ken klingenstein day job middleware night job network security l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Security Architectures and Advanced Networks PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Security Architectures and Advanced Networks

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 27

Security Architectures and Advanced Networks - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 126 Views
  • Uploaded on

Ken Klingenstein Day Job: Middleware Night Job: Network Security. Security Architectures and Advanced Networks. Security Topics. Educause/Internet2 Security Task Force Effective Practices I2 Resource Commitments REN-ISAC S@LS workshop

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Security Architectures and Advanced Networks' - lael


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
ken klingenstein day job middleware night job network security
Ken Klingenstein

Day Job: Middleware

Night Job: Network Security

Security Architectures and Advanced Networks

security topics
Security Topics
  • Educause/Internet2 Security Task Force
    • Effective Practices
    • I2 Resource Commitments
  • REN-ISAC
  • S@LS workshop
  • SALSA – a steering group for advanced network/security technologies
  • Federated security services
    • Collaborative incident analysis
    • New security-aware capabilities
  • Going forward
educause internet2 security task force
EDUCAUSE/Internet2 Security Task Force
  • Overarching umbrella for a variety of coordinated security
  • Activities include education and awareness, policy, technologies, etc.
  • Two important recent activities
    • Effective Practices - http://www.educause.edu/security/guide/
    • NSF Security at Line Speed Workshop
s@ls workshop 2003
S@LS Workshop 2003
  • NSF Sponsored workshop, in conjunction with Indiana University, Internet2, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Washington.
  • 1.5 day Workshop, held in Chicago, Illinois, 12-13 Aug 2003
  • Extensive on-line follow-up discussion to refine and recover
  • White paper is at http://apps.internet2.edu/sals/
by line speed we really mean
By “Line Speed”, we really mean…
  • High bandwidth
  • Exceptional low latency, e.g. remote instrument control
  • End-to-end transparency, e.g. Grids
  • Exceptional low jitter, e.g. real time interactive HDTV
  • Advanced features, e.g. multicast
s@ls security topics
S@LS Security topics
  • Information leakage: access to data by unauthorized parties
  • Integrity violation: destruction, modification, or falsification of data
  • Illegitimate use: Access to resources (processing cycles, storage or network) by unauthorized users
  • Denial of Service: Preventing legitimate users from accessing resources
security x high performance
Security x High Performance
  • Difficulty in realizing performance in end-end high bandwidth connections
  • Difficulty in deploying and using videoconferencing
  • Difficulty in deploying grids
  • Limited remote instrument control use
  • Lack of scalable approaches
  • Inability to identify what’s broken
  • Things not broken but just incompatible
environmental scan requirements of r e
Environmental Scan:Requirements of R&E
  • Cyberdiversity of machines and instruments on net
  • Mobility requirements of machines
  • Mobility requirements of users
  • Highly distributed network management
  • Distinctive privacy and security needs as public and academic institutions
  • Inter-institutional collaborations predominate and create exceptional wide-area needs
  • Widespread needs and limited resources preclude expensive point solutions
  • University=federation of hundreds of disparate and autonomous businesses
tradeoffs
Tradeoffs
  • Host versus border security
  • Deny/Allow versus Allow/deny approaches
  • Unauthenticated versus authenticated network access
  • Central versus end-user management
  • Server-centric versus client-centric
  • False positives versus zero-day attacks
  • Organizational priorities between security and performance
  • Perimeter protection versus user/staff confusion
trends
Trends
  • More aggressive and frequent attacks, resulting in
    • Desktop lockdowns and scanning
    • New limits at the perimeter
    • Increased tunneling and VPN’s
    • More isolation approaches, straining the top of the desk
    • Hosts as clients only
  • Changes in technology
    • Rise of encyption
    • New attack vectors, such as P2P
    • Higher speeds make for more expensive middleboxen
    • Convergence of technology forces
  • New policy drivers
    • DHS, RIAA, etc.
    • LCD solutions to hold down costs
general findings
General Findings
  • First, and foremost, this is getting a lot harder
  • 2003 seems to mark a couple of turning points
    • New levels of stresses
    • Necessary but doomed approaches
  • High performance security is approached by a set of specific tools that are assembled by applying general architectural principles to local conditions.
  • The concept of the network perimeter is changing; desktop software limits security and performance options
  • There are interactions with the emerging middleware layer that should be explored
  • Tool integration is an overarching problem
  • We are entering diagnostic hell
the tool matrix
The Tool Matrix
  • For a variety of network and host based security tools,
    • Role in prevention/detection/reaction/analysis
    • Description
    • General issues
    • Performance implications
    • Operational Impacts
  • Network Tools include host scanning, MAC registration, VLAN, Encrypted VPN’s and/or Layer 3 VPN’s, Firewalls, Source Address Verification, Port Mirroring, etc…
  • Host Tools include host-based encryption, local firewalls, host-based intrusion detection/prevention, secure OS, automated patching systems, etc.
the architectural frameworks
The Architectural Frameworks
  • The virtual perimeter: a mix of perimeter defenses, careful subnetting, and desktop firewalls
  • Open and closed networks
  • Separation of internal and external servers (e.g. SMTP servers, routers, etc…)
  • Managed and unmanaged desktops
  • Client versus client/server desktop orientation
  • Types of authenticated network access control
local factors
Local Factors
  • Size of class B address space
  • Local fiber plant
  • Medical school
  • Geographic distribution of departments on campuses
  • Distance to gigapops
  • Policy Authority of Central IT
  • Desktop diversity
case studies examples
Case Studies/Examples
  • Generic Academic Case
  • Novel Academic Alternative
  • LBL and Bro
  • Lightly Authenticated Wireless Network
  • Denial of Service Protection
  • Network Auditing at CMU
case study structure
Case Study Structure
  • Background and Intro
  • Alternative Approaches and Selected Implementation
  • Pros and Cons
    • Specifics on attack vectors
    • Ramifications on advanced computing
    • etc
salsa overview
SALSA Overview
  • Technical steering committee composed of senior campus security architects
    • Create understanding in the community regarding the multiple aspects of security as it applies to advanced networking
    • Advise on deliverables that address need of members and produce tangible benefits
  • Prioritizing opportunities and identifying resources
    • Focused activities
    • Interested in R&D security topics that can be smoothly transitioned to deployment
    • Intended to complement other activities in the Internet2/EDUCAUSE Security Task Force
membership
Membership
  • Chair: Mark Poepping, CMU
  • Founding members drawn from the Security at Line Speed Workshop – e.g. Jeff Schiller (MIT), Terry Grey (UW), Jim Pepin (USC), Doug Pearson (Indiana), Chris Misra (UMass), Steve Wallace (Indiana), Rodney Petersen (EDUCAUSE), James Sankar (Ukerna), etc…
  • Working on a charter
  • Minutes, etc at http://security.internet2.edu/salsa.html
possible salsa priorities
Possible SALSA Priorities
  • Developing core security architecture
    • Common campus network reference model
    • Common R&E internet network reference model
    • Nomenclature and architecture
  • Additional case studies for S@LS and revisit the basics
  • Increase data collection, sharing and integration between security researchers and backbone activities
  • Net Authentication/Authorization
  • Federated Security Services and Capabilities
data sharing
Data Sharing
  • Assemble knowledge, experience and tools to identify useful security data to be directed towards a comprehensive, operational security solution
  • Identify associated privacy issues.
  • Working with REN-ISAC on plan, process and structure to share data:
    • Data guidelines
    • Information exchange frameworks
    • Sharing agreements
    • Escalation process
  • Increase integration and sharing between security researchers and network backbone activities (e.g., diagnostics, Abilene Observatory)
network authn authz
Network AuthN/AuthZ
  • Identify areas where middleware technologies can support intra and inter-realm security
  • Network access controls may depend on
    • The identity of the user
    • The identity of the device
    • The state of the device (scanned, patched, etc)
    • The role of the user
    • Other
  • Initiating organized activities to develop network authentication and authorization architectures and sample implementations, including responding to the TERENA mobility TF
  • http://www.terena.nl/tech/task-forces/tf-ngn/presentations/tf-ngn13/20040122_JR_GN2_JRA5.pdf
federated security services
Federated Security Services
  • Federated networks
    • Share a common network substrate
    • Share a common trust fabric
    • Together they could permit…
  • Collaborative incident analysis and response
    • Network-wide views
    • Leveraged diagnostic help
    • Ability for automated tools to use distributed monitors
    • Protect privacy at several layers
  • Security-aware capabilities
    • Trust-moderated transparency
    • Integrated security/performance diagnostics
  • Moving it into the broader Internet
collaborative incident analysis
Collaborative Incident Analysis
  • Moving beyond the “border” to see network-wide views
    • I’m seeing activity X? Are others seeing it? What variants are they seeing? Real-time attack recognition
    • From the central observatory, let me see the full address of the attacking node at site Y in the federation
    • I’m seeing an attack ostensibly from source address z at enterprise Y. Let me look at logging within site Y to verify
    • Correlate signatures and traffic among sites A-Z to provide an early warning system of DDOS
    • Let external experts from site Z examine our forensic information to assist our diagnostics
  • Requires federated backbone (meters, log files, etc) and federated trust fabric (for scaling, role-based access control, contact info, etc.)
collaborative incident analysis24
Collaborative incident analysis
  • Scaling requires managing large data sets
    • Centralized – the Abilene Observatory, perhaps others
    • Distributed – on a per enterprise level
  • Which in turn requires a clear data model
    • Common event records, likely distilled and reformatted from native logs
    • Is enterprise-level security sufficient
  • And also pluggable modules for harvesting records by tools
  • Tools
  • And also a trust fabric that permits multiple levels of authentication and fine-grain authorization
federated security aware capabilities
Federated Security-aware Capabilities
  • Federated user network authentication for on-the-road science
  • Control spam through federated verification of sending enterprises
  • Tell me which firewall is dropping which service request
  • Permit end-end videoconferencing through firewalls and NATs
  • Allow enterprise-specific patching paradigms to coexist
  • Create end-end transparency for use of Grids
  • Personal firewall configuration based on authorization
moving it into the broader internet
Moving it into the broader Internet
  • Picking approaches that are deployable and build on embedded bases
  • Federated substrata among those on common backbones
  • Interfederation issues – how hard will they be
  • International discrepancies in privacy
  • International IdSP’s - legalisms
advancing network security
Advancing Network Security
  • An architecture instead of piece parts
    • Too many parts with too much interactions
    • Diagnostic hell and innovation ice age
    • Current approaches are doomed anyway…
  • Federated services and possible market making
    • Inter-institutional authn/z activities
    • Perhaps, with funding and trust, other federated security tools and services