The Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) has quietly published its process for deciding when knowledge of cybersecurity vulnerabilities is kept secret.
This is the first official acknowledgement that the ASD might not disclose all of the vulnerabilities it discovers. However, knowledge of secret vulnerabilities would have always been an essential part the agency’s toolkit for offensive cyber operations.
The document Responsible Release Principles for Cyber Security Vulnerabilities was posted on the ASD’s website on Friday.
The policy stresses that the agency’s starting position for when it finds a weakness is to disclose it and work with vendors to ensure that patches are available before it is made public.
“Occasionally, however, a security weakness will present a novel opportunity to obtain foreign intelligence that will help protect Australians. In these circumstances, the national interest might be better served by not disclosing the vulnerability,” the policy reads.
“The decision to retain a vulnerability is never taken lightly. It is only made after a careful multi-stage expert analysis, and is subject to rigorous review and oversight.”
Also: Cyber blitzkrieg replaces cyber Pearl Harbor
ZDNet understands this isn’t a new decision-making framework, but one that has been in operation in various forms for quite some time. It’s being made public as part of ASD director-general Mike Burgess’ strategy to bring the agency “out from the shadows” and to dispel the notion that it warehouses large numbers of zero-day exploits.
The key decision-making principle is that the national interest to keep a vulnerability secret must strongly outweigh the national interest of disclosing it, based on the existence of a “critical intelligence requirement”.
“This might happen if the weakness allows us to gather foreign intelligence that will prevent a terrorist attack, for example,” the policy reads.
The ASD also considers whether retaining the vulnerability runs the risk of a malicious actor taking advantage of the weakness, as well as what preventative measures might be needed to protect Australian interests.
Newly-discovered vulnerabilities are first assessed by the Equity Steering Group consisting of working-level technical experts. ZDNet understands that both the cybersecurity and offensive cyber operations sides of the ASD are represented, and that the discussions can be robust.
If that group recommends a vulnerability should be retained, it is then considered by the Equity Board made up of officers at the Senior Executive Service pay grades.
See: ACSC tightens access controls for Australian government systems
Decisions to retain vulnerabilities are reviewed quarterly by the director-general, and annually by the independent Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS). Briefing IGIS to her satisfaction is understood to be a daunting experience.
The retention of each individual vulnerability is also reviewed after 12 months.
ZDNet understands that at the end of this assessment and review process, the number of vulnerabilities retained for ASD use is very small, an amount that would not be characterised as “warehousing”.
Australia’s Huawei ban a ‘resolved’ question: Payne
Australia has made its sovereign decision, says Marise Payne. Other nations will make their own.
Australia should name parliament cyber attackers
In the case of such a blatant attack on Australia’s institutions of government, we should stand ready to point the finger and impose some real costs on the adversary.
Australian web hosts hit with a Manic Menagerie of malware
Criminals used compromised web hosting servers to mine cryptocurrency, and insert advertising and SEO tools into customer websites.
ACSC dumps annual conference, partners with AISA for cyber events
Australia’s cybersecurity agency joins the nation’s peak body for cyber professionals to deliver development programs through the government’s Joint Cyber Security Centres.
Australian government lags UK in deploying DMARC email spoofing prevention
DMARC email authentication can significantly reduce the risk of phishing attacks, but only 5.5 percent of Australia’s main government domains have deployed it. That’s set to change.
Australia’s encryption laws are ‘highly unlikely’ to dragoon employees in secret
Relax, developers, the Assistance and Access Act is ‘highly unlikely’ to force employees to deceive their bosses by creating secret backdoors. Nor does it breach Europe’s GDPR digital privacy laws.
Cloud Data Security
Data security has become an immutable part of the technology stack for modern applications. Protecting application assets and data against cybercriminal activities, insider threats, and basic human negligence is no longer an afterthought. It must be addressed early and often, both in the application development cycle and the data analytics stack.
The requirements have grown well beyond the simplistic features provided by data platforms, and as a result a competitive industry has emerged to address the security layer. The capabilities of this layer must be more than thorough, they must also be usable and streamlined, adding a minimum of overhead to existing processes.
To measure the policy management burden, we designed a reproducible test that included a standardized, publicly available dataset and a number of access control policy management scenarios based on real world use cases we have observed for cloud data workloads. We tested two options: Apache Ranger with Apache Atlas and Immuta. This study contrasts the differences between a largely role-based access control model with object tagging (OT-RBAC) to a pure attribute-based access control (ABAC) model using these respective technologies.
This study captures the time and effort involved in managing the ever-evolving access control policies at a modern data-driven enterprise. With this study, we show the impacts of data access control policy management in terms of:
- Dynamic versus static
In our scenarios, Ranger alone took 76x more policy changes than Immuta to accomplish the same data security objectives, while Ranger with Apache Atlas took 63x more policy changes. For our advanced use cases, Immuta only required one policy change each, while Ranger was not able to fulfill the data security requirement at all.
This study exposed the limitations of extending legacy Hadoop security components into cloud use cases. Apache Ranger uses static policies in an OT-RBAC model for the Hadoop ecosystem with very limited support for attributes. The difference between it and Immuta’s attribute-based access control model (ABAC) became clear. By leveraging dynamic variables, nested attributes, and global row-level policies and row-level security, Immuta can be quickly implemented and updated in comparison with Ranger.
Using Ranger as a data security mechanism creates a high policy-management burden compared to Immuta, as organizations migrate and expand cloud data use—which is shown here to provide scalability, clarity, and evolvability in a complex enterprise’s data security and governance needs.
The chart in Figure 1 reveals the difference in cumulative policy changes required for each platform configuration.
Figure 1. Difference in Cumulative Policy Changes
The assessment and scoring rubric and methodology is detailed in the report. We leave the issue of fairness for the reader to determine. We strongly encourage you, as the reader, to discern for yourself what is of value. We hope this report is informative and helpful in uncovering some of the challenges and nuances of data governance platform selection. You are encouraged to compile your own representative use cases and workflows and review these platforms in a way that is applicable to your requirements.
GigaOm Radar for Data Loss Prevention
Data is at the core of modern business: It is our intellectual property, the lifeblood of our interactions with our employees, partners, and customers, and a true business asset. But in a world of increasingly distributed workforces, a growing threat from cybercriminals and bad actors, and ever more stringent regulation, our data is at risk and the impact of losing it, or losing access to it, can be catastrophic.
With this in mind, ensuring a strong data management and security strategy must be high on the agenda of any modern enterprise. Security of our data has to be a primary concern. Ensuring we know how, why, and where our data is used is crucial, as is the need to be sure that data does not leave the organization without appropriate checks and balances.
Keeping ahead of this challenge and mitigating the risk requires a multi-faceted approach. People and processes are key, as, of course, is technology in any data loss prevention (DLP) strategy.
This has led to a reevaluation of both technology and approach to DLP; a recognition that we must evolve an approach that is holistic, intelligent, and able to apply context to our data usage. DLP must form part of a broader risk management strategy.
Within this report, we evaluate the leading vendors who are offering solutions that can form part of your DLP strategy—tools that understand data as well as evaluate insider risk to help mitigate the threat of data loss. This report aims to give enterprise decision-makers an overview of how these offerings can be a part of a wider data security approach.
Key Criteria for Evaluating Data Loss Prevention Platforms
Data is a crucial asset for modern businesses and has to be protected in the same way as any other corporate asset, with diligence and care. Loss of data can have catastrophic effects, from reputational damage to significant fines for breaking increasingly stringent regulations.
While the risk of data loss is not new, the landscape we operate in is evolving rapidly. Data can leave data centers in many ways, whether accidental or malicious. The routes for exfiltration also continue to grow, ranging from email, USB sticks, and laptops to ever-more-widely-adopted cloud applications, collaboration tools, and mobile devices. This is driving a resurgence in the enterprise’s need to ensure that no data leaves the organization without appropriate checks and balances in place.
Keeping ahead of this challenge and mitigating the risk requires a multi-faceted approach. Policy, people, and technology are critical components in a data loss prevention (DLP) strategy.
As with any information security strategy, technology plays a significant role. DLP technology has traditionally played a part in helping organizations to mitigate some of the risks of uncontrolled data exfiltration. However, both the technology and threat landscape have shifted significantly, which has led to a reevaluation of DLP tools and strategy.
The modern approach to the challenge needs to be holistic and intelligent, capable of applying context to data usage by building a broader understanding of what the data is, who is using it, and why. Systems in place must also be able to learn when user activity should be classified as unusual so they can better interpret signs of a potential breach.
This advanced approach is also driving new ways of defining the discipline of data loss prevention. Dealing with these risks cannot be viewed in isolation; rather, it must be part of a wider insider risk-management strategy.
Stopping the loss of data, accidental or otherwise, is no small task. This GigaOM Key Criteria Report details DLP solutions and identifies key criteria and evaluation metrics for selecting such a solution. The corresponding GigOm Radar Report identifies vendors and products in this sector that excel. Together, these reports will give decision-makers an overview of the market to help them evaluate existing platforms and decide where to invest.
How to Read this Report
This GigaOm report is one of a series of documents that helps IT organizations assess competing solutions in the context of well-defined features and criteria. For a fuller understanding consider reviewing the following reports:
Key Criteria report: A detailed market sector analysis that assesses the impact that key product features and criteria have on top-line solution characteristics—such as scalability, performance, and TCO—that drive purchase decisions.
GigaOm Radar report: A forward-looking analysis that plots the relative value and progression of vendor solutions along multiple axes based on strategy and execution. The Radar report includes a breakdown of each vendor’s offering in the sector.
Solution Profile: An in-depth vendor analysis that builds on the framework developed in the Key Criteria and Radar reports to assess a company’s engagement within a technology sector. This analysis includes forward-looking guidance around both strategy and product.
Check out the 2+2 Chevrolet Corvette that never was
The 60s was an iconic era in the automotive realm in the United States, with some incredibly popular cars getting...
Red planet has a big core, complex crust
Enlarge / Some seismic waves bounce off Mars’ core before reaching the InSight lander. We’ve learned a lot about our...
Dread Pirate Roberts escaped development hell: Making Silk Road work as a film
Trailer for Silk Road. In the last decade or so of Ars, two pre-COVID news stories stand out to me...
Venmo gets more private—but it’s still not fully safe
Getty Images Venmo, the popular mobile payment service, has redesigned its app. That’s normally news you could safely ignore, but...
The best portable projectors for 2021
We love the idea of casting a large screen whether it’s to binge-watch a series over the weekend, deliver business...
Social1 year ago
CrashPlan for Small Business Review
Gadgets3 years ago
A fictional Facebook Portal videochat with Mark Zuckerberg – TechCrunch
Cars3 years ago
What’s the best cloud storage for you?
Mobile3 years ago
Memory raises $5M to bring AI to time tracking – TechCrunch
Social3 years ago
iPhone XS priciest yet in South Korea
Security3 years ago
Google latest cloud to be Australian government certified
Cars3 years ago
SK Telecom and Samsung to collaborate on 5G for enterprise
Social3 years ago
Apple’s new iPad Pro aims to keep enterprise momentum