In this DevOps revolution, we are trying to make everything continuous: continuous integration, continuous deployment, continuous monitoring--the list goes on. One term you rarely hear, however, is continuous security, because it is often seen as an afterthought when building and implementing a delivery pipeline. The pipeline I will be discussing has six components: plan, code, build, test, release, and operate. There is also a seventh, less-formal component, which is the iterative nature of the delivery pipeline in a DevOps environment. Security can, and should, be implemented throughout the pipeline. In this blog post, I discuss how security can be implemented in all components, as well as what benefits come from implementing security in each of those components.
DevOps practices can increase the validity of software tests and decrease risk in deploying software changes to production environments. Anytime a software change is deployed to production, there is a risk that the change will break and lead to a service outage. This risk is minimized through rigorous testing of the software in a separate test environment where the change can be safely vetted without affecting normal business operations. Problems can arise, however, when these isolated test environments do not properly mimic the production environment. Sometimes a test environment will have different operating system patches installed, different software dependencies installed, different firewall rules, or even different data in its database. These differences open the door to risk because even if the software change passes testing in the test environment, there is a chance of failure in production because it was never before tested in that context. In this blog post, I explore how the DevOps practices of infrastructure as code and automated test execution through continuous integration increase the effectiveness of software testing, allowing us to create test environments that more closely match production.
A few years ago, my team took the task of designing and writing a new (and fairly large) web application project that required us to work collaboratively on features, deploy to unfamiliar environments, and work with other teams to complete those deployments. Does this sound like DevOps yet? Our task was to make these deployments happen with limited resources; however, we didn't want to sacrifice environment parity or automation, knowing that these would help our team lower risk for the project and maintain a better handle on the security of our process. The idea of using Chef, a leading suite of platform-independent infrastructure management and provisioning tools, came to mind; however the work that would have been required to implement the full Chef ecosystem was not in scope for the project. We realized, however, that we were already using Vagrant to provision our local environments in the same way we wanted to provision our remote environments. That is, our Vagrant-based workflow was applying Infrastructure as Code concepts and provisioning with just a single component of Chef, rather than depending on a larger suite of Chef tools. To solve our remote deployment problem, we furnished a solution that allowed us to maintain environment parity by reusing all of the existing Chef configuration while sharing it with Vagrant and keeping the deployment for any size system to a single, automatable line. In this blog post, I will be talking about the transformation of a vanilla Vagrant setup to a stable and testable Infrastructure as Code solution.
I am often asked how to help DevOps organizations improve their software and system security by integrating security testing into their new and expanding continuous integration (CI) environment. The first thing I say is, "It is great that you are treating security testing as important a task as other software tests." Security testing is often overlooked or simply manually done at the end of a software release cycle, if at all. When I ask them, "What type of security testing do you currently do?" I often hear excuses about the lack of time, funding, or planning as the reason they do not currently perform any security testing at all. DevOps organizations typically do not have a security testing plan in place, have not really given it much thought, and hope that CI alone can help make their software more secure. As this blog post will detail, CI certainly can help improve your application security if you are already automating security testing, but you must first have a security plan in place.
Traditionally, DevOps practitioners think of business value as simply measuring the difference between money earned and money spent. In that line of thinking, security is often relegated to a secondary goal because it fails to directly drive revenue. The misguided goal is to deliver functionality at all costs, even if it compromises the integrity of the system or data. As Rob Joyce, head of the National Security Agency's Tailored Access Operations group, mentions in his talk at Usenix Enigma conference: "Don't assume a crack is too small to be noticed, or too small to be exploited... We need that first crack, that first seam. And we're going to look and look and look for that esoteric kind of edge case to break open and crack in." In this blog post, I present two concepts: malicious user stories and rejection criteria that can be used in DevOps to secure systems.
DevOps practitioners often omit security testing when building their DevOps pipelines because security is often linked with slow-moving business units and outdated policies. These characteristics conflict with the overall goal of DevOps, which is to improve the software delivery process. However, security plays an important role in the software development lifecycle and must be addressed in all applications. Incorporating security into different stages of the DevOps pipeline will not only start to automate security, but will allow your security process to become traceable and easily repeatable. For instance, static code analysis could be done on each code commit, and penetration testing could be completed as part of the deployment phase. In this blog post, I will present two common tools that can be used during deployment that allow for automated security tests: Gauntlt and OWASP Zed Attack Proxy (ZAP).
By Hasan Yasar Technical Manager Cyber Engineering Solutions Group
In August 2015, the DevOps blog launched its own platform. The blog offers guidelines, practical advice, and tutorials to the ever-increasing number of organizations adopting DevOps (up 26 percent since 2011). According to recent research, those organizations ship code 30 times faster. Despite the obvious benefits of DevOps, many organizations hesitate to embrace it, which requires a shifting mindset--and cultural and technical requirements--that prove challenging in siloed organizations. Given these barriers, posts by CERT researchers have focused on case studies of successful DevOps implementations at Amazon and Netflix, as well as tutorials on popular DevOps technologies, such asFabric, Ansible, andDocker. This post presents the 10 most popular DevOps posts published in 2015 in ascending order.
By Tim Palko Senior Member of the Technical Staff CERT Cyber Security Solutions Directorate
In the realm of DevOps, automation often takes the spotlight, but nothing is more ubiquitous than the monitoring. There is value to increased awareness during each stage of the delivery pipeline. However, perhaps more than any other aspect of DevOps, the act of monitoring raises the question, "Yes, but what do we monitor?" There are numerous aspects of a project you may want to keep an eye on and dozens of tools from which to choose. This blog post explores what DevOps monitoring means and how it can be applied effectively.
As cyber-physical systems continue to proliferate, the ability of cyber operators to support armed engagements (kinetic missions) will be critical for the Department of Defense (DoD) to maintain a technological advantage over adversaries. However, current training for cyber operators focuses entirely on the cyber aspect of operations and ignores the realities and constraints of supporting a larger mission. Similarly, kinetic operators largely think of cyber capabilities as a strategic, rather than a tactical resource, and are untrained in how to leverage the capabilities cyber operators can provide. In this blog post, I present Cyber Kinetic Effects Integration, also known as CKEI, which is a program developed at the SEI's CERT Division that allows the training of combined arms and cyber engagements in a virtual battlefield.