Security Program Best-Practices 5

Security Program Best-Practices – Part 5

Security Program Best-Practices – Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

This blog continues our Security Governance Series with the next installment of recommended security program best-practices drawn from a broad sample of assessments. In this blog we will discuss the final and most critical Gap 10 – Develop Firewall Rule Lifecycle Management.

Gap 10: Firewall Rule Lifecycle Management

Business Problem

Firewalls are the first and continued line of defense for enterprises today, handling vast amounts of traffic across the network. On the perimeter alone firewalls filter millions of packets daily. The organizational security policy implemented in these firewalls requires the definition of hundreds and often thousands of rules and objects. Objects may include groups of servers, user machines, sub-networks in the data center, and networks in company branch offices or DMZs. The firewall rules define which type of applications and which network services are allowed to traverse between networks and which should be blocked.

Firewalls are Organic

Since business needs are dynamic, firewall policies are constantly being changed and modified. This continuous flux causes the firewall configuration to grow dramatically over time. A huge and subsequently complex firewall configuration is hard to manage and may require lengthy research in order to add or change a rule. Moreover, the complexity of the configuration decreases the firewalls performance and may lead to potential security breaches. For example, a rule was created to allow a temporary service to work for a limited time, but the administrator failed to delete the rule after the task was finished, introducing real security risks.

Finding unused rules that have not matched any traffic, duplicate rules, and rules that are covered by other rules is a complex manual task for the firewall administrator. It may take days of investigating just to locate such rules in huge firewall configurations, while at the same time the firewall is continuing to change daily due to user requests.

Gartner noted in a recent research note that …

“Through 2018, more than 95% of firewall breaches will be caused by firewall misconfigurations, not firewall flaws.”

Organizations need to develop a Firewall Rule Lifecycle Management process to clean up their firewall policies, easing the network security administrator’s job while boosting firewall performance and eliminating security holes.

Organizations need to identify and address, as follows:

• Unused rules: Rules that have not matched any packet during a specified time. Either the use of Cisco ACL hit counters, central ‘syslog’ logging or, commercial tools can be used for analysis to look at the firewall logs compare the actual traffic to the rules in the policy. Unused rules are ideal candidates for removal. Often the application has been decommissioned or the server has been relocated to a different address.
• Covered or duplicated rules: Rules that can never match traffic because a prior rule or a combination of earlier rules prevents traffic from ever hitting them. During firewall cleanup such covered rules can be deleted since they will be never used. Covered and Duplicated rules cause the firewall to spend precious time for free and decrease its performance.
• Disabled rules: Rules that are marked “disabled” and are not in operation. Disabled rules are ideal candidates for removal, unless the administrator keeps them for occasional use or for historical record.
• Time-inactive rules: Rules that were active for a specified time in the past and that time expired. Rules that were active for a specific period can become active again at the same time next year. Retaining such rules may create security holes.
• Rules without logging: Rules that are defined not to generate logs. Usually security best-practice guidelines dictate to log everything. Since log information consumes a large amount of disk space, administrators often configure highly used rules that control low risk traffic not to generate logs. Listing the rules without logs will help the administrator verifying that the lack of audit for these rules is not in contradiction to policy.
• Least used rules and most used rules: Rules that matched the smallest number of packets or the largest number over a predefined and configurable period of time. The rules usage statistics helps the administrator in the cleanup process for performance improvement: he may want to reposition most used rules in higher places in the configuration and least used rules in lower places. Rules with zero hit count may be removed.
• Rules with empty comments: Rules not documented, i.e., without a text explanation or reference # to the original change management request. Often policy requires an explanation for each rule so defining rules without comments are a violation of the policy. Some companies require entering a ticket number of the help desk trouble-ticketing application into the rule comment.
• Unattached objects: Objects that are not attached to any rule or unattached global object.
• Empty objects: Objects that do not contain any IP address or address range.
• Duplicate objects: Objects that already exist but are recreated contributing to the policy “bloat”.
• Unused objects: Objects whose address ranges didn’t match any packet during a specified time or unused global object.

By removing the unnecessary rules and objects, the complexity of the firewall policy is reduced. This improves management, performance increases, and removes potential security holes.

Cleanup Phase 1: Validation

The Validation phase involves manually (or with the use of public domain or commercial tools such as Algosec or Tufin) reviewing the Firewall Rules and performing a static analysis.

Items to be reviewed in this step are, as follows:

•  Unattached Object / Unattached VPN User- Group – An object that:
  • Does not appear in any rule
  • Every group it belongs to does not appear in any rule
  • In any policy on any firewall
• Empty Objects:
  • Do not refer to any IP address
• Unattached VPN Users:
  • Do not appear in any user group and have no access
• Unattached access-list (Cisco)
  • Not connected to any interface
• Expired VPN users
  • No longer have access
• Disabled Rules:
  • Maybe it’s time to delete them?
• Time-Inactive rules:
  • Timed Rules are active on a certain days of the month, days of the week, or times of the day…
  • … But you cannot set a year.
  • Identify the expired rules before they will become active again next year.
• Duplicate Rules
  • Firewalls process the rules in-order “first match”
  • If “early” rules match every packet that a “late” rule could match – the “late” rule is covered (== useless clutter!)
  • Easy cases:  single rule covers another rule  the object names match exactly
• Duplicate Objects:
  • Most FW Vendor consoles cannot answer the question “does this definition already exist with another name?”
  • Result:  Administrators often define the same object (Host, Subnet, or Group) multiple times

Cleanup Phase 2: Unused Rules

The Unused Rules phase involves Usage-based Analysis, i.e., focusing on what has changed recently and ensuring that the Firewall Rules are kept up-to-date and those rules that are no longer needed are flagged and/or removed so that the Firewall does not become unwieldy and risk conflicts or duplicates.

This step allows us to identify key and useful data, as follows:

• Unused Rules:
  • have not matched traffic in the last NNN days
• Unused Objects:
  • Do not belong to any rule that matched traffic in the last NNN days
• Most / Least used rules
• Last date that rule was used
  • Even if it is listed as “unused” due to logging configuration settings

These considerations and notes should be borne in mind for this step, as follows:

• Over time:
  • Applications are discontinued
  • Servers are relocated to other IP addresses
  • Test environments move to production
  • Business partnerships change
  • Networks are re-architected
  • Routing is changed
• Result: Firewalls still have the rules – but the traffic is gone
• Idea: Track and flag rules and objects that have not been used “recently”
• Firewalls can log each matched packet
• Log includes rule number, timestamp, and more
• Basic approach:
  • 1) Filter the logs based on rule number
  • 2) Find the missing rule numbers and delete those rules
• Challenge #1: Logging is configured per rule
  • Some rules are not configured to produce logs
• Solution #1: List rules that do not produce logs separately
• Challenge #2: Rule Insertions & Deletions change the rule numbers!
  • Which rule corresponds to what was used to be called rule 101 in Nov’07?
  • Makes long-term statistics unreliable
• Solution #2: Vendor attaches a unique “rule_id” to each rule, such that:
  • Reported to log
  • Remains with rule through any rule add/remove/modify
• Cisco Firewalls & Routers maintain a per-rule hit-counter
• Advantages:
  • Unrelated to logging: un-logged rules are counted too
  • Rule insertions & deletions do not affect the hit-counters
• Challenge:
  • Hit-counters are reset to zero when device reboots
• Solution:
  • Take periodic snapshots
  • Attach pseudo rule_uids, homogenize the snapshots
  • Make sure not to double-count …
• Some rules only work occasionally or rarely
  • High-shopping season
  • Disaster recovery rules – tested semi-annually
  • Need usage information of many months
• Challenge:
  • Log files can become huge – querying extended historical data can have a real impact on product log server
  • Logs are discarded or rotated
  • Hit-counters are occasionally set to 0
• Solution:
  • Process the raw usage information frequently (daily)
  • … But keep concise summaries available (forever)

Cleanup Phase 3: Performance Optimization

In order to provide a measurable attribute for firewall performance that will show the improvement of the policy optimization, there is a metric called Rules Matched Per Packet (RMPP).

RMPP is simply a calculation of the average number of rules the firewall tested until it reached the rule that matched a packet (including the matched rule). For example:

If the firewall policy consists of only one rule (allow or deny all) that matches everything – RMPP will be 1. If the firewall policy consists of 100 rules, such that rule #1 matches 20% of the packets, rule #10 matches 30% and rule #100 matches 50% of the packets:

RMPP = 1 * 20% + 10 * 30% + 100 * 50% = 0.2 + 3 + 50 = 53.2

Firewalls do in fact test the rules in sequence, one after another, until they reach the matching rule, and each tested rule contributes to the firewall’s CPU utilization. Therefore, optimizing the policy to decrease the RMPP score will decrease the firewall CPU utilization and greatly improve overall performance.

Building on the previous example, if rule #100 (that matches 50% of the packets) can be relocated to position #50 – without modifying the firewall policy decisions – the RMPP will be reduced significantly:

RMPP = 1 * 20% + 10 * 30% + 50 * 50% = 0.2 + 3 + 25 = 28.2

This simple change, which can be achieved by reordering the rules, can produce a 47% improvement in firewall performance.

Conclusion

Firewall administrators can achieve significant and measurable performance improvements for their complex firewalls by using these cleanup, lifecycle management and, policy optimization (with rule reordering) techniques. There are many commercial tools available that help in policy cleanup identifying rules that are unused, covered and disabled and should ideally be removed. This is in addition to unattached, empty, duplicate and unused objects. The tools help to eliminate security risks and keep the firewall policy well managed by alerting administrators.

The more veteran firewall audit vendor list includes: Tufin Software Technologies, AlgoSec, Secure Passage and Athena Security — and then RedSeal Systems and Skybox Security, which are primarily risk-mitigation tools, and so go beyond firewall audit to feature risk-assessment and risk-management capabilities.

Thanks for your interest!

Nige the Security Guy.

Security Program Best-Practices 4

Security Program Best-Practices – Part 4

Security Program Best-Practices – Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 5

This blog continues our Security Governance Series with the next installment of recommended security program best-practices drawn from a broad sample of assessments.

As a refresher, in Part 1 we shared some typical gaps, deficiencies or, need for improvements summarized in the Opportunity Matrix below. The Opportunity Matrix can be used as a capability maturity assessment and iterative planning tool to present proposed next steps to executive management for approval and funding.

Part 1 through Part 3 of the Security Program Best-Practices series covered an overview as well as Gap 01 through Gap 07 inclusive. In this blog we will discuss Gap 08 – Integrate Central Security Logging through Gap 09 – Establish Network Security Operations, per summary below.

• GAP 01 – Identify Requirements: Security Policy, Regulation and, Laws
• GAP 02 – Develop Security Governance Program
• GAP 03 – Establish Network Security Organization
• GAP 04 – Establish Security Collaboration Working Group (WG)
• GAP 05 – Develop and Maintain Network Security Standards
• GAP 06 – Develop Network Security Architecture (3-5 Year Objective)
• GAP 07 – Develop Network Security Roadmap (with Annual Plans)
• GAP 08 – Integrate Central Security Logging
• GAP 09 – Establish Network Security Management & Operations
• GAP 10 – Develop Firewall Rule Lifecycle Management

Gap 08: Integrate Central Security Logging

Business Problem

To enable and deploy a defensible security posture pervasive and mission-critical information technology and hyper-extended networks must be more scrupulously monitored to detect anomalies and threats. High traffic volumes are also associated with higher threat levels, making automated network monitoring, alerting, and response indispensable. Automated monitoring improves system security, performance, and availability by allowing management by fact. Automation also frees the IT team to focus on exceptions, which in turn simplifies holistically managing large amounts of event data.

Being able to monitor various instrumentation telemetry data sources and event logs gives an administrator a substantial advantage in identifying threats early on – rather than investigating them after the fact. A sound logging strategy is the centerpiece in any organization’s “big picture – big data” network security plan. The presence of event monitoring within its log strategy helps distinguish a proactive plan from a reactive plan.

It is well established among network security professionals that the greatest threats to network security are in fact internal – they often originate in the same building, the same floor perhaps, and often right down the hall. The source may be a disgruntled employee, a curious staff member in the payroll department, or a bored sales representative. For several years, this threat was overlooked for the sexier external threat – the hackers working in dark home offices late at night or a competitor’s agent of corporate espionage.

To a network security administrator, event logs are like a history book or the gauges of an automobile. Event logs allow administrators to look back at the recent history of a server or network device and see trends, failures, successes, and other vital information to the organization.

Our richly interconnected online world has faced an ever increasing volume of malware and worm variants — even botnets. They exploit vulnerabilities in, for example the Windows operating system and systematically reproduce across the organization. All the while, servers, routers, and other network devices quietly log these events across LANs and WANs. For administrators, these log files gave them a snapshot of a window (excuse pun) in time that showed when, where, and most of the time, how the infection or compromise entered their controlled space.

Event logs also hold potentially valuable forensic evidence. In the aftermath of a network security breach, event logs hold all of the information about the breach. How it happened, when it happened, and in the end, the keys to preventing another breach. This data is key to enable the ability to Detect, Contain and, Eradicate as well as investigate the root cause analysis, address and prevent recurrence in the future.

Gap 09: Establish Network Security Operations

Business Problem

The problem with network security is not the lack of good security tools; it is the management of those tools and the exposure to human error. Large networks generate an overwhelming amount of logs and security events. Firewalls, intrusion detection systems, web servers, authentication devices, and many other network elements contribute to more and more logs which need to be analyzed and produce actionable information.

There is a lot of noise, at first and false positives that need to be resolved and addressed through profiling network traffic and tuning network security technologies to customize them to the organizations business – to detect anomalies and leverage the true potential and value from the technology or technologies. Too many organizations deploy the solution out-of-the-box and stop there, disappointed by all of the noise and overwhelmed by the task at hand.

However this on-going effort and its optimization can reduce the amount of alerts from thousands per day to dozens. When a correlation occurs, a simple message that says a particular server has been attacked with a technique which is likely to succeed can be sent to system owners, operations people, and other places. The operator starts to realize value from the technology and its automation to focus on those alerts and events that need action as to whether they are a breach or not – thus need further investigation.

Attackers typically create a smoke screen, a set of decoys that obscure the actual compromise or infection so that it is lost in the noise and any security operators are so overwhelmed they do not detect the stealthy attack. This is validated by the recent spate of DDoS attacks that not only seek to deny normal service but also seek to compromise servers under the cover of the attack. Many SEIM solutions generate a lot of noise out-of-the-box and need tuning to weed out and optimize.

Detection and Response

Systems fail and intrusions occur. At some point compromise is inevitable. Therefore, detection and containment is imperative. The earlier an intrusion or infection is detected, the greater the ability of the organization to mitigate the risk. Intrusion detection is considered the second line of perimeter defense, after the firewall. Intrusions can lead to malicious acts such as: identity theft; compromise of confidential information; and unauthorized changes in files, systems, and device configurations.

An organizations ability to detect and prevent intrusions adds more depth to its defensive security posture. Organizations must be aware that intrusion detection alone will not mitigate the risk of an intrusion. Mitigation can only occur with a timely and appropriate response. A prudent  response program incorporates people and processes in addition to technology, and starts with the creation of a computer security incident response team (CSIRT) that will be the initial responder when an incident is identified. In addition to the CSIRT, policies must be developed to guide the organization and team in responding to an event. Types of events and the specific procedures to be followed also need to be defined. The development of an incident response program is typically mandated by regulation, international standards or, industry best-practices.

The timely detection of an intrusion coupled with being prepared to respond is vital to minimizing financial, production, and operational losses. Specific actions and responsibilities need to be pre-assigned and the appropriate training provided. In addition, containment and restoration strategies need to be outlined that address the: isolation of the compromised system; increased, monitoring, collection and preservation of evidence; and notification to law enforcement, regulators, and other affected parties.

Continuous Improvement

Monitoring and updating the security program is essential to maintaining the effectiveness of the program. A static program will be ineffective over time and can leave the organization with a false sense of security. Monitoring should include both non-technical as well as technical issues.

Non-technical issues would include changes in business processes, policies and procedures, locations, sensitivity of data, key personnel, and organizational changes.

Technical issues include monitoring for vulnerabilities, changes in systems, service providers, configuration, users, products, and services. When changes do occur, it is imperative that they are reviewed for accuracy and legitimacy and the program is adjusted to reflect the changes and ensure continued security and operational success.

Accidental changes can be just as damaging as malicious or fraudulent change activities – resulting in increased costs for remediation and potential losses or negative affect on the organization’s top-line revenue. Best practices mandate the monitoring of all changes, intended and unintended, that will create an audit trail that details when, what, and how the change occurred. The use of automated change control and audit tools will also enhance operational efficiency by increasing the effectiveness and productivity of your security personnel.

Each change can potentially create a vulnerability or weakness in the security program if not properly evaluated, tested, and deployed. Therefore, strong change control procedures and monitoring are critical to reduce the exposure to financial losses, reputation damage, and loss of productivity.

Validation: Trust but Verify

To assure that its security strategies are adequate, each organization must test its controls against the risks events that were identified through its formal assessment of risks. The higher the probability and negative affect of a risk event, the greater the need to validate the effectiveness of the security controls. The type of test to perform and the frequency should also be based on risk.

Prior to testing, detailed test plans need to be developed to ensure testing is appropriate and controls are established to reduce the risk to data integrity, confidentiality, and ensure availability. Test results need to be measurable and traceable to provide assurances that the security strategy is meeting security objectives.

There are a variety of testing methodologies and tools available, many of which can be automated to improve efficiency and enable independence. Independent diagnostic tests include penetration tests, audits, and gap assessments that are performed by credible individuals who are considered independent of the design, installation, maintenance, and operation of the test subject area. Examples of resources that will help support and streamline the testing efforts include: log and audit files generated via security event management systems, change management reports, automated audit tools coupled with penetration testing, prior security gap assessments findings and recommendations, and internal IT audit findings and recommendations from prior audits.

No one control or solution can ever guarantee 100 percent security. High-performing organizations understand that business and technology risk management best practices mandate a defense-in-depth security approach that includes multiple controls and can be validated with internal and external audit resources. When properly aligned with the organization’s risk profile, all of the controls discussed above help to establish a practical and prudent risk-based security posture.

When properly aligned with the organizations’ business goals, audit personnel and tools can validate the appropriateness of these controls and help to ensure operational excellence and a secure infrastructure.

Coming Soon

Security Program Best-Practices – Part 5 will complete this Security Governance Series with a significant topic that warrants its own blog, Gap 10 – Firewall Rule Lifecycle Management for discussion and helpful advice on key components.

Thanks for your interest!

Nige the Security Guy.

Security Program Best-Practices 3

Security Program Best-Practices – Part 3

Security Program Best-Practices – Part 1

Part 2

Part 4

Part 5

This blog continues our Security Governance Series with the next installment of recommended security program best-practices drawn from a broad sample of assessments.

As a refresher, in Part 1 we shared some typical gaps, deficiencies or, need for improvements summarized in the Opportunity Matrix below. The Opportunity Matrix can be used as a capability maturity assessment and iterative planning tool to present proposed next steps to executive management for approval and funding.

Part 1 and Part 2 of the Security Program Best-Practices series covered an overview as well as Gap 01 through Gap 05 inclusive. In this blog we will discuss Gap 06 – Develop Network Security Architecture through Gap 07 Develop Network Security Roadmap, per summary below.

• GAP 01 – Identify Requirements: Security Policy, Regulation and, Laws
• GAP 02 – Develop Security Governance Program
• GAP 03 – Establish Network Security Organization
• GAP 04 – Establish Security Collaboration Working Group (WG)
• GAP 05 – Develop and Maintain Network Security Standards
• GAP 06 – Develop Network Security Architecture (3-5 Year Objective)
• GAP 07 – Develop Network Security Roadmap (with Annual Plans)
• GAP 08 – Integrate Central Security Logging
• GAP 09 – Establish Network Security Management & Operations
• GAP 10 – Develop Firewall Rule Lifecycle Management

Gap 06: Develop Network Security Architecture

Business Problem

From the earliest days of networking, security manifested itself in strong information security perimeter defenses. As long as the perimeter was secure, the assets being protected didn’t need to be monitored or managed because the command and control environment gave people assurance that core data was safe because unauthorized access was prevented.

Today’s hyper-extended connected enterprise faces a security paradox. The very openness and ubiquity that make the Internet such a powerful business tool also make it a tremendous liability. The Internet was designed to share, not to protect. The ports and portals that welcome remote sites, mobile users, and business partners into the trusted internal network also potentially welcome cyber-thieves, hackers, and others who would misappropriate network resources for personal gain.

Most companies didn’t design their current security architecture; rather, they built it over time, based on need: a firewall here, an intrusion prevention system there.

As a result, many businesses rely on a bewildering collection of stand-alone security systems. That’s a problem in two ways. First, without a clear understanding of how all your defenses fit together, it’s impossible to know if they provide complete protection. Second, managing and integrating all those systems costs time and money. Security integration into a holistic architecture that enables but manages role-based access is critical to success.

That’s why many organizations desire ways to simplify their security architectures.

“Security done right is the key to Anywhere Anytime by Any Device Access”

Developing a Framework

Network security architecture is defined as the desired structure of an enterprise’s technology components and technical safeguards. With network security architecture in place, an enterprise has a framework for more informed decision making and a guide for ongoing planning, design, and implementation activities.

Establish Coordinates –

• Pinpoint your Business Requirements and Vision
• Analyze Current State in terms of Infra and Services

Harmonize –

• Establish an Holistic yet Defensible Network Security Architecture
• Identify Organization Stakeholders and Seek Consensus

Chart your Course –

• Develop a Security Roadmap (Adaptive Iterative Evolution)
• Deliver Prioritized Action Plans

A Defensible Network Security Architecture provides a conceptual, physical, and procedural framework of best recommendations and solutions for network security. It serves as an important reference guide for IT professionals responsible for designing and implementing secure networks.

Architecture typically provides, as follows:

• A way to evaluate applicability of new technologies, products, and services
• A blueprint for future applications and infrastructure growth
• A framework for security technology decision making
• A framework that guides the security implementation
• Decomposes into modular and flexible components (enables reuse of proven modules as organization grows, e.g. remote office module)
• A method of cost avoidance
• A macro view of security-relevant systems and components
• A method for creating and documenting consensus
• A statement of direction for IT

A Defensible Network Security Architecture is realistic.

It assumes that all components of an IT infrastructure are targets … that even internal users could be network threats … attacks are inevitable … network performance cannot be compromised by processing intensive security measures … and IT budgets are constrained.

The Network Security Architecture should consider and include, as follows:

• Business Requirements
• Regulatory Requirements
• Security Policy Requirements
• Current Network Security Architecture
• Goal-State Network Security Architecture
• High-level gap assessment

The Defensible Network Security Architecture promotes a process, rather than an endpoint. Effective security is not achieved through a one-time initiative. This architecture outlines measures for strong ongoing policy management, reflecting both human and technical factors. For more details see the Security Architecture Series, referenced below.

• Think You’re Secure? Think Again.
• Security Architecture Primer
• Security Architecture Baseline
• Risk-Aware Security Architecture
• Develop Security Architecture
• Product and Solution Selection
• Security Architecture Implementation
• Adaptive Security Lifecycle
• Architecture Case Study – Part 1
• Architecture Case Study – Part 2

The above set of blogs takes the reader through a detailed step-by-step development of a network security architecture with the latter blogs presenting an Architecture Realization Case Study. Future blogs will present network architecture and design templates that make use of security zones to enable Access Anywhere Anytime by Any Device.

Gap 07: Develop Network Security Roadmap

Business Problem

“A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future.”

—General George S. Patton Jr.

Computers and the environments in which they operate are dynamic. System technology and users, data and information in the systems, risks associated with the system, business drivers, and security requirements are ever-changing. Many types of changes affect security: technological developments (whether adopted by the system owner or available for use by others); connection to external networks; a change in the value or use of information; or the emergence of a new threat.

In addition, security is never perfect when a system is implemented. System users and operators discover new ways to intentionally or unintentionally bypass or subvert security. Changes in the system or the environment can create new vulnerabilities. Strict adherence to procedures is rare, and procedures become outdated over time.

These issues make it necessary to periodically reassess security architecture and the supporting plans in a feedback loop that both addresses tactical exceptions as well as updates and refreshes the vision and objectives.

Adaptive Security Roadmap

What is required is a systematic business risk approach to security that integrates and drives security into the network as an operational service. This is accomplished with an Adaptive Security Roadmap and iterative lifecycle process that refreshes the architecture on an annual or quarterly basis to establish, implement, operate, monitor, review, maintain, and improve network security.

The first step in the process is to develop the current state (see figure below). The results of the security baseline and assessment (current infrastructure environment) are analyzed. Factors such as the network security perimeter, Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), intranet, extranet, partner connections, remote access, and access to assets, are considered to develop the current state and security risk profile.

The network security architecture (from Gap 06) creates the goal state. This process takes the current state and security-risk profile and adds the business drivers, prioritized requirements, policy, legal constraints, and so on. From this step, an updated and finalized network security architecture is developed and shared with the stakeholders to gain consensus.

The final step is to compare the current state with the goal state and to identify the projects that are required to transition the current infrastructure and realize the architecture goals. From a migration strategy workshop, together with the business units and stakeholders, the viable projects are selected based upon their dependencies, priorities, available resources, and budgets forming the annual plan of infrastructure improvements.

During the next planning year, the process is repeated and the architecture updated with new business requirements, new technologies, new solutions, and so on. A follow-on assessment of the current infrastructure captures improvements together with any new threats, vulnerabilities, and exposures, and documents the new current state and security-risk profile. Performing a gap analysis and migration strategy planning workshop contrasting the new current state and goal state allows an updated plan to be developed for that year.

Over time, it can be seen (see figure above) that the security architecture is used as a baseline for consensus and direction but that it is active and capable of being updated. This process allows the security architecture to adapt to support the needs of the business. It evolves and sets future objectives.

At the same time, the annual plan sets the stage for the projects that need to occur that year, and the improvements begin to track with the architecture. Finally, with the proactive asset, risk, and policy management and infrastructure improvements, the security-risk profile is also managed, resulting in risk reduction. In this manner, not only does the security architecture drive the IT and network infrastructure direction, but it also enables the illustration of tangible results, winning continued support for the program.

It is an organizational approach to network security with the appropriate network security architecture, governance, policy, standards, compliance verification and, audit.

From an operations perspective, time is money. This is why project management is an important process domain. It helps ensure that the outcomes of information technology projects are on time, within budget, and deliver the expected outcomes.

For more details on developing a Network Security Roadmap together with lifecycle management process see the Adaptive Security Lifecycle blog.

Coming Soon

Security Program Best-Practices – Part 4 will complete this Security Governance Series with the next set of gaps for discussion and helpful advice on key components.

Thanks for your interest!

Nige the Security Guy.

Architecture Case Study – Part 2

Architecture Case Study – Part 2

Architecture Case Study – Part 1

The Security Architecture Series shares the steps involved in requirements gathering, baseline, product and solution selection and, through to realizing the architecture. This blog continues an Architecture Realization Case Study that uses those principles and recommendations as a practical example.

The use case study clearly demonstrates that a focus on the details, i.e., detailed preparation and planning enables and ensures a smooth and successful implementation and migration.

In Part 1 the blog took readers through the highly collaborative use case program to develop an Architecture, identify requirements in an RFI, map responses and short-list vendor solutions and, conduct a network security evaluation to select contrasting best-of-breed versus integrated solutions. The steps presented were, as follows:

• Develop Architecture
• Requirements
  • Specify Functional Requirements (RFI)
  • Request Information from the vendor community (Distribute RFI)
  • Review RFI responses
  • Select vendors for product/solution evaluation
• Vendor/Product Selection
  • Conduct bake-off testing with business unit participation
  • Review evaluation scorecard results
  • Conduct pilot of highest ranked solution
  • Review pilot results
  • Technical Recommendation

In Part 2 this blog discusses the development of the network security design based on the solutions, development of a repeatable deployment program and, the phased implementation and migration across 20+ business units. In this blog we will present, as follows:

• Develop Design
• Develop Implementation Program
  • 4 Phases
  • Alpha Test
  • Beta Test
• Deploy/Execute
  • 9 Step Program

Based on the Technical Recommendation developed from part 1 a best-of-breed solution was identified sourced from a single vendor that closely mapped to the RFI requirements as well as tested the best in all 4 categories, Firewall, IPS, VPN and, Management. The selected solution was deployed in the business unit simulation lab as a proof of concept to further validate and for practical hands-on study as a basis to inform the design phase.

Baseline Network Standard Design

For the Design phase the program team re-convened the Network Security Working Group to work together to develop the design, the same technique that was employed for the Architecture and RFI.

The Design was already defined at a conceptual level by the Architecture and the Functional Requirements (RFI) added a lot of bounding detail. In this phase we wanted to define those further in a more detailed design as well as fully leverage the functionality and capability of the selected solutions while being cognizant of any constraints or caveats.

Our goal was to establish a practical and sensible baseline design, to develop something that could be deployed across all 20+ business units easily and then evolved over time once the prototype foundation was in place. We did not want to make things too complicated, keep things simple and roll-out the solutions, migrate and then seek to evolve in discrete phases of capability maturity.

The team developed the Baseline Network Standard Design while using the lab both as a proof-of-concept as well as validate the design and finalize it per the approval processes used for the Architecture.

Deployment Program Development

The major goal for the development of the deployment program was that it needed to be programmatic and repeatable since the solution components, i.e., Firewall, VPN, IPS, Management were being deployed to 20+ business units with various current technologies and maturity. The steps for this process were identified, as follows:

• Draft Stage
  • developed the initial framework with a technical approach, proof of concept, initial templates and tools, and dry run
• Alpha Stage
  • partnered with an alpha business unit to initially validate the technical design, deployment approach, templates and tools
• Development Stage
  • fully developed and baked the Reference Guides, Templates, Tools, Bill of Materials (BOM) template and, Kick-Off presentation
• Beta Stage
  • partnered with two business units to more precisely verify the deployment program to work out any glitches and ensure repeatability
• Deployment Stage (Production)
  • program developers hand-off to 3 deployment teams and fallback to a tier support, to monitor and refine the process
  • deployment teams partnered with early adopter business units and rolled out to 20+ business unit in schedule

The technical deployment aspects of the program were complemented with a plan that both provided a breakdown of the 4 solution components (Firewall, VPN, IPS, Management) into a phased deployment, as illustrated below.

Each Phase was then further defined to describe the timeline with pre-deployment planning, official project kick-off, deployment and then migration and closeout, as illustrated below.

Once the Alpha and Beta stages were completed and any lessons learned factored into the program the team worked with the business units to identify the flow of deployments based on candidate selection criteria and develop a program deployment schedule using 3 deployment teams.

Phased Deployment and Migration

Once the technical and process components of the deployment program were developed they were validated and tested with the above methodology, through Alpha, Beta, Early Adopters and, Rollout. Each step built upon the other, both validating and refining the technical design and process towards the ‘production’ rollout with the 3 deployment teams. Deployment consisted of 4 high-level categories with 9 discrete and repeatable tasks, as follows:

Kick-Off (Initiation)

In this phase the deployment teams engaged with the business unit to perform Discovery, to gather data to profile the business unit in terms of current state, business requirements, and so on as input into the design task. A formal kick-off meeting was also held to present the project to stakeholders, address any questions and, discuss/validate the project plan timeline.

Planning

In this phase the detailed design was developed using the program Design Reference Guide to populate the business unit template to capture custom options, specifics of the network architecture and, the detailed configuration. The business unit design was reviewed and approved.

The Approved Equipment List was used to identify and size the components required (Firewalls, VPN, IPS, Management) for the target business unit in order to develop the Bill of Materials (BOM) and place the order for devices to be ready for staging and then deployment.

Based upon the design preparation planning was performed to discuss and document the logistics and maintenance windows for the Execution phase. There were two deployment maintenance windows scheduled to provide a backup in case an unforeseen problem occurred. The second window was never needed since the key to success was focused and thorough preparation and planning which enabled successful and flawless execution. A lot of contingency was built into the program.

Execution

In this phase the team split the tasks into 4 discrete tracks with Site Readiness, Implementation, Migration and Decommission. These were split into parallel tracks with a different focus.

Site Readiness was focused on the Network Infrastructure Layer. The team had designed a Transition Zone which enabled the new components to be deployed and tested without affecting the production network. It also enabled the rapid seamless cutover to the new environment for validation and, fallback if/when needed. This task focuses on the technical logistical preparation and configuration.

Implementation was focused on the Network Security Layer, validating the new components in terms of their base functionality as well as integration into network services, such as authentication, logging, network management, and so on. It also performed functional testing to ensure that the environment was operating correctly in terms of stateful failover, remote access, and so on.

Migration was focused on the Application Layer, translation and conversion of existing policy and rules (ACLs, Firewall rules) to the new solution. There were two options, either expedited where all new rules would be applied and tested at once or incremental depending upon business unit size and/or complexity. A comprehensive application testing plan was used to ensure that during cutover all key applications and communications were operating correctly and there were no issues.

Training

During the project initiation training was provided on the technology solutions, in-scope functionality, technical design, future direction, operational best-practices and, network security management using the lab. The business unit stakeholders were a part of the project team intimately involved in the design, implementation, migration and, cutover to make them as hands-on as possible and capable to take a transition.

Closeout

Once the deployment was complete a project closeout meeting was held to ensure that the business unit was comfortable with the operations and that the training program and knowledge sharing had addressed the ability and comfort for ongoing operations and support. The project was closed out and deployment team backed out to provide tier support and subject matter expertise (SME) as needed.

Conclusion

This Architecture Case Study can be seen as a Cadillac use case where it is atypically a fairly large organization with 20+ business units that has the resources, time and, budget to develop a comprehensive and repeatable program that crosses all t’s and dots all i’s. However it is shared with readers as an example from which specific best-practices and/or subsets of the program can be successfully leveraged by any organization to either improve or add to their current deployment or migration processes. Further details are available upon request.

Think You’re Secure? Think Again.
Security Architecture Primer
Security Architecture Baseline
Risk-Aware Security Architecture
Develop Security Architecture
Product and Solution Selection
Security Architecture Implementation
Adaptive Security Lifecycle

Thanks for your interest!

Nige the Security Guy.