Rational Survivability

Simon Crosby and I were interviewed by Mike Mimoso of SearchSecurity.com at the RSA conference.  This was after a panel at the America’s Growth Capital conference and prior to our debate which included Steve Herrod of VMware.

It’s a two-part video that got a bit munged when the cameraman let the tape run out about 1/2 way through 😉

Part 1 can be found here.

Part 2 can be found here.

In my Four Horsemen presentation, I made reference to one of the challenges with how the networking function is being integrated into virtual environments.  I’ve gone on to highlight how this is exacerbated in Cloud networking, also.

Specifically, as it comes to understanding how the network plays in virtual and Cloud architectures, it’s not where the network *is* in the increasingly complex virtualized, converged and unified computing architectures, it’s where networking *isn’t.*

What do I mean by this?  Here’s a graphical representation that I built about a year ago.  It’s well out-of-date and overly-simplified, but you get the picture:

There’s networking at almost every substrate level — in the physical and virtual construct.  In our never-ending quest to balance performance, agility, resiliency and security, we’re ending up with a trade-off I call simplexity: the most complex simplicity in networking we’ve ever seen.   I wrote about this in a blog post last year titled “The Network Is the Computer…(Is the Network, Is the Computer…)”

If you take a look at some of the more recent blips to appear on the virtual and Cloud networking  radar, you’ll see examples such as:

• Cisco’s UCS with converged 10Gb/s Ethernet/FCOE including the Nexus 1000v virtual switch and VN-Link (and upcoming VN-Tag)
• The Forthcoming Citrix/Xen/KVM Virtual Networking Stack 
• Blade Network Technology’s SmartConnect™ and VMready™ 
• Arista Networks Cloud Networking Solutions
• Netronome’s Network Flow Processors for Unified Computing 

This list is far from inclusive.  Yes, I know I’ve left off blade server manufacturers and other players like HP (ProCurve) and Juniper, etc.  as well as ADC vendors like f5.  It’s not that I don’t appreciate their solutions, it’s just that I have a couple of free cycles to write this, and the list above appear on the top of my stack.

I plan on writing in more detail about the impact some of these technologies are having on next generation datacenters and Cloud deployments, as it’s a really interesting subject for me coming from my background at Crossbeam.

The most startling differences are in the approach of either putting the networking (and all its attendant capabilities) back in the hands of the network folks or allowing the server/virtual server admins to continue to leverage their foothold in the space and manage the network as a component of the converged and virtualized solution as a whole.

My friend @aneel (Twitter)  summed it up really well this morning when comparing the Blade Network Technology VMready offering and the Cisco Nexus 100ov:

huh.. where cisco uses nx1kv to put net control more in hands of net ppl, bnt uses vmready to put it further in server/virt admin hands

Looking at just the small sampling of solutions above, we see the diversity in integrated networking, external fabrics, converged fabrics (including storage) and add-on network processors.

It’s going to be a wild ride kids.  Buckle up.

/Hoff

I was chatting with Pete Lindstrom this morning about how difficult it is to frame meaningful discussion around what security and Cloud Computing means.

In my Four Horsemen presentation I reflected on the same difficulty as it relates to security and virtualization.  I arrived at separating the discussion into three parts:

Securing virtualization refers to what we need to do in order to ensure the security of the underlying virtualization platform itself.

Virtualizing security refers to how we operationalize and virtualize security capabilities — those we already have and new, evolving solutions — in order to secure our virtualized resources

Security via virtualization refers to what security benefits above and beyond what we might expect from non-virtualized environments we gain through the deployment of virtualization.

In reality, we need to break down the notion of security and Cloud computing into similar chunks.  The reason for this is that much like in the virtualization realm, we’re struggling less with security technology solutions (as there really are few) but rather with the operational, organizational and compliance issues that come with this new unchartered (or pooly chartered) territory.

Further, it’s important that we abstract offering security services from the Cloud as a platform versus how we secure the Cloud as a platform…I’ve chatted about that previously.

Thus we need to understand what it means to secure — or have a provider secure — the underlying Cloud platform, how we can then apply solutions from a collective catalog of compensating controls to apply security to our Cloud resources and ultimately how we can achieve parity or even better security through Cloud Computing.

I find it disturbing that folks often have the opinion of me that I am anti-Cloud. That’s something I must obviously work on, but suffice it to say that I am incredibly passionate about Cloud Computing and ensuring that we achieve an appropriate balance of security and survivability with its myriad of opportunity.

To illustrate this, I offer the talking slide from my Frogs presentation of security benefits that Cloud presents to an organization as a forcing function as they think about embracing Cloud Computing.  I present this slide before the security issues slide.  Why?  because I think Cloud can be harnessed as a catalyst for moving things forward in the security realm and used as lever to get things done:

Looking at the list of benefits, they actually highlight what I think are the the top three concerns organizations have with Cloud computing.  I believe they revolve around understanding how Cloud services provide for the following:

• Preserving confidentiality, integrity and availability
• Maintaining appropriate levels of identity and access Control
• Ensuring appropriate audit and compliance capability

These aren’t exactly new problems.  They are difficult problems, especially when combined with new business models and technology, but ones we need to solve.  Cloud can help.

So, what does “securing the Cloud” mean and how do we approach discussing it?

I think the most rational approach is the one the Cloud Security Alliance is taking by framing the issues around the things that matter most, pointing out how these issues with which we are familiar are both similar and different when talking about Cloud Computing.  While others still argue with defining the Cloud, we’re busy trying to get in front of the issues we know we already have.

If you haven’t had a chance to take a look at the guidance, please do!  You can discuss it here on our Google Group.

In the meantime, ponder this: Valeo utilizing Google Apps across it’s 30,000 users. Funny, I remember talking about CapGemini and Google doing this very thing back in 2007: Google Makes Its Move To The Corporate Enterprise Desktop – Can It Do It Securely?

Check out some of the comments in that post. Crow, anyone?

/Hoff

I was at Citrix Synergy/Virtualization Congress earlier this week and at the end of the day on Wednesday, Scott Lowe tweeted something interesting when he said:

In my mind, the biggest announcement that no one is talking about is virtual switching for XenServer. #CitrixSynergy

I had missed the announcements since I didn’t get to many of the sessions due to timing, so I sniffed around based on Scott’s hints and looked for some more meat.

I found that Chris Wolf covered the announcement nicely in his blog here but I wanted a little more detail, especially regarding approach, architecture and implementation.

Imagine my surprise when Alessandro Perilli and I sat down for a quick drink only to be joined by Simon Crosby and Ian Pratt.  Sometimes, membership has its privileges 😉

I asked Simon/Ian about the new virtual switch because I was very intrigued, and since I had direct access to the open source, it was good timing.

Now, not to be a spoil-sport, but there are details under FreiNDA that I cannot disclose, so I’ll instead riff off of Chris’ commentary wherein he outlined the need for more integrated and robust virtual networking capabilities within or adjunct to the virtualization platforms:

Cisco had to know that it was only a matter of time before competition for the Nexus 1000V started to emerge, and it appears that a virtual switch that competes with the Nexus 1000V will come right on the heels of the 1000V release. There’s no question that we’ve needed better virtual infrastructure switch management, and an overwhelming number of Burton Group clients are very interested in this technology. Client interest has generally been driven by two factors:

• Fully managed virtual switches would allow the organization’s networking group to regain control of the network infrastructure. Most network administrators have never been thrilled with having server administrators manage virtual switches.
• Managed virtual switches provide more granular insight into virtual network traffic and better integration with the organization’s existing network and security management tools

I don’t disagree with any of what Chris said, except that I do think that the word ‘compete’ is an interesting turn of phrase.

Just as the Cisco 1000v is a mostly proprietary (implementation of a) solution bound to VMware’s platform, the new Citrix/Xen/KVM virtual networking capabilities — while open sourced and free — are bound to Xen and KVM-based virtualization platforms, so it’s not really “competitive” because it’s not going to run in VMware environments. It is certainly a clear shot across the bow of VMware to address the 1000v, but there’s a tradeoff here as it comes to integration and functionality as well as the approach to what “networking” means in a virtualized construct.  More on that in a minute.

I’m going to take Chris’ next chunk out of order in order to describe the features we know about:

I’m expecting Citrix to offer more details of the open source Xen virtual switch in the near future, but in the mean time, here’s what I can tell you:

• The virtual switch will be open source and initially compatible with both Xen- and KVM-based hypervisors
• It will provide centralized network management
• It will support advanced network management features such as Netflow, SPAN, RSPAN, and ERSPAN
• It will initially be available as a plug-in to XenCenter
• It will support security features such as ACLs and 802.1x

This all sounds like good stuff.  It brings the capabilities of virtual networking and how it’s managed to “proper” levels.  If you’re wondering how this is going to happen, you *cough* might want to take a look at OpenFlow…being able to enforce policies and do things similar to the 1000v with VMware’s vSphere, DVS and the up-coming VN-Link/VN-tag is the stuff I can’t talk about — even though it’s the most interesting.  Suffice it to say there are some very interesting opportunities here that do not require proprietary networking protocols that may or may not require uplifts or upgrades of routers/switches upstream.  ’nuff said. 😉

Now the next section is interesting, but in my opinion is a bit of reach in certain sections:

For awhile I’ve held the belief that the traditional network access layer was going to move to the virtual infrastructure. A large number of physical network and security appliance vendors believe that too, and are building or currently offering products that can be deployed directly to the virtual infrastructure. So for Cisco, the Nexus 1000V was important because it a) gave its clients functionality they desperately craved, but also b) protected existing revenue streams associated with network access layer devices. Throw in an open source managed virtual switch, and it could be problematic for Cisco’s continued dominance of the network market. Sure, Cisco’s competitors can’t go at Cisco individually, but by collectively rallying around an open source managed virtual switch, they have a chance. In my opinion, it won’t be long before the Xen virtual switch can be run via software on the hypervisor and will run on firmware on SR-IOV-enabled network interfaces or converged network adapters (CNAs).

…

This is clearly a great move by Citrix. An open source virtual switch will allow a number of hardware OEMs to ship a robust virtual switch on their products, while also giving them the opportunity to add value to both their hardware devices (e.g., network adapters) and software management suites. Furthermore, an open source virtual switch that is shared by a large vendor community will enable organizations to deploy this virtual switch technology while avoiding vendor lock-in.

Firstly, I totally agree that it’s fantastic that this capability is coming to Xen/KVM platforms.  It’s a roadmap item that has been missing and was, quite honestly, going to happen one way or another.

You can expect that Microsoft will also needto respond to this some point to allow for more integrated networking and security capabilities with Hyper-V.

However, let’s compare apples to apples here.

I think it’s interesting that Chris chose to toss in the “vendor lock-in” argument as it pertains to virtual networking and virtualization for the following reasons:

• Most enterprise networking environments (from the routing & switching perspective) are usually provided by a single vendor.
• Most enterprises choose a virtualization platform from a single vendor

If you take those two things, then for an environment that has VMware and Cisco, that “lock-in” is a deliberate choice, not foisted upon them.

If an enterprise chooses to invest based upon functionality NOT available elsewhere due to a tight partnership between technology companies, it’s sort of goofy to suggest lock-in.  We call this adoption of innovation.  When you’re a competitor who is threatened because don’t have the capability you call it lock-in. ;(

This virtual switch announcement does nothing to address “lock-in” for customers who choose to run VMware with a virtual networking stack other than VMware’s or Cisco’s…see what I mean.  it doesn’t matter if the customer has Juniper switches or not in this case…until you can integrate an open source virtual switch into VMware the same way Cisco did with the 1000v (which is not trivial,) then we are where we are.

Of course the 1000v was a strategic decision by Cisco to help re-claim the access layer that was disappering into the virtualized hosts and make Cisco more relevant in a virtualized environment.  It sets the stage, as I have mentioned, for the longer term advancements of the entire Nexus and NG datacenter switching/routing products including the VN-Link/VN-Tag — with some features being proprietary and requiring Cisco hardware and others not.

I just don’t buy the argument that an open virtual switch “… could be problematic for Cisco’s continued dominance of the network market.” when the longtime availablity of open source networking products (including routers like Vyatta) haven’t made much of a dent in the enterprise against Cisco.

Customers want “open enough” and solutions that are proven and time tested.  Even the 1000v is brand new.  We haven’t even finished letting the paint dry there yet!

Now, I will say that if IBM or HP want to stick their thumb in the pie and extend their networking reach into the host by integrating this new technology with their hardware network choices, it offers a good solution — so long as you don’t mind *cough* “lock-in” from the virtualization platform provider’s perspective (since VMware is clearly excluded — see how this is a silly argument?)

The final point about “security inspection” and comparing the ability to redirect flows at a kernel/network layer to a security VA/VM/appliance  is only one small part of what VMware’s VMsafe does:

Citrix needed an answer to the Nexus 1000V and the advanced security inspection offered by VMsafe, and there’s no doubt they are on the right track with this announcement.

Certainly, it’s the first step toward better visibility and does not require API modification of the security virtual appliances/machines like VMware’s solution in it’s full-blown implementation does, but this isn’t full-blown VM introspection, either.

Moreso, it’s a way of ensuring a more direct method of gaining better visibility and control over networking in a virtualized environment.  Remember that VMsafe also includes the ability to provide interception and inspection of virtualized memory, disk, CPU execution as well as networking.  There are, as I have mentioned Xen community projects to introduce VM introspection, however.

So yes, they’re on the right track indeed and will give people pause when evaluating which virtualization and network vendor to invest in should there be a greenfield capability to do so.  If we’re dealing with environments that already have Cisco and VMware in place, not so much.

/Hoff

“Cloud Security Will  Supplant Patching…”

What a sexy-sounding claim in this Network World piece which is titled with the opposite suggestion from the title of my blog post.  We will still need patching.  I agree, however, that how it’s delivered needs to change.

Before we get to the issues I have, I do want to point out that the article — despite it’s title —  is focused on the newest release of Qualys’ Laws of Vulnerability 2.0 report (pdf,) which is the latest version of the Half Lives of Vulnerability study that my friend Gerhardt Eschelbeck started some years ago.

In the report, the new author, Qualys’ current CTO Wolfgang Kandek, delivers a really disappointing statistic:

In five years, the average time taken by companies to patch vulnerabilities had decreased by only one day, from 60 days to 59 days, at a time when the number of flaws and the speed at which they are being exploited has accelerated from weeks to, in some cases, days. During the same period, the number of IP scanned on an anonymous basis by the company from its customer base had increased from 3 million to a statistically significant 80 million, with the number of vulnerabilities uncovered rocketing from 3 million to 680 million. Of the latter, 72 million were rated by Qualys as being of ‘critical’ severity.

That lack of progress is sobering, right? So far I’m intrigued, but then that article goes off the reservation by quoting Wolfgang as saying:

Taken together, the statistics suggested that a new solution would be needed in order to make further improvement with the only likely candidate on the horizon being cloud computing. “We believe that cloud security providers can be held to a higher standard in terms of security,” said Kandek. “Cloud vendors can come in and do a much better job.”  Unlike corporate admins for whom patching was a sometimes complex burden, in a cloud environment, patching applications would be more technically predictable – the small risk of ‘breaking’ an application after patching it would be nearly removed, he said.

Qualys has its head up its SaaS.  I mean that in the most polite of ways… 😉

Let me make a couple of important observations on the heels of those I’ve already made and an excellent one Lori MacVittie made today in here post titled “The Real Meaning Of Cloud Security Revealed:”

1. I’d like a better definition of the context of “patching applications.”  I don’t know whether Kandek mean applications in an enterprise or those hosted by a Cloud Provider or both?
2. There’s a difference between providing security services via the Cloud versus securing Cloud and its application/data.  The quotes above mix the issues.  A “Cloud Security” provider like Qualys can absolutely provide excellent solutions to many of the problems we have today associated with point product deployments of security functions across the enterprise. Anti-spam and vulnerability management are excellent examples.  What that does not mean is that the applications that run in an enterprise can be delivered and deployed more “securely” thanks to the efforts of the same providers.
3. To that point, the Cloud is not all SaaS-based.  Not every application is going to be or can be moved to a SaaS.  Patching legacy applications (or hosting them for that matter) can be extremely difficult.  Virtualization certainly comes into play here, but by definition, that’s an IaaS/PaaS opportunity, not a SaaS one.
4. While SaaS providers who do “own the entire stack” are in a better position through consolidated multi-tenancy to transfer the responsibility of patching “their” infrastructure and application(s) on your behalf, it doesn’t really mean they do it any better on an application-by-application basis.  If a SaaS provider only has 1-2 apps to manage (with lots of customers) versus an enterprise with hundreds (and lost of customers,) the “quality” measurements as it relates to management of defect (from any perspective) would likely look better were you the competent SaaS vendor mentioned in this article.  You can see my point here.
5. If you add in PaaS and IaaS as opposed to simply SaaS (as managed by a third party.) then the statement that “…patching applications would be more technically predictable – the small risk of ‘breaking’ an application after patching it would be nearly removed” is false.

It’s really, really important to compare apples to apples here. Qualys is a fantastic company with a visionary leader in Phillipe Courtot.  I was an early adopter of his SaaS service.  I was on his Customer Advisory Board.  However, as I pointed out to him at the Jericho event where I was a panelist, delivering a security function via the Cloud is not the same thing as securing it and SaaS is merely one piece of the puzzle.

I wrote a couple of other blogs about this topic:

• Patching the Cloud
• What People Really Mean When They Say The Cloud Is More Secure
• Cloud Providers Are Better At Securing Your Data Than You Are…
• Reprise: On-Demand SaaS Vendors Able to Secure Assets Better than Customers?

/Hoff

I was just reading a post by Alessandro at virtualization.info in which he was discussing the availability of trial versions of Cisco’s Nexus 1000v virtual switch solution for VMware environments:

Starting May 21, we’ll see if the customers will really consider the Cisco virtual switch a must-have and will gladly pay the premium price to replace the basic VMware virtual switch they used for so many years now.  As usual in virtualization, it really depends on who’s your interlocutor inside the corporate. The guys at the security department may have a slightly different opinion on this product than the virtualization guys.

Clearly the Nexus 1000v is just the first in a series of technology and architectural elements that Cisco is introducing to integrate more tightly into virtualized and Cloud environments.  The realities of adoption of the 1000v come down to who is making the purchasing decisions, how virtualization is being addressed as an enterprise architecture issue,  how the organization is structured and what pain points might be felt from the current limitations associated with VMware’s vSwitch from both a technological and operational perspective.

Oh, it also depends on price, too 😉

Alessandro also alludes to some complaints in pricing strategy regarding how the underlying requirement for the 1000v, the vNetwork Distributed switch, is also a for-pay item.  Without the vNDS, the 1000v no workee:

Some VMware customers are arguing that the current packaging and price may negatively impact the sales of Nexus 1000V, which becomes now much less attractive.

I don’t pretend to understand all the vagaries of the SKU and cost structures of VMware’s new vSphere, but I was intrigued by the following post from the vinternals blog titled VMware slaps enterprise and Cisco in face, opens door for competitors,:

And finally, vNetwork Distributed Switch. This is where the slap in the face for Cisco is, because the word on the street is that no one even cares about this feature. It is merely seen as an enabler for the Cisco Nexus 1000V. But now, I have to not only pay $600 per socket for the distributed switch, but also pay Cisco for the 1000V!?!?! A large slice of Cisco’s potential market just evaporated. Enterprises have already jumped through the necessary security, audit and operational hoops to allow vSwitches and port groups to be used as standard in the production environment. Putting Cisco into the virtual networking stack is nowhere near a necessity. I wonder what Cisco are going to do now, start rubbishing VMware’s native vSwitches? That will go down well. Oh and yeh, looks like you pretty much have only 1 licensing option for Cisco’s Unified Computing System now. Guess that “20% reduction in capital expense” just flew out the window.

Boy, what a downer! Nobody cares about vNDS?  It’s “…merely seen as an enabler for the Cisco Nexus 1000V?” Evaporation of market? I think those statements are a tad melodramatic, short-sighted and miss the point.

The “…necessary security, audit and operational hoops to allow vSwitches and port groups to be used as standard in the production environment” may have been jumped through, but they represent some serious issues at scale and I maintain that these hoops barely satisfy these requirements based on what’s available, not what is needed, especially in the long term.  The issues surrounding compliance, separation of duties, change control/management as well as consistent and stateful policy enforcement are huge problems that are being tolerated today, not solved.

The reality is that vNDS and the 1000v represent serious operational, organizational and technical shifts in the virtualization environment. These are foundational building blocks of a converged datacenter, not point-product cash cows being built to make a quick buck.   The adoption and integration are going to take time, as will vSphere upgrades in general.  Will people pay for them?  If they need more scalable, agile, and secure environments, they will.  Remember the Four Horsemen? vSphere and vNetworking go a long way toward giving enterprises more choice in solving these problems and vNDS/1000v are certainly pieces of this puzzle. The network simply must become more virtualization (and application and information-) aware in order to remain relevant.

However, I don’t disagree in general that  “…putting Cisco into the virtual networking stack is nowhere near a necessity,” for most enterprises, especially if they have very simple requirements for scale, mobility and security.  In environments that are designing their next evolution of datacenter architecture, the integration between Cisco, VMware, and EMC are critical. Virtualization context, security and policy enforcement are pretty important things.  vNetworking/VNDS/1000v/VN-Link are all enablers.

Lastly, there is also no need for Cisco to “…start rubbishing VMware’s native vSwitches” as the differences are pretty clear.  If customers see value in the solution, they will pay for it. I don’t disagree that the “premium” needs to be assessed and the market will dicate what that will be, but this doom and gloom is premature.

Time will tell if these bets pay off.  I am putting money on the fact that they will.

Don’t think that Cisco and VMware aren’t aware of how critical one are to the other and there’s no face slapping going on.

/Hoff

I’ll be at the Virtualization Congress ’09 / Citrix Synergy at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas for a couple of days this week.

I am presenting on Cloud Computing Security on May 6th at 11:30am-12:20pm – Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro: The Complexity and Insecurity of the Cloud – VC105

This ought to be a funny presentation for about the first 5 minutes…you’ll see why 😉

I’m also on a panel with Dave Shackleford (Configuresoft) & Michael Berman (Catbird) moderated by the mastermind of all things virtualization, Alessandro Perelli,  on May 6th at 5: Securing the Virtual Data Center (on Earth and on Clouds) – VC302

If you’re around, ping me via DM on Twitter (@beaker) or hit me up via email [choff @ packetfilter.com]

Of course, it’s entirely likely you’ll find Crosby and I chatting it up somewhere 😉

See you there!

/Hoff

I had to chuckle and then sob when I saw this posting from Reuven Cohen on the Cloud Computing Interoperability Forum (CCIF) regarding the ViMTruder “virtual machine trojan:”

Sergio Castro has released a functional, open source Virtual Machine Trojan called ViMTruder.

I’ve held off for a few days before posting this news. I wasn’t sure if helping spread the news would do more harm then good but, several other blogs have picked up the story, so why not.

So what is a Virtual Machine Trojan? According to Castro virtual machine trojans are seemingly benign virtual machine you download from the Internet contains a trojan. The objective of the trojan is to remotely take control
of the machine for nefarious purposes: steal information, send spam, conduct click fraud, stage denial of service attacks within a botnet, etc.

ViMtruder is written in Python and consists of a client which is installed within a virtual machine, and a control server, which sits in a host on the Internet. The virtual machine, running Linux, is configured to automatically run the VMT client in the background upon boot up. The VMT tries periodically to contact the control server through the Internet using port 80 outbound. Once the control server links with the VMT, you can send it Nmap commands to scan the target LAN where the VMT is connected.

The types of attacks a VMT can execute are different than a normal trojan. The VMT does not have access to the host machine; rather, it has access to the local network. Therefore, a VMT can be programmed to do the following:

1. Sniff traffic in the local network
2. Actively scan the local network to detect machines, ports and services
3. Do a vulnerability scan to detect exploitable machines in the local network
4. Execute exploits  in the local network
5. Brute force attacks against services such as ftp and ssh
6. Launch DoS attacks within the local network, or against external hosts
7. And of course, send spam and conduct click fraud

My first thought is imagine something like this embedded into an EC2 AMI and the potential damage it would cause.

Direct Link:
http://code.google.com/p/vimtruder/
—
–
Reuven
CCIF Instigator

You can read my response at the bottom of the thread in the link at the top of the page.  I am awe struck at the moment.

Keep in mind that frothy hyperbole misrepresenting security risks as unique and “damaging”  as illustrated above are being made by people invited to advise the U.S. government on how to secure Cloud Computing.  Joy.

/Hoff

See the diagram to the right?  It is my masterful “Hamster Sine Wave Of Pain.”  The HSWOP demonstrates where and how, over time, we manifest our investment in security controls and approaches.

We waffle between securing the host to the user to information to applications and then to the network and back again.  It’s how it’s always been and how it always will be.  It makes for some timing problems, however.

The gap in approach shows up when we overlay disruptive innovation and technology such as virtualization and Cloud Computing on top of this security response curve and we realize we’re out of synch.  When we’re busy being information-centric from a security perspective and a disruptive networking event occurs…oops.

The inspiration for this post came from a complaint on Twitter this morning from my buddy Rich Mogull in which he lamented that too many people are equating “HIPS (host-based intrusion prevention)” with “Cloud Security.”

The reality is that depending upon the *aaS model you’re referring to, HIPS *is* Cloud Security.  Specifically, in IaaS/PaaS environments when you can’t plumb in virtual network appliances (or physical for that matter) then you’re basically left with whatever the provider gives you at the “network” layer (which is usually not much) or you focus on host-based controls. HIPS is as good as any other solution at that point.

In SaaS environments, you’re dependent upon whatever the provider engineers into their network platforms and the applications themselves.

To generalize, when you’re talking about having security as a visible operational capability presented to the user versus being bundled as part of the service, besides application security and the odd ACL, HIPS/HIDS/AV/Hardening Scripts/etc… is Cloud Security for most folks at the moment.

Ultimately, this Cloud Security gap at the IaaS/PaaS level will close over time as it is beginning to do so technologically with virtualization.

You’ll have more options as the mechanisms for integrating network-based security solutions become available.  At issue here is the fact that security capabilities caused by inflexible policies based on IP addresses, are out of step with connectivity advances and how Cloud services are composed, provisioned, orchestrated and managed.  Hence the host/guest-based security focus.  It’s simply the easiest and most prudent thing to do given our options at the moment.

We’ve seen the hints of advancement with what VMware is doing with VMsafe and their API’s.  As the notion of VDCOS evolves,  I maintain we’ll see this sort of capability appear with IaaS/PaaS vendors in the Cloud, too, and it will expand beyond things like firewalls and IPS’s — we’ll see load balancers and other network-based capabilities emerge through creative plumbing.  We’ll see what other virtualization platforms bring to the table in this scope as introspection capabilities mature (if they do at all…)

We ought to see a bunch of innovative solutions that will emerge slowly as the “internal” virtualization and unified computing capabilities make their way “outward” and become the same platforms powering more mainstream Cloud offerings.  This might take a while.  Perhaps a very long while.

Until then, enjoy your agents.

Same as it ever was…same as it ever was.

/Hoff

Two years ago VMware announced their intention to develop and release a set of capabilities which would provide a more resilient and secure hypervisor while also extending a set of API’s to a limited number of vetted third-party security ISV’s.

These APIs were designed to regain visibility and add capabilities such as virtual introspection across compute, network and storage realms in order to solve some really difficult issues that I’ve spoken about extensively in my Four Horsemen of the Virtualization Security Apocalypse talks.

The reality is that VMsafe required two very important things to happen before it could see the light of day:

1. A new version of VMware platform with a substantial overhaul of virtual networking capabilities and
2. New versions of every ISV’s products who wish to take advantage of the API’s

Both of these things take substantial time and engineering effort and make for some very challenging integration, testing and product management challenges for both VMware and the security ISVs in the ecosystem.  I’ve lived this life on both sides of the fence and it ain’t pretty folks.

Here’s the cool thing, although it’s arrived out of order, the integration of technology from the Blue Lane acquisition (with the IPS and patch proxy functions removed) adds the capability to provide for logical zoning and policy/firewalling enforcement and yields a very interesting side effect..

For all those vendors struggling with having to retool their virtual appliances and write kernel-level drivers for fastpath functionality in order to work with VMsafe API’s as well as their own slowpath drivers in the VA, vShield ultimately offers a solution that instead depends upon VMware’s dvFilters to redirect certain protocols to a virtual appliance based upon zones.

I saw a demo of how RSA has taken their DLP solution (from the Tablus acquisition) and by using  vShield/Zones to provide for the filtering and agreeing on a comms. path between the VMM and the RSA virtual appliance, they can integrate their solution without having to re-write their code or  develop fast path drivers!

Now, there’s a trade-off in extensibility because the capabilities of what are exposed are limited since VMware effectively controls that in this scenario; you might expect only fixed protocol redirection or some other prescribed limitation.

Regardless of how this plays out functionally, both ISV’s and customers now have an expanded choice when it comes to deciding how they might integrate security controls:

1. Use VMsafe API’s but wait for a vendor to re-write their code, integrate and test and get the best balance of performance, extensibility and customization of the solution or
2. Use vShield/Zones with shorter development and test cycles without having to modify their code.  This offers potentially less optimized performance, less extensibility but again potentially less attack surface since API’s are not exposed and there is no third party code in the VMM.

vShield/Zones will help the security ISV’s integrate their solutions more easily and hopefully quicker and will give customers the CHOICE of the trade-off between security, performance and functionality in terms of security solution integration.  It also means that the number and choice of ISVs in the ecosystem should expand.

Further, it may mean easier integration of security controls in Cloud scenarios as VMware extends vCloud.

I eagerly await more information regarding how vShield and the VMware/RSA proof-of-concept develops.  I hope that the PoC generates interest and accelerates the delivery of security solutions from ISVs who may not have previously been able to participate in the VMsafe API program.

/Hoff