Welcome!

SOA & WOA Authors: Frank Huerta, Gary Kaiser, Dana Gardner, Elizabeth White, Michael Thompson

Related Topics: Security, SOA & WOA, Cloud Expo

Security: Article

Coordinating Security Information

What happens when an agency finds a better point solution than one currently in place?

A recent article in Government Computer News raised the topic of FISMA reporting, specifically describing the "pessimism" of many USG agencies over meeting the September 2012 deadline for "using continuous monitoring to meet Federal Information Security Management Act reporting requirements." The article cites a survey of over 200 government IT professionals, conducted by RedSeal Networks, in which 55% of respondents felt they won't be ready, or don't know if they will be ready, by the deadline. One can certainly debate the significance of the number of agencies expressing concern over meeting the deadline, and the reasons given would likely drag the conversation to arguing over the validity of a deadline set by government for something that is far more complex than "flipping a switch." But set that aside for the moment.

More interesting is the fact that, when you look at the responses by the role of the respondents, "53 percent of security managers, administrators and auditors expected to meet the Sept. 30 deadline, while only 28 percent of CIOs and chief information security officers expected to." Mike Lloyd, RedSeal's CTO, said "This is an interesting finding, not what a cynic might expect." That cynic would expect the typical (over-)confidence of an executive, the one telling folks "no problem, we're right on track" while the IT managers, the ones actually tasked with the design, deployment and operation of relevant systems, the feverish scramble to find the right tools, the right people, and the right data to meet the reporting requirement.

In fact, the opposite is the case. The IT managers believe they have the right point solutions to do the monitoring, analyze the data, and process the relevant compliance reports. They aren't worried about trying to figure out how they're going to perform the continuous monitoring, primarily because today's IT vendors are creating products that provide the capabilities to meet these requirements. So why don't these CIOs and CISOs share the confidence of their IT staff?

The answer is both simple ... and not so simple. In discussing this survey and resulting article, the editors at SANS described the lack of C-level confidence this way (emphasis added): "Agencies need to find ways to bring together information from various systems to provide the necessary set of data." Bring information together? That's easy, just get a bunch of good developers to build custom integration points between all these systems that the IT managers feel really good about (rightly so), and then the data will flow! Sounds great...until you look a little closer at what this entails: a group of good developers is expensive, not to mention hard to find. Assuming you can find all these good developers (and afford to pay them), can they knock this effort out in, say, 6 months? 9 months? Factor in the unique and often proprietary formats and data structures of these various solutions, and now what, 12 months? Remember that September deadline?

What happens when the agency finds a better point solution than one currently in place? Bring back those good, expensive developers (or retain them) to build new integration points between the existing solutions and this new one? Not so simple anymore, is it?

This approach is not timely, cost-effective, or scalable. A better approach is to build a foundation that allows these best-of-breed point solutions to share data in a common format, providing each solution with the ability to use only that data that is relevant to it.

Over the last four years, the Trusted Computing Group (trustedcomputinggroup.org) has developed and published a set of open specifications called IF-MAP (or "Interface to Metadata Access Points"). IF-MAP is a protocol specifically designed to allow disparate systems from different vendors to share information. The IF-MAP open standard makes it possible for any authorized device or system to publish information to an IF-MAP server, to search that server for relevant information, and to subscribe to any updates to that information. This "sharing" is done in a standardized way, eliminating the need for costly custom integration points between these disparate systems. Through the use of IF-MAP, agencies would have the ability to enable data and information sharing between systems in an automated and continuous manner.

Share data without allowing unauthorized access among logs, records/databases, firewalls, provisioning systems, switches, and more.

Track devices and their owners on the network.

Track/monitor network traffic.

Control the activity/access of devices operating inappropriately.

Manage/Tie legacy systems into global enterprise (i.e., SCADA).

Validate endpoints and allow access (Standard managed endpoint security).

Share security data among devices and have those security devices act based on the collective available data.

And the best part - many government agencies already have solutions in place that support IF-MAP. Vendors including Lumeta, Juniper, Enterasys, and Infoblox, just to name a few, have products supporting IF-MAP. Numerous government agencies and system integrators have labs dedicated to using IF-MAP and similar open standard specifications to develop solutions to the biggest cyber-security challenges out there - such as real-time configuration management databases; the integration of physical and network security; and policy-based remote access - all using IF-MAP and COTS products.

IF-MAP alone won't necessarily help those agencies meet the September deadline, but one thing is certain - not using open standards and specifications such as IF-MAP will make the effort more costly, more time-consuming, and less flexible. If you can show me a government agency that has extra money and extra time, I'd love to see it.

More Stories By Steve Hanna

Steve Hanna is co-chair of the Trusted Network Connect Work Group in the Trusted Computing Group and co-chair of the Network Endpoint Assessment Working Group in the Internet Engineering Task Force. An inventor or co-inventor of 30 issued U.S. patents, he holds an A.B. in Computer Science from Harvard University.

Comments (0)

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.