The Story Patching Tells
In post #3 of this information security series, let’s cover one of the essential components in an organization’s defense strategy: their approach to patching systems.
Everywhere an Attack
When did you NOT see a ransomware attack or security breach story in the news? And when was weak patching not cited as one of the reasons making the attack possible? If only the organization had applied those security patches from a couple of years ago…
Baltimore City is one of the most recent ransomware attacks in the news. For the past month, RobbinHood ransomware, a variant of NSA’s EternalBlue, crippled many of the city’s online processes like email, paying water bills, and paying parking tickets. More than four weeks later, city IT workers are still working diligently to restore operations and services.
How could Baltimore have protected itself? Could it have applied those 2017 WannaCry exploit patches from Microsoft? Sure, but it’s never just one series of patches that weren’t applied.
How often do you patch? How do you find out about vulnerabilities? What processes do you have in place for testing patches?
How and when an organization patches systems tells you a lot about how much they value security and their commitment to designing systems and processes for those routine maintenance tasks critical to an organization’s overall security posture. Are they proactive or reactive? Patching (or lack thereof) can shine a light on systematic problems.
If an organization has taken the time to implement systems and processes for security patch management and applying security updates, the higher-visibility areas of their information security posture (like identity management, auditing, and change management) are likely also in order. If two-year-old patches weren’t applied to public-facing web servers, you can only guess what other information security best practices have been neglected.
If you’ve ever worked in Ops, you know that a reprieve from patching systems and devices will probably never come. Applying patches and security updates is a lot like doing laundry. It’s hard work and no matter how much you try, you’ll never catch up or finish. When you let it slide for a while, the catch-up process is more time-consuming and arduous than if you had stayed vigilant in the first place. However, unlike the risk of having to wear dirty clothes, the threat of not patching your systems is a serious security problem with real-world consequences.
We all do better jobs when we’re accountable to someone, whether it be an outside organization or even yourself. If your mother-in-law continuously checked in to make sure you never fell behind on your laundry, you would be far more dutiful on keeping up with washing your clothes. If laundry is a constant challenge for you (like me), you would probably design a system to make sure you could keep up with laundry duties.
In the federal space, continuous monitoring is a tenet of government security initiatives like the Federal Risk and Authorization Program (FedRAMP) and Risk Management Framework (RMF). These initiatives centralize accountability and consequences while driving continuous patching in organizations. FedRAMP and RMF assess an organization’s risk. Because unpatched systems are inherently risky, failure to comply can result in revoking an organization’s Authority to Operate (ATO) or shutting down their network.
How can you tell if systems are vulnerable? Most likely, you run vulnerability scans that leverage Common Vulnerability and Exploits (CVE) entries. This CVE list, an “international cybersecurity community effort,” drives most security vulnerability assessment tools in on-premises and off-premises products like Nessus and Amazon Inspector. In addition, software vendors leverage the CVE lists to develop security patches for their products. Vulnerability assessment and continuous scanning end up driving an organization’s continuous patching stance.
FedRAMP also assesses security and accredits secure cloud offerings and services. This initiative allows federal organizations to tap into the “as a Service” world and let outside organizations and third-party vendors assume the security, operations, and maintenances of applications, of which patching and applying updates are an important component.
When selecting vendors or “as a service” providers, you could assess part of their commitment to security by inquiring about software component versions. How often do they issue security updates? Can you apply minor software updates out-of-cycle without affecting support?
If a software vendor’s latest software release deployed a two-year-old version of Tomcat Web Server or a version is close to end-of-support with no planned upgrades, it may be wise to question their commitment to creating secure software.
The odds are that some entity will assess your organization’s risk, whether it’s a group of hackers looking for an easy target, your organization’s security officer, or an insurance company deciding whether to issue a cyber-liability insurance policy. Here’s one key metric that will interest these entities: how many unpatched systems and vulnerabilities are lying around on your network and the story your organization’s patching tells.