Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 164

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 167

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 170

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 173

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 176

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 178

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 180

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 202

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 206

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 224

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 225

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 227

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 321

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 321

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 321

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 321

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/admin/class.options.metapanel.php on line 56

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/ethical/public_html/wp-content/themes/platform/admin/class.options.metapanel.php on line 49
26 | November | 2011 | Certified Ethical Hackers Security Analyst Malware Hacking Information
From the daily archives: Saturday, November 26, 2011

I’ve posted about twenty FISMA stories over the years on this blog, but I haven’t said anything for the last year and a half. After reading Goodbye DIACAP, Hello DIARMF by Len Marzigliano, however, I thought it time to reiterate why the newly “improved” FISMA is still a colossal failure.

First, a disclaimer: it’s easy to be a cynic and a curmudgeon when the government and security are involved. However, I think it is important for me to discuss this subject because it represents an incredible divergence between security people. On one side of the divide we have “input-centric,” “control-compliant,” “we-can-prevent-the-threat” folks, and on the other side we have “output-centric,” “field-assessed,” “prevention eventually fails” folks. FISMA fans are the former and I am the latter.

So what’s the problem with FISMA? In his article Len expertly discusses the new DoD Information Assurance Risk Management Framework (DIARMF) in comparison to the older DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP). DIARMF is a result of the “new FISMA” emphasis on “continuous monitoring” which I’ve discussed before.

Len writes “DIARMF represents DoD adoption of the NIST Risk Management Framework process” and provides the diagram at left with the caption “The six major steps of Risk Management Framework aligned with the five phases of a System Development Lifecycle (SDLC).”

Does anything seem to be missing in that diagram? I immediately key on the “MONITOR Security Controls” box. As I reminded readers in Thoughts on New OMB FISMA Memo, control monitoring is not threat monitoring. The key to the “new” FISMA and “continuous monitoring” as seen in DIARMF is the following, described by Len:

Equally profound within DIARMF is the increased requirements for Continuous Monitoring activities. Each control (and control enhancement) will be attributed with a refresh rate (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly) and requisite updates on the status of each control will be packaged into a standardized XML format and uploaded into the CyberScope system where analysis, risk management, and correlation activities will be performed on the aggregate data.

Rather than checking on the security posture every three years or whatever insane interval that the old FISMA used, the new FISMA checks security posture more regularly, and centralizes posture reporting.

Wait, isn’t that a good idea? Yes, it’s a great idea — but it’s still control monitoring. I can’t stress this enough; under the new system, a box can be totally owned but appear “green” on the FISMA dashboard because it’s compliant with controls. Why? There is no emphasis on threat monitoring — incident detection and response — which is the only hope we have against any real adversary.

Think I’m wrong? Read Len’s words on CyberScope:

CyberScope is akin to a giant federal-wide SEIM system, where high-level incident management teams can quickly pull queries or drill down into system details to add analysis on system defenses and vulnerabilities to the available intelligence on an attack. CyberScope data will also be used to track trends, make risk management decisions, and determine where help is needed to improve security posture.

If you’re still not accepting the point, consider this football analogy.

Under the old system, you measured the height, weight, 40 yard dash, and other “combine” results on a player when he joined the team. You checked again three years later. You kept data on all your players but had no idea what the score of the game was.

Under the new system, you measure the height, weight, 40 yard dash, and other “combine” results on a player when he joins the team. You check again more regularly — maybe even every hour, and store the data in a central location with a fancy Web UI. You keep data on all your players but still have no idea what the score of the game is.

Until DoD, NIST, and the other control-compliant cheerleaders figure out that this approach is a failure, the nation’s computers will remain compromised.

Note: There are other problems with DIARMF — read the section where Len says “This shakes out to easily over a hundred different possible control sets that can be attributed to systems” to see what I mean.

Article source: http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-diarmf-continuous-monitoring-and.html

Tagged with:
 

Hack In The Box

Suite 26.3, Level 26, Menara IMC,
No. 8, Jalan Sultan Ismail,
50250 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia

Tel: +603-20394724
Fax: +603-20318359

Article source: http://news.hitb.org/content/largest-ddos-attack-year-topped-45-gbps

Tagged with:
 
Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.