This post is also authored by Tim Shimeall and Timur Snoke.
In July of this year, a major overseas shipping company had its U.S. operations disrupted by a ransomware attack, one of the latest attacks to disrupt the daily operation of a major, multi-national organization. Computer networks are complex, often tightly coupled systems; operators of such systems need to maintain awareness of the system status or disruptions will occur. In today's operational climate, threats and attacks against network infrastructures have become far too common. At the SEI's CERT Division Situational Awareness team, we work with organizations and large enterprises, many of whom analyze their network traffic data for ongoing status, attacks, or potential attacks. Through this work we have observed both challenges and best practices as these network traffic analysts analyze incoming contacts to the network including packets traces or flows. In this post, the latest in our series highlighting best practices in network security, we present common questions and answers that we have encountered about the challenges and best practices in analysis of network traffic, including packets, traces, or flows.
A software product line is a collection of related products with shared software artifacts and engineering services that has been developed by a single organization intended to serve different missions and different customers. In industry, product lines provide both customer benefits (such as functionality, quality, and cost) and development organization benefits (such as time to market and price-margin). Moreover, these benefits last through multiple generations of products. This blog is the first in a series of three posts on sustaining product lines in terms of required decisions and potential benefits of proposed approaches. In this post, I identify the potential benefits of a product line and discuss contracting issues in the context of Department of Defense (DoD) programs.
Experience shows that most software contains code flaws that can lead to vulnerabilities. Static analysis tools used to identify potential vulnerabilities in source code produce a large number of alerts with high false-positive rates that an engineer must painstakingly examine to find legitimate flaws. As described in this blog post, we in the SEI's CERT Division have developed the SCALe (Source Code Analysis Laboratory) tool, as we have researched and prototyped methods to help analysts be more efficient and effective at auditing static analysis alerts. In August 2018 we released a version of SCALe to the public (open-source via Github).
In the first post in this series, I introduced the concept of the Minimum Viable Capability (MVC). While the intent of the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) strategy is to focus on rapidly developing and validating only essential product features, MVC adapts this strategy to systems that are too large, too complex, or too critical for MVP.
MVC is a scalable approach to validating a system of capabilities, each at the earliest possible time. Capability scope is limited (minimum) so that it may be produced as soon as possible. For MVP, as soon as possible is often a just a few weeks. But what does as soon as possible mean for an MVC? This post explores how technical dependencies and testability determine that, and what this implies for a system roadmap. Let's start with the pattern of MVC activities to produce a major release.
At the 2018 World Economic Forum, global leaders voiced concerns about the growing trend of cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure and strategic industrial sectors, citing fears of a worst-case scenario that could lead to a breakdown of the systems that keep societies functioning. A painful example was the May 2017 WannaCry ransomware attack in which a worm rapidly spread through a number of computer networks, affecting more than 150 countries and more than 400,000 endpoints.
One of the largest victims of the WannaCry attack was the National Health Service in England and Scotland, where up to 70,000 computers, MRI scanners, and blood-storage refrigerators may have been affected. In this global threat environment, the need for Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) has become ever more critical. CSIRTs are expert teams that use their specialized knowledge and skills to detect and respond to computer security incidents. In the broader internet community, these teams form a "global network" from a diverse group of organizations and sectors, such as critical infrastructure, government, industry, and academia. In this blog post, the first in a series on CSIRTS, I talk about the work of CSIRTs and their importance in the global threat landscape.
Billions of dollars in venture capital, industry investments, and government investments are going into the technology known as blockchain. It is being investigated in domains as diverse as finance, healthcare, defense, and communications. As blockchain technology has become more popular, programming-language security issues have emerged that pose a risk to the adoption of cryptocurrencies and other blockchain applications. In this post, I describe a new programming language, Obsidian, which we at the SEI are developing in partnership with Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) writing secure smart contracts in blockchain platforms.
This post was co-authored by Cecilia Albert and Harry Levinson.
At the SEI we have been involved in many programs where the intent is to increase the capability of software systems currently in sustainment. We have assisted government agencies who have implemented some innovative contracting and development strategies that provide benefits to those programs. The intent of the blog is to explain three approaches that could help others in the DoD or federal government agencies who are trying to add additional capability to systems that are currently in sustainment. Software sustainment activities can include correcting known flaws, adding new capabilities, updating existing software to run on new hardware (often due to obsolescence issues), and updating the software infrastructure to make software maintenance easier.
According to DevSecOps: Early, Everywhere, at Scale, a survey published by Sonatype, "Mature DevOps organizations are able to perform automated security analysis on each phase (design, develop, test) more often than non-DevOps organizations." Since DevOps enables strong collaboration and automation of the process and enforces traceability, mature DevOps organizations are more likely to perform automated security analysis than non DevOps organizations. My previous blog post, Microcosm: A Secure DevOps Pipeline as Code, helped address the problem that most organizations do not have a complete deployment pipeline in place (and are therefore not considered to be DevOps mature) by automating penetration tests of software applications and generating HTML reports as part of the build process through the Jenkins CI service. In this follow-up blog post, I explore the use of a service evolution of Microcosm as a simple one-stop shop for anyone interested in learning how to implement a DevSecOps pipeline.