Calendars for security and compliance audits are largely unchanged despite COVID-19, yet the pandemic is straining teams as they work remotely, according to Shujinko.
Moreover, CISOs are tasked with preparing for more than three audits on average in the next 6-12 months, but struggle with inadequate tools, limited budgets and personnel, and inefficient manual processes.
Furthermore, the results show that migration to the cloud is dramatically increasing the scope and complexity of audit preparation, obsoleting old methods and approaches.
“This survey clearly shows that CISOs at major companies are caught between a rock and hard place when it comes to security and compliance audits over the second half of 2020 and want automated tools to help dig them out. Unfortunately, they’re simply not able to find them,” said Scott Schwan, Shujinko CEO.
“Teams are cobbling together scripts, shared spreadsheets, ticketing systems and a hodgepodge of other applications to try to manage, resulting in inefficiency, lengthy preparation and limited visibility. More than two-thirds of CISOs are looking for something better.”
CISOs preparing for more than three audits
Despite changes in the economic climate due to COVID-19, CISOs are still tasked with preparing for more than three upcoming compliance audits across multiple security frameworks (e.g., PCI, SOC 2, NIST-CSF, ISO 27001, etc.).
Most common audits are for HITRUST, HIPAA and PCI DSS
51% of CISOs surveyed indicated they are preparing for a HITRUST audit in the next six to twelve months, 45% are preparing for HIPAA, 43% for PCI DSS, 41% for CCPA and 36% for an internal audit. In addition, 77% of companies preparing for SOC-2 audits were software companies.
CISOs are worried about doing more with less
COVID-19 has amplified CISOs’ concerns about doing more with less (both people and budget) with both teams and auditors working remotely. Worries over conflicting priorities, draining available resources and ensuring that evidence is complete round out their top five CISO concerns.
CISOs desperately want more automation
72% of security executives say they want to improve the automation of their audit preparation process, and automation was cited as the number one element most CISOs would change if they could. Team communication and collaboration rounded out the top three most desired improvements.
Two-thirds of CISOs dislike their current tool set
The survey found that CISOs are currently using a mix of home-grown scripts, spreadsheets, ticketing systems, shared documents, Sharepoint and e-mail to prepare for audits. No CISOs reported having a security audit preparation tool that they are completely satisfied with.
CISOs have poor visibility into the audit process
No CISOs rated visibility into key audit preparation steps a complete success and only one rated it a 4 out of 5 – suggesting poor executive line-of-sight into hitting audit deadlines.
Audit processes don’t fit a cloud development model
Only 1 percent of CISOs said that their audit preparation process completely aligns with the speed and agility that is needed for rapid cloud application development and frequent iteration.
Need a tool to check your Python-based applications for security issues? Facebook has open-sourced Pysa (Python Static Analyzer), a tool that looks at how data flows through the code and helps developers prevent data flowing into places it shouldn’t.
How the Python Static Analyzer works
Pysa is a security-focused tool built on top of Pyre, Facebook’s performant type checker for Python.
“Pysa tracks flows of data through a program. The user defines sources (places where important data originates) as well as sinks (places where the data from the source shouldn’t end up),” Facebook security engineer Graham Bleaney and software engineer Sinan Cepel explained.
“Pysa performs iterative rounds of analysis to build summaries to determine which functions return data from a source and which functions have parameters that eventually reach a sink. If Pysa finds that a source eventually connects to a sink, it reports an issue.”
It’s used internally by Facebook to check the (Python) code that powers Instagram’s servers, and do so quickly. It’s used to check developer’s proposed code change for security and privacy issues and to prevent them being introduced in the codebase, as well as to detect existing issues in a codebase.
The found issues are flagged and, depending on their type, the report is send either to the developer or to security engineers to check it out.
“Because we use open source Python server frameworks such as Django and Tornado for our own products, Pysa can start finding security issues in projects using these frameworks from the first run. Using Pysa for frameworks we don’t already have coverage for is generally as simple as adding a few lines of configuration to tell Pysa where data enters the server,” the two engineers added.
The tool’s limitations and stumbling blocks
Pysa can’t detect all security or privacy issues, just data flow–related security issues. What’s more, it can’t detect all data flow–related issues because the Python programming language is very flexible and dynamic (allows code imports, change function call actions, etc.)
Finally, those who use it have make a choice about how many false positives and negatives they will tolerate.
“Because of the importance of catching security issues, we built Pysa to avoid false negatives and catch as many issues as possible. Reducing false negatives, however, may require trade-offs that increase false positives. Too many false positives could in turn cause alert fatigue and risk real issues being missed in the noise,” the engineers explained.
The number of false positives can reduced by using sanitizers and manually added and automatic features.
More and more companies, self-employed and private customers are using Boxcryptor to protect sensitive data – primarily in the cloud. Boxcryptor ensures that nobody but authorized persons have access to the data. Cloud providers and their staff, as well as potential hackers are reliably excluded. The audit verified whether this protection is guaranteed.
During the audit, Kudelski was given access to the source code of Boxcryptor for Windows and to the internal documentation.
“All these components were logically correct and did not show any significant weakness under scrutiny. It is important to note that the codebase we audited was not showing any signs of malicious intent.”
The goal of the audit
The goal of the audit was to give all interested parties an indirect insight into the software so that they can be sure that no backdoors or security holes are found in the code.
Robert Freudenreich, CTO of Boxcryptor, about the benefits of an audit: “For private users, Boxcryptor is a means of digital self-defense against curious third parties, for companies and organizations a way to achieve true GDPR compliance and complete control over business data. With software that is so security relevant, it is understandable that users want to be sure that the software is flawless.”
The audit process started at the beginning of May with short communication lines to the developers and managers in the Boxcryptor team. If Kudelski had found a serious security vulnerability, they would not have held it back until the final report, but would have reported the problem immediately.
A problem rated as “medium”
The problem rated as medium is a part of the code that affects the connection to cloud providers using the WebDAV protocol. Theoretically, the operators of such cloud storage providers could have tried to inject code into Boxcryptor for Windows.
In practice, however, this code was never used by Boxcryptor, so there was no danger for Boxcryptor users at any time. In response to the audit, this redundant part of the code was removed.
Two problems classified as “low” and further observations
One problem classified as low concerns the user password: to protect users with insecure passwords, it was suggested that passwords be hashed even more frequently and that the minimum password length be increased, which we implemented immediately.
The second problem classified as low was theoretical and concerned the reading of the Boxcryptor configuration.
Continued adoption of IoT, cloud and mobile technologies are increasing the number of digital certificates and keys that ensure secure connections and identity authentication through PKI, a Keyfactor and Ponemon Institute research reveals.
“This research demonstrates that despite heightened compliance focus, businesses struggle to manage foundational security like PKI and the tools and processes that maintain it. This is concerning, especially as the number of digital certificates and keys within enterprise continues to multiply,” said Chris Hickman, CSO at Keyfactor.
Regulatory compliance a strategic priority
Half of respondents indicate regulatory compliance as a strategic priority and two-thirds say their organization is adding additional layers of encryption to comply with regulations and IT policies.
However, undocumented or unenforced key management policies are problematic, with respondents averaging more than four failed audits or compliance experiences in the last 24 months.
“Less than half of respondents say they have sufficient staff dedicated to PKI,” said Hickman.
“A lack of program ownership, combined with the constant care and feeding that digital identities need, has introduced new risk, creating an exposure epidemic. Unless leaders invest in in-house processes and outsourced resources to manage PKI, enterprise will risk failed audits, fines and worse, a security breach.”
Foundational security: Additional findings
- A rise in security incidents: on average, organizations experienced a Certificate Authority (CA) or rogue man-in-the-middle (MITM) and/or phishing attack four times in the last 24 months, facing a 32% likelihood of a MITM or phishing attack over the next 24 months.
- Staffing shortages: on average, 15% of IT security budget is spent on PKI deployment annually, yet just 43% of respondents say their organisation has enough IT security staff members dedicated to PKI deployment.
- Lack of visibility: 70% of respondents say their organisation does not know how many digital certificates and keys it has within the business.
- Cryptography related security incidents undermine trust: 68% of respondents say failure to secure keys and certificates undermines the trust their organisation relies upon to operate.
- Cryptography lacks a center of excellence: despite the rising cost of PKI and growth of cryptography-related incidents, just 40% of companies have the ability to drive enterprise-wide best practice.
- Spending trend: represented organizations are spending an average of £9.37M on IT security annually, with £1.37M dedicated to PKI.
Want to know what’s in an open source software component before you use it? Microsoft Application Inspector will tell you what it does and spots potentially unwanted features – or backdoors.
About Microsoft Application Inspector
“At Microsoft, our software engineers use open source software to provide our customers high-quality software and services. Recognizing the inherent risks in trusting open source software, we created a source code analyzer called Microsoft Application Inspector to identify ‘interesting’ features and metadata, like the use of cryptography, connecting to a remote entity, and the platforms it runs on,” Guy Acosta and Michael Scovetta, security program managers at Customer Security and Trust, Microsoft, explained the Inspector’s genesis.
The Microsoft Application Inspector:
- Is a client .NET Core-based tool that can be run from a command line in Windows, Linux or MacOS
- Uses static analysis and a customizable JSON-based rules engine to analyze the target code. Users can add/edit/remove default rule patterns (there are over 500) as well as add their own rules
- Is able to analyze code written in a variety of programming languages
Once the tool does its work, it generates a HTML “report” that shows the features, project summary and meta-data detected (see image above). JSON and TEXT output format options are supported for those who prefer them.
Each discovered feature can be broken down into more specific categories and receives a confidence indicator. Users can see for themselves the source code snippets that produced each “discovery”.
“Basically, we created Application Inspector to help us identify risky third party software components based on their specific features, but the tool is helpful in many non-security contexts as well,” the developers explained.
“For instance, it can also help identify feature deltas or changes between versions which can be critical for detecting injection of backdoors. Well constructed and hidden backdoors can go undetected by a tool that is only looking for poor security programming practices because it doesn’t look at context at a feature level.”
Nevertheless, the tool is not meant to replace security static analyzers or security code reviews, but to be used alongside them.
“Knowing what is in your software is the first step to making key choices about what actions are appropriate before allowing it to be deployed in your own or to customer environments. Our tool includes hundreds of default identifying patterns for detecting general features like frameworks used, file I/O, OS API’s as well as the ability to detect key security and privacy features of a component,” the developers concluded.
Microsoft Application Inspector is open source and available for download from GitHub.