Continuing my smallish review on the Jericho Forum commandments (pdf) and their concept of de-perimeterization, I have just three commandments left, all under the category, “Access to data.”
Access to data should be controlled by security attributes of the
– Attributes can be held within the data (DRM/Metadata) or could be a separate system
– Access / security could be implemented by encryption
– Some data may have “public, non-confidential” attributes
– Access and access rights have a temporal component
This sounds like a Mandatory Access Control system where data contain attributes which determine access and use. This is a bit odd, since I have only heard of this system used by governments (classified, unclassified, top secret…).
This also sounds like DRM, which, nicely enough, is mentioned by term in the bullets! One problem with DRM and metadata is forcing adherence to the metadata or DRM (let’s call it collectively DRM for my own sake). What if you have metadata that dictates FileX should only be used by 15 people. What if I come in and read FileX but decide to ignore the DRM tags? Is this another form of encryption? Why can’t I just leverage the DRM to get the data and then move it elsewhere as a copy? Sounds familiar? It should, since we’re seeing how useful or futile DRM processes can be with media and copyright.
MAC has worked for the government and military for a long time, but I think that has to do with a) the rigid discipline of the military and secret organizations, and b) the long-term habitual, forced use of it. Can this be as rigid and forced globally? At this point in time, I can’t see that happening in the foreseeable future.
Overall, oddly, I do like this commandment. Even if I don’t buy into the specified mechanics, I agree we need to focus on data. Not to the exclusion of the network or systems, but focusing on the data needs to be part of the security equation.
Data privacy (and security of any asset of sufficiently high value)
requires a segregation of duties/privileges
– Permissions, keys, privileges etc. must ultimately fall under independent control, or there will always be a weakest link at the top of the chain of trust
– Administrator access must also be subject to these controls
Hoo-boy..this is a tough one. This commandment pretty much ensures that data protection solutions will be complex. Ultimately, you do need someone who turns the keys when it comes to protection. Maybe two people, or three, but someone somewhere will either have the power or a collusion of forces will have the power. And that’s in extremely complex setups for separation of duties/privs.
But even if this commandment is complex and maybe ultimately not of interest or achievable to most organizations, this is a good guideline to try to achieve. Most everyone has domain admin credentials and a need to create accounts in an organization. These tasks/privs can be separated to various people with various auditing and authorization chains.
Is this scalable for small companies with 1 IT person, or even medium-sized companies? Good question, and likely not. Even in my current team of 5 network guys and 3 desktop guys, we really don’t have the corporate interest in slowing down our processes to achieve this idea ultimately. We do so for a couple tasks and privileges, but otherwise it is just not worth our time to figure out.
By default, data must be appropriately secured when stored, in
transit and in use
– Removing the default must be a conscious act
– High security should not be enforced for everything; “appropriate” implies varying
levels with potentially some data not secured at all
In other words, default should be secure. If you want it less secured, you have to choose to unsecure it, or back down on the security controls to an appropriate level. Sounds good to me, although I think this commandment is much more attainable in closed networks, i.e. networks with boundaries.
Oh, wait, hold on…did I say networks with boundaries? Yup! Networks with perimeters! Without perimeters…well, that means either the whole Internet needs to run on new protocols (which I believe the Jericho Forum would like to see happen) or we need a global IPSec (or encryption/PKI) setup that is trusted by all. Ack.
Of interest, it seems this is the only commandment that allows some leniency. Someone determines what is appropriate, rather than blanket, rigid statements like most of the other commandments. Quite interesting to have a subjectivie commandment in here, but still appropriate.
jericho 1 – de-perimeterization and the jericho forum commandments
jericho 2 – the jericho forum and the de-perimeterization solution
jericho 3 – the first three commandments: the fundamentals
jericho 4 – commandments 4 – 8
jericho 5 – commandments 9-11
jericho 6 – my conclusions