You say it's 'Security Best Practice' - prove it!

Over the last few weeks I have had many conversations and even attended presentations where people talk about 'Security Best Practices' and how we should all follow them. However, 'Best Practice' is just another way of saying 'What everyone else does!' OK, so if everyone else does it and it's the right thing to do, you should be able to prove it. The trouble is that nobody ever measures best practice - why would you? If everyone's doing it, it must be right.

Well, I don't agree with this sentiment. Don't get me wrong, many of the so-called best practices are good for most organisations, but blindly following them without thought for your specific business could cause as many problems as you solve. I see best practice like buying an off-the-peg suit - it will fit most people acceptably well if they are a fairly 'normal' size and shape. However, it will never fit as well as a tailored suit and isn't an option for those of us who are outside the bounds of 'normal' according to the retailers.

The real problem is that no company is actually normal, i.e. exactly the same as other companies. Best practice is very useful for small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs), who can't afford to have an expensive security team on hand permanently - security architects and strategic security leaders that can actually turn security into a business enabler demand 6-figure salaries. In the absence of these people, you have little choice other than to follow everyone else or hire consultants in to advise on what really matters and what is right for your business.

Large enterprises, however, can afford in-house security teams and should be demanding more from their security leadership than simple, formulaic repeating of the toolsets that everyone else deploys and that they've seen implemented in their previous organisations. So why do large enterprises follow best practice without much thought? To my mind it's for one of two reasons: it's either that they know no better, or it's so they can defend an audit and protect their jobs. For example, the ICO won't fine you after a breach if you've followed best practice, but if you've done something unusual then you'll have to justify it and defend it. If you have done the job properly though, this defence is easy as you will have gone through a logical set of steps to arrive at that solution. It is a much stronger defence to be able to justify your deployed capabilities rather than just saying that everyone else does it.

Technology should be the last thing that you decide upon once you know what your control objectives are, which you will only be able to articulate when you really understand the specific business in front of you and the strategic objectives. Then you have to look at the threat scenarios for your business and balance the risks accordingly. Don't follow the crowd blindly; I encourage you to strive for the best solution, not best practice.

Improving Usability AND Security - it is possible?

I believe so, but only if security teams start to listen to what's important to the usability experts and adapt the security provision accordingly. As many have said before, there is no such thing as 100% security and we don't even necessarily want governmental levels of security for everything. Security provision should be appropriate to the systems and the information it protects.

I have worked on several projects with user experience designers and it has really changed my approach to securing systems. One particular project I was brought in to work on was having problems because the UX team were refusing to put in additional security measures and the security team were refusing to let them go live. To cut a long story short, it turns out that there are known drop-out rates for registrations or user journeys based on the number of fields people have to fill in and how many clicks they have to do. So, the requirements from the security team meant that the drop-out rates would be so high the service wasn't going to work. How can you deliver a secure service in this instance? Well we split the registration journey and allowed the first transaction with lighter weight security information. This won't work in all cases, but the idea is the same - what security is appropriate for this system?

The key here is to understand the user journey. Once you understand this, you can categorise the individual journeys and the information used. Not all journeys will access the same level of information and not all information has the same sensitivity. Authentication should be appropriate to the journey and information. Don't make the user enter loads of authentication information all the time or to do the most simple task. Some user journeys won't actually need authentication at all. For those that do, you should consider step-up authentication - that is simple authentication to begin with, but as the user starts to access more sensitive information or make changes/transactions that are high risk, ask them for additional credentials. For example, a simple username and password could be used for the majority of user journeys, but perhaps a one-time token for more high-risk journeys.

It is possible to have both usability and security. In order for this to work though, you have to:

• understand the user journeys
• ensure that it is usable most of the time for most tasks
• categorise the information and set appropriate access levels
• use step-up authentication for high-risk tasks rather than make the whole service hard to use
• use risk engines transparently in the background to force step-up authentication or decline transactions/tasks when risk is above the acceptable threshold

Security groups should sit under Marketing, not IT

Ok, so I'm being a little facetious, but I do think that putting Security departments under IT is a bad idea, not because they don't naturally fit well there, but because usually it gives the wrong impression and not enough visibility.

Security is far more wide reaching than IT alone and touches every part of the business. By considering it as part of IT, and utilising IT budgets, it can be pigeonholed and ignored by anyone who wouldn't engage IT for their project or job. Security covers all information, from digital to paper-based and is concerned with aspects such as user education as much as technology.

There is a clear conflict of interest between IT and Security as well. Part of the Security team's function is to monitor, audit and assess the systems put in place and maintained by the IT department. If the Security team sits within this department then there can be a question over the segregation of duties and responsibility. In addition to this, Security departments can end up competing with other parts of IT for budget. How well does this work when project budgets are allocated to one department responsible for producing new features and fixing the vulnerabilities in old ones?

The Security department should answer directly to the board and communicate risk, not technology. It is important that they are involved with all aspects of the business from Marketing, through Procurement and Legal, to the IT department. You will, more often than not, get a much better idea of what the business does and what's important to it by sitting with the Marketing team than with the IT team. Hence the title of this post.

Pentests Don't Make You Secure

I was asked to provide details of the 'Penetration Testing Phase' for a particular project by someone who was putting together a Test Approach Document today. The categories I was asked to fill in were:

• Objective of the phase
• Responsibility & Authority
• Dependencies, risks & assumptions
• Entry & Exit criteria

When discussing what they really wanted it became clear that they didn't know what a penetration test was or why we do them. The questions and document were set up expecting a deliverable from the pentest itself. The report was being treated as the deliverable without any thought of why a report was being produced or how it will be used. It was a tick in the box - "We require a pentest to be able to go live, so if we've had the report we can tick that box and move on."

Pentesting is not an end in itself. Pentesting is a standard, finite snapshot of the security of a system, which, if taken in isolation as a goal, is fairly useless. Pentests don't make you secure. Performing a pentest and having a report with lots of pretty colours and charts saying that high and critical vulnerabilities exist is only any good if you then remediate or mitigate those vulnerabilities. You could pentest your system every month, but if you never change anything in the system, every report will be the same and you will be as much at risk as you were before you had the pentest done. Indeed, you are likely to get progressively worse results as new vulnerabilities are discovered all the time.

The test and report themselves don't do anything for security. A pentest is used by security professionals to inform and shape a project and decisions. The actions taken based on the findings from a pentest are what improve your security and help you identify the best use of finite resources or, at the very least, enable you to understand the risk. Do you need to perform a pentest? Absolutely you do in order to understand the threat landscape properly and identify vulnerabilities, but it's what you then do with that knowledge that is important and will make you more secure (or not).

Security Risk is Proportional to Hacker's Skill

There are many factors that influence the risk to your organisation and they are by no means all about hackers. However, we do have to deal with hackers and have to realise that they are a fact of life that won't ever go away. So how much risk are we at from hackers?

The truth of the matter is that the risk your organisation faces from hackers is proportional to the skill of the hacker. There are many different types of hacker, from the person who downloads a free tool, through script kiddies to highly intelligent, technically skilled people who can discover and exploit any vulnerabilities you may have.

The tricky thing is to figure out who you will likely get attacked by. Many organisations have the attitude that they are not a natural target so nobody will attack them and they don't need to worry about security. Unfortunately that just isn't true. Computers are very good at doing repetitive tasks without getting bored. As a test we have standard ADSL line with a web server sitting on it, which is completely non-advertised, yet it gets attacked 4 times a day on average. The problem is that if you have simple vulnerabilities or use the same components and services as others that are targets then they could be discovered on your network and exploited by simple to use tools. The problem is that the exploits are created and distributed in freely downloadable tools for all to use.

It is relatively easy for a hacker to find and exploit your system even if you aren't an obvious target.