer seamless integration with other services, streamlining workflows, and reducing the risk of security gaps that can arise from stitching together disparate tools. This results in a simpler and more manageable security stack. Recent breaches highlight the risks associated with these integration points, underscoring the advantage of built-in security.
  • Using native tools reduces the number of third-party vendors and solutions you need to manage, leading to a simpler security stack and less administrative overhead. When cloud platforms and security tools share the same foundation, operational teams benefit from streamlined access and workflows.
  • Auxiliary argument: CSP keeps pace with securing new services as they are being launched. And there are a lot of cloud services being launched.

The Verdict

  • “It depends” wins! It really does. No, we are not hedging or fudging. Are you disappointed?
  • To make it practical, we need to answer “depends on what?” Organizational realities: how you use cloud, what cloud, how many clouds, what is your threat model, etc.
  • None of the arguments from either side include a “killer” or a clincher argument that stops the debate and hands the victory to one side.
  • Often starting with CSP-native tools and then supplementing with third-party solutions to address any gaps (if any) is the way to go (this also was Gartner advice in my days, BTW)

Listen to the audio version (better jokes!). And, yes, do read “Snow Crash” if you somehow failed to, before.

Resources:


Originally published at Medium.

Dr Anton Chuvakin