Cloud Compliance Blog

Identity and Access Assessment (IdAA)

Ronald Reagan famously said "Trust, but verify". He could very well have been talking about entitlement management systems, which manage authorization to critical applications and other IT resources. Such systems are trusted to maintain control over entitlements (also called privileges or access rights). However, the systems themselves rarely have verification or assessment capabilities. This may be adequate for smaller organizations or enterprises where roles change infrequently. But the dynamic nature of most enterprises -- with layoffs, restructurings, aggressive use of contractors and other service providers -- makes assessment not only prudent, but necessary to ensure effective access controls and audit compliance.

Entitlements

Deloitte, in The 6th Annual Global Security Survey, reports that excessive entitlements, also known as excessive access rights, was the top audit finding over the past year -- for the second year in a row! In other words, a fundamental access control that represents a compliance exposure and security vulnerability was the top audit finding in 2007 and, despite all the attention that garnered, was also the top audit finding in 2008 (the latest year for which survey data exist).

Since all major regulatory frameworks, including SOX, PCI DSS, GLBA, NERC and HIPAA, require access controls, many thousands of companies are obligated to prevent excessive access rights and yet, according to the Deloitte survey, have failed to effectively do so.

Not only is excessive access rights the top audit finding, but IDC states that such vulnerabilities result in major financial exposure -- and that up to 60% of rights on most systems are expired and therefore dormant. The problem is that IT and security staff at most companies don't know that dormant accounts exist -- or more precisely, they suspect they exist but don't know how to find or remediate them.

Why is this a hard problem to solve?

Access Controls in the Real World

A paper written by a team at Dartmouth describes observations from field study research of both retail and investment banks. The study was more in-depth than most surveys we hear about; for example, the study team was embedded for three weeks in the security group of an investment bank. The report focuses primarily on internal access controls and the risks of over-entitlement, and they directly address the challenge of effectively managing access controls.

What they found was that the frequent shifting of staff may from one department or role to another often results in users accumulating entitlements over time. Part of the problem is this: Entitlement management systems assume that an employee's direct supervisor can make informed decisions about what entitlements are required to do their job. But as the Dartmouth team points out:

"As more organizations take on a matrix structure, it becomes less evident who reports to whom and who is responsible for permitting and terminating data access."

This leads to ambiguous and unwieldy structures for assigning entitlements, or privileges, as shown in Figure 1:

Figure 1: Privileging in traditional hierarchical corporate structures (left) vs. in dynamically, "matrixed" organizations (right). An arrow represents a supervising relationship (directed graph). Note that on the left, each person has exactly one direct supervisor, whereas on the right, each may have two or more.

 

And even if the corporate structure and reporting relationship is clear in all cases, the degree of scale and complexity makes entitlement management a big problem as shown in Figure 2: 

Figure 2: Complexity and dynamicism in entitlement systems. The number of applications, entitlements and users make it a large-scale problem, and the number of daily modifications makes it a fast-moving target.

 

The biggest challenge isn't the massive number of entitlements and users, however, but the highly dynamic nature of employees and organizational structure within the firm.

Conventional wisdom holds that role-based access control (RBAC) systems are the answer. By allowing organizations to segregate the massive numbers of employees and entitlements into work groups, RBAC systems make the entitlement management process more effective. But the size, complexity and dynamic nature of many large enterprises make role-based access control challenging, to say the least. Quoting from the Dartmouth study:

"At one very large retail bank that we interviewed, the CISO had recently completed an RBAC project creating 11,000 roles across the firm to control access to nearly 22,000 applications. Developing the roles took a team two years and the ongoing review process was expected to be significant."

In the real world, access rights are constantly changing, for legitimate reasons: employees are hired and terminated; contractors come and go; service providers and outsource firms require access on a project basis with often unclear timelines; federated identity management systems expand the concept of trusted user beyond the enterprise boundary; departments and whole companies undergo reorganizations; mergers and acquisitions result in major restructurings; layoffs lead to rapid and sometime undocumented role changes; and employees transferring within a company inevitably have to overlap responsibilities (and access) between their old and new jobs. Unclear and imperfect communications between HR, line-of-business (LOB) staff, and IT exacerbate the problem.

Managing Entitlements

Andrew Jaquith, an analyst at Forrester, in his book Security Metrics states:

"Today's information security battleground is all about entitlements-who's got them, whether they were granted properly, and how to enforce them."

Companies large and small employ different approaches to entitlement management, with equal lack of success. Mostly, they do manual reviews of entitlements prior to audits by going through HR records, reviewing application logs, and interviewing LOB managers-a process inevitably referred to as a fire drill. Other approaches to entitlement management include development of custom reports for SEIM and log management systems, network-based user activity monitoring, and RBAC systems.

The management challenge is to determine what's a reasonable target level of excessive access rights in terms of percentage of overall rights granted, and then ensure that solutions are in place to consistently keep actual excessive access rights on or below the target. It's more expensive to establish an excessive access rights target of 2% than of 4%, for example. Therefore, management must determine what level constitutes "enough" security, doesn't break the budget or put an undue burden on IT or line-of-business staff, and yet meets the compliance requirements as measured by auditors. What auditors are looking for is a sustainable, measureable process that demonstrates visibility (can the company detect when and where it has excessive access rights?) and the ability to remediate problems when they occur (can the company eliminate excessive access rights within a reasonable amount of time from their detection?).

Top Audit Findings

As the Deloitte survey reports, current approaches have failed to achieve the desired and necessary level of compliance -- not just for excessive access rights, but for access controls in general.

Figure 3: Top internal and external findings for 2007 and 2008, ranked by percentage of respondents citing findings in each category, taken from the Deloitte survey.

 

Here's an explanation of each of the findings:

Excessive access rights. Note that despite the improvement from 2007, excessive access rights remained the top audit finding in 2008 as noted above. Part of the reason that excessive access rights has been the top finding for the past two years is that auditors have raised the standard, from evidence of the existence of a process to evidence that the process is effective.

Segregation of duties. Segregation of duties, also referred to as separation of duties and abbreviated SoD, is one of the most fundamental concepts of security and control, and also one of the most difficult to achieve.

Access control compliance with procedures. This audit issue is closely related to excessive access rights; access control is required to prevent users without appropriate rights from accessing audited resources.

Lack of audit trails/logging, lack of documentation of controls, and lack of review of audit trails. These three top findings are grouped together because they represent the facet of access audit where technology and process come together. Application logs, which represent the most effective way to determine user access activity, are an essential tool for ensuring that access controls are compliant. And reports that list who has access to what, along with who should have access to what, become critical components of how access controls are documented.

Excessive developers' access to production systems and data. This audit finding is challenging to address, because it's unrealistic in most operating environments to completely block developers from accessing production systems for troubleshooting and critical maintenance operations. The objective, then, is not to prevent such access but to note when it's risen to an "excessive" level.

Lack of clean-up of access rules following a transfer or termination. Few if any organizations effectively manage rights and access rules in a real-world environment with re-org, restructurings, layoffs, role re-definitions and transfers-especially transfers. Because transfers are not a discrete event so much as a process where an employee has overlapping responsibilities between new job and old job-and therefore must maintain access rights for both jobs.

It's clear from the Deloitte survey that access controls are problematic. While organizations are reasonably effective in ensuring that only authorized users may log in to critical resources, they fail to consistently determine which users should be authorized to access those resources. Meanwhile, auditors have learned where to look in order to find users with excessive access rights and other access control violations; hence, an increasingly high rate of audit findings.

Is Perfect Access Control Possible?

The well-known security guru, Bruce Schneier, in a recent article entitled Is Perfect Access Control Possible?, discusses many of these same points and concludes:

"In the end, a perfect access control system just isn't possible; organizations are simply too chaotic for it to work."

Schneier refers to the Dartmouth study's finding that 50-90% of users are over-entitled in large organizations. Over-entitlement leads to risk, and therefore attracts the attention of auditors as explained in the Dartmouth study:

"It may not seem problematic for employees to have access to systems they never use or are unaware of. However, such access introduces risk. The root of the problem is that unnecessary or uncontrolled access can lead to unintended data editing, accidental disclosure, or internal misuse. That is why Sarbanes-Oxley auditors will flag unnecessary access as a weakness."

Auditors have learned in recent years how to find and flag excessive access rights, which is the top cause of audit findings. And not only is audit compliance an issue, but as noted above in the IDC report excess entitlements represent a huge financial liability. Thus, imperfect access controls represent a security vulnerability, a financial liability, and a compliance exposure. Despite these compelling motivations, we find from research by Deloitte, IDC, Forrester, Dartmouth and Bruce Schneier that present-day access controls are largely ineffective, especially in highly dynamic organizations.

What does the future hold for access control? New technologies are on the horizon that, by taking an approach referred to as Identity and Access Assessment (IdAA), enable visibility into the effectiveness of access controls. Such solutions perform data mining to analyze access activity over time and thus identify access control issues for remediation.

Cloud Compliance

Cloud Compliance is developing an IdAA solution to improve the efficacy of compliance solutions and reduce the cost of achieving compliance. We combine the economies of cloud computing with fundamental performance management principles to provide easy, low cost analysis of access rights to prevent audit findings and ensure access control compliance with regulations such as SOX, GLBA, PCI DSS, HIPAA and NERC. Our solution enables customers to identify access audit deficiencies before auditors arrive, and without manual process costs that otherwise dominate. 

Here's how it works: Cloud Compliance employs SaaS-based data mining analytics that examines users' access activity to identify and report on excessive access rights and other access controls. The Cloud Compliance solution can assess your organization's identity and access controls in five simple steps:

1.      Point your browser to the Cloud Compliance SaaS site

2.      Using Cloud Compliance's automatic wizard, select which resources and applications you wish to assess. This is a matter of identifying the SSO system, SIEM, MSSP (if you have a log retention service), or the targeted application servers' log files and entitlements data.

3.      Upload entitlements info and log data to the Cloud Compliance SaaS site.

4.      Review the graphical analytics to determine performance versus benchmarks, and to remediate any policy violations

5.      Repeat steps 3 and 4 periodically. The amount of time between assessments represents the maximum lag time between when a violation occurs and when it's identified.

It's that easy!

Our innovative ability to measure, report and ultimately remediate potential audit findings enables our customers to resolve compliance problems prior to an audit. In addition, Cloud Compliance's graphical analytics highlight trends and identify root causes to compliance issues, by audited application, or by business unit, providing valuable insight into potential security vulnerabilities. Furthermore, due to our global visibility as a cloud-based SaaS solution, we capture statistics industry-wide that our customers can access for setting their own policy benchmarks. Finally, the Cloud Compliance SaaS solution requires no software to install, maintain and operate, no appliances to deploy, no consultants, advisors or professional services to deploy, and no huge upfront capital expense to incur.

For further information, see the Cloud Compliance use case demo at http://www.cloud-compliance.com/product/demo/.

Cloud Compliance Security

As with all cloud-based services, security can be a concern. That's especially true for services that address compliance issues and access vulnerabilities. Cloud Compliance employs the Amazon EC2 (Elastic Compute Cloud) service which has extensive and comprehensive physical and logical controls, including:

§         State of the art intrusion detection systems

§         Authorized staff must pass two-factor authentication at least twice

§         Immediate deprovisioning of admin when no longer has business need

§         Extensive background check of staff with potential access to customer data

§         All admin access logged and audited

§         Network security: DDoS, MITM, and firewall

§         Firewall requires customer's X.509 certificate and key to authorize changes

§         API calls to launch and terminate instances and perform other functions require X.509 certificate

§         S3 (storage) read permissions controlled by ACL

§         S3 authentication using HMAC-SHA1 signatures

§         Storage device decommission based on NIST 800-88 (media sanitation)

§         AWS recurring SAS-70 Type II certification

Cloud Compliance encrypts data in transit as well as data at rest (there's also an option that precludes the need to store any log or entitlement data at all). And it's worthwhile pointing out that the Cloud Compliance solution does not require access to personal identifying information (PII); only a non-sensitive subset of entitlement data and log records are required.

Compliance Made Easy

Cloud Compliance's Identity and Access Assessment service is easy to adopt and provides immediate results. We solve access control issues that go by many names: excessive access rights; least privilege policy violations; excessive privileges; dormant accounts; and excessive entitlements. These access control issues have been identified, studied and reported on by major audit firms such as Deloitte, analysts such as Forrester and IDC, academic research teams such as from Dartmouth, and enterprises around the world. Yet, until Cloud Compliance, there was no effective solution available. Now, with our SaaS-based IdAA, achieving access audit compliance is not only possible -- it's easy.

 

Note: A PDF of this post can be found here.

Is Compliance the New Security Standard?

I went to an informative "Cornerstones of Trust 2009" conference yesterday in San Mateo, CA. One of the sessions I attended was "Compliance is Not The Same as Security!". It's an important topic, especially for IT/security staff facing challenges getting their security initiatives funded during these tough economic times.

There was a theme that ran throughout the session which I can summarize as this: "CEOs are being short-sighted by not investing in the [fill in the blank] security initiative. Don't they realize that a breach is inevitable, given enough time? And the cost of the [fill in the blank] security initiative is much, much lower than the cost of dealing with a breach (estimated at over $200 per record). Not to mention that preventing said breach provides other tangible and intangible benefits including protecting the brand, preventing customer erosion due to loss of trust, and avoiding a calamitous drop in stock prices."

Given the compelling case for securing the enterprise, why do CEOs fail to invest more in security solutions? Does this simply represent a failure of IT and security staff to make a compelling business case? Or are the CEOs in fact being short-sighted?

Let's try looking at this from the CEO's perspective. He or she is continuously under scrutiny by Wall Street, and the most common measure of the CEO's and the company's performance is by comparing various financial metrics to a relevant peer group, typically the company's competitors and other players in the same industry. Investors want to know - especially in an economic downturn - whether the CEO is keeping expenses in line. In other words, does the company spend a higher percentage in any category than peer company XYZ? If so, is there a measurable ROI from this higher rate of spending? If not, it looks to an investor like wasteful spending or lack of discipline. How should a CEO respond to that?

Risk management is the only rational way to frame the debate. But now we've entered the world of probabilities and risk assessments. What we know to be true is that no amount of spending can guarantee there will be no breaches. The management decision is one of making rational trade-offs between the probability of an event, and the cost of reducing that possibility - but not eliminating it.

In recent years, a new dimension has entered the debate: compliance. Regulatory standards apply now to public companies (SOX), healthcare (HIPAA), card handlers and retail (PCI), various aspects of financial services (primarily GLBA, but including the entire range of FFIEC audits), and other sectors. Most companies therefore have a mandatory level of security that's required in order to meet compliance requirements; failure to do so results in audit findings, and possible material weakness reports. No CEO wants that.

Security spending for compliance, then, is a given. And while compliance spending may not comprehensively protect the enterprise against a breach, it does provide one important bit of protection: liability. From the CEO's perspective, while the cost per record of responding to a breach may be high, it's nowhere near the potential cost of lawsuits resulting from said breach. And achieving compliance appears to provide a liability shield.

Therefore, the CEO thought process might go something like this: Security spending for compliance is mandatory. And while additional security-related spending might make us more secure, it doesn't add anything in terms of liability protection. Furthermore, there's no guarantee that additional security spending will prevent a breach, but there's a strong likelihood that it will increase spending compared to industry benchmarks. By spending on compliance we are protected against the biggest exposure, which is legal liability. It's not perfect, but given the pressure on margins it will have to do.

If compliance standards are strengthened, then of course the company - as well as all of its competitors - will increase spending to comply. And there's plenty of room for improvement in reducing IT audit findings; see here and here to read about top IT audit findings.

Cloud Compliance is developing an Identity and Access Control (IdAA) solution to improve the efficacy of compliance solutions, and reduce the cost of achieving compliance. Due to our global visibility as a cloud-based SaaS solution, we capture statistics industry-wide that our customers can access for setting their own policy benchmarks and ensuring that their security spending is in line with their peers. Finally, in contrast to most identity management systems, the Cloud Compliance SaaS solution requires no software to install, maintain and operate, no appliances to deploy, no consultants, advisors or professional services to deploy, and no huge upfront capital expense to incur.

Insider Risk Management

I recently ran across a study from IDC on insider risk management that was based on a survey of over 400 respondents in the U.S. and Europe; CIOs and heads of IT accounted for 71% of respondents. The survey had some interesting findings regarding the sources of insider risk and where to invest in order to best manage those risks.

The majority of respondents (52%) characterized their incidents arising from insider threats as predominantly accidental, while only 19% believed they were deliberate. Of course the costs related to disclosure of sensitive information are the same whether the incident was deliberate or not: failed audits, regulatory actions and fines, brand erosion, legal fees, lost employee productivity, and lost customers.

A key finding of the study was:

Out of date and/or excessive privilege and access control rights for users are viewed as having the most financial impact on organizations.

If insider risk management is measured in terms of its financial impact, then this is the most urgent problem to address -- and the one with the best ROI.

This finding with regard to out of date and/or excessive privilege and access control rights is consistent with the Deloitte survey, which reported that excessive access rights (a different term for the same risk phenomenon) was the top "internal/external audit finding over the past 12 months"-for the second year in a row. And as IDC points out, since this is a requirement across all major regulatory frameworks, a company with excessive access rights could fail multiple audits including SOX, EU privacy laws, HIPAA and PCI.

What causes this high rate of excessive access rights? IDC reports that "contractors and temporary staff represent the greatest internal risk" for companies. And the vertical segment with the highest rate of incidents, due to provisioning/deprovisioning delays, was IT outsourcing.

Here's the ranking of average number of internal incidents per year, by incident type:

 

 

Excessive privilege/access control rights -- what Deloitte calls excessive access rights -- ranked third behind negligence and internal malware/spyware attacks. But two additional incident types are merely different manifestations of the same fundamental issue: Data loss through external attacks by previous employees is enabled due to rights that were not deprovisioned in a timely fashion upon termination; and exposure through provisioning/deprovisioning delays is the most prevalent cause of excessive access rights. If we add the three incident types together -- excessive privilege, attacks by previous employees, and deprovisioning delays -- it's by far the greatest source of internal risk, accounting for over 35 incidents per year on average.

Consistent with this point, IDC made a rather shocking revelation:

In years past, IDC has estimated that as many as 60% of all accounts on most systems are expired.

This would suggest that, if IDC estimates are anywhere close to the actual level of dormant accounts, there's a ticking time bomb out there just waiting to be exploited by an insider or discovered by an auditor.

This is why Cloud Compliance has focused on the problem of excessive access rights, excessive privilege/access control rights, and deprovisioning delays. Our Identity and Access Assessment (IdAA) solution detects excessive access rights and other access control vulnerabilities through innovative, cloud-based analytics; our solution also provides tools for root cause identification and remediation. All of this is accomplished with no appliances or enterprise software to install and maintain, no professional services to manage, and with no upfront capital expenditure required.

Excessive Access Rights

Deloitte, in The 6th Annual Global Security Survey, reports that excessive access rights was the top "internal/external audit finding over the past 12 months" -- for the second year in a row.

What is meant by "excessive access rights", why is it important, and why did it remain the top audit finding in 2008 after all the attention it drew by being the top audit finding in 2007? In other words, why is this a hard problem to solve?

A cornerstone of security best practices -- and therefore of compliance requirements -- is to limit access to critical resources to only those employees and users who have a legitimate business need to access those resources. As a result, most companies adopt a policy of "least privilege" which is intended to restrict users to access only those applications that are required to do their job. See the table below for the relevant least privilege text in each of the major regulatory frameworks:

 

Whereas least privilege is the best practice, excessive access rights result from failing to achieve an idealized implementation of least privilege. And in the real world, completely eliminating excessive access rights is practically impossible.

The management challenge is to determine what's a reasonable target level of excessive access rights in terms of percentage of overall rights granted, and then ensure that solutions are in place to consistently keep actual excessive access rights on or below the target. And the tradeoff in establishing a "reasonable" target is -- you guessed it -- cost. It's more expensive to establish an excessive access rights target of 2% than of 4%, for example. Therefore, management must determine what level constitutes "enough" security, doesn't break the budget or put an undue burden on IT or line-of-business staff, and yet meets the compliance requirements as measured by auditors. What auditors are looking for is a sustainable, measureable process that demonstrates visibility (can the company detect when we have excessive access rights) and the ability to remediate problems when they occur (can the company eliminate excessive access rights within a reasonable amount of time from their detection).

Why is this so hard?

In the real world, access rights are constantly changing, for legitimate reasons: employees are hired and terminated; contractors come and go; service providers and outsource firms require access on a project basis with often unclear timelines; federated identity management systems expand the concept of trusted user beyond the enterprise boundary; departments and whole companies undergo reorganizations; mergers and acquisitions result in major restructurings; layoffs lead to rapid and sometime undocumented role changes; and employees transferring within a company inevitably have to overlap responsibilities (and access) between their old and new jobs. Unclear and imperfect communications between HR, line-of-business (LOB) staff, and IT exacerbate the problem.

Companies large and small that we have talked to employ different approaches to this issue, with equal lack of success. Mostly, they do manual reviews prior to audits going through HR records, reviewing application logs, and interviewing LOB managers -- a process consistently referred to as a fire drill. Other approaches include development of custom reports for SEIM and log management systems, and network-based user activity monitoring.

As the Deloitte survey reports -- and customers confirm -- current approaches have failed to achieve the desired and necessary level of compliance. That's why Cloud Compliance was formed -- to address this and related access audit issues through an innovative SaaS-based capability called Identity and Access Assessment (IdAA). Cloud Compliance provides visibility into not just who is accessing what, but who should access what. And when excessive access rights inevitably occur, our analytics help determine the root cause and effective remediation strategies.