SP's & network security issues

Hey there,

Hi Chris,

In our case, we have several hundred thousands of DSL customers today, and

the

million plus subscriber mark is on the engineering horizon. The problem

of

security threats & resulting incidents is going to get considerably worse
before it gets better. And that's for at least two reasons.. the ramp up

of

broadband and presumably the declining sophistication of the subscriber
population as a result of the greater market penetration.

Lack of security knowledge is also a huge problem in the collocation market.
The percentage of security-conscious colo customers is low, and uneducated
customers tend to be connected to Fast Ethernet or Gigabit Ethernet feeds.
One compromise in a well-connected colo can have the same effect as hundreds
of broadband compromises, although it's easier to track down and stop.

How do you effectively scale the massive support effort need for

collaborative

marketing of personal firewalls and the potential for false positives and
negatives? Any ideas on the legal exposure of security services?

My former employer ran several different managed firewall services, both for
broadband customers and colos, with some success ... all firewalls were
either built into CPE or designed as part of a "managed colo" environment
where large numbers of colo customers were front-ended by a few firewalls.

I don't see the broadband issue fixing itself without some built-in stateful
inspection firewall in the CPE itself -- if the customer has to pay for an
additional piece of hardware or software, it will instantly reduce
penetration. If you can do what you need from a firewalling standpoint on
the CPE, it makes life a lot easier. If you can provide a default firewall
installation on your choice of CPE, configuration scaling becomes much
easier.

As we were never taken to court on the legal issues of managing a firewall,
the only shot in the dark I would make there is that our standard contract
made no warranty for host security at all, and accepted no liability, even
though the 'wall was managed. It's impossible to manage network security,
but not host security, and make any guarantees.

Like, in the current case, several providers have resorted to blocking

port 80

to their non-DIA subscriber base. Is this really scalable? Obviously not

for

every threat. You can't effectively keep this up with the myriad of

threats.

Or can you?

<this should get the crowd rolling>
I'd think that a good default stance would be to block all incoming TCP
connections that aren't part of an established session, for all broadband
customers. Most of them would never notice, as email and http still work.
However, at the scale you're talking about, I don't see blocking anything on
the aggregation device itself ... it'd have to happen in the CPE, since
firewall rules are going to have to be customized for clients who do need to
run servers on their LAN.

So, I think it's clear that something needs to be done, but coming up with

a

definitive plan of attack is everything but trivial.

This obviously doesn't just apply to DSL, it applies to Cable and whatever
other broadband networks are out there or will evolve...

Instant results could be had, by:

- firewalling *all* broadband customers by default, with a strict ruleset
that denies incoming connections. Most of these customers don't know that
they're running open servers on what they consider desktop machines. NT and
Linux are easy to yell at, but anyone seen a default installation of Solaris
8 lately? OS vendors are not going to fix this any time soon, which leaves
greater responsibility on the shoulders of whoever connects the machines to
the 'net.

- requiring a firewall on all collocations, whether administered by you (for
money) or by the customer. Exceptions exist, i'm sure, but there aren't
that many of them as compared to the vast number of poorly secured
installations.

- if you're going to go this far, firewall all T1 customers too ... CPE
exists that will happily do this.

these three should take care of a lot of the "oops i left that port open"
security problems, and I'd be interested to know what percentage of major
infections could be cured by just putting up a firewall. Of course, it
requires a lot more staff to manage, so that cost is going to affect your
bottom line.

That doesn't, however, address something like code red exploiting a
legitimate web server. As I'm already in security nazi mode, how about:

- put it in your contract that you will run vulnerability scans against all
customer servers, with advance notice if necessary. Run them.

- put a required response time in your contract for a customer to fix any
vulnerabilities found. Shut them off if they don't patch the holes. (note
that if you are firewalling the customer, you don't have to unplug them,
just block access to the server until it's fixed)

- recognize your limits. try to stop the canned, automated exploits --
after the fact if necessary, but realize that a determined attacker would
require much greater effort to stop. That one may be best left to the
customer.

This is really just a small start, but if you're going to get this serious
about security, some amount of education is necessary ... even if it's just
so you can say "i told you so." Translate and bounce all CERT, security
focus, etc. exploit announcements to your customer base, making it clear
what is in danger and what must be done to fix it. Remind customers that
they may be shut down if they're compromised. Put links up to patches on
your website.

Run an abuse department that responds quickly to customers, and to other
providers, within limits. 24 x 7 is necessary, responding instantly to
black ice freaking out because someone ran nmap past it is not.

I've probably ranted enough already, but I don't think that the cost of
adequate security has *ever* been addressed at SPs. I may be wrong, but the
emphasis just doesn't seem to be there. In order to protect yourself from
your customer base, you have to incur significant costs ... how do you
compete with someone who doesn't care? How do you blackball those who don't
care, so you can compete with them? Is this something that requires general
agreement from the SP community, or is it possible for single companies to
make an effort without pricing themselves out of the market?

I've probably already stepped on enough toes this morning, so i'll drop it
... except to say it's nice to see someone trying to wrap their head around
these issues.

Cheers.

-travis

Cheers,
Chris

--
Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm
Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA,

U.S.

Oh, I can't leave this one alone, nope. I've snipped judiciously, hope the
sense stays in.

Travis Pugh wrote:

From: "Christian Kuhtz" <ck@arch.bellsouth.net>

> The problem of
> security threats & resulting incidents is going to get considerably worse
> before it gets better. And that's for at least two reasons.. the ramp up
of
> broadband and presumably the declining sophistication of the subscriber
> population as a result of the greater market penetration.

Sure, but this has been true since the september that never ended, but read
on, macduff.

Lack of security knowledge is also a huge problem in the collocation market.

I don't see the broadband issue fixing itself without some built-in stateful
inspection firewall in the CPE itself -- if the customer has to pay for an
additional piece of hardware or software, it will instantly reduce
penetration.

Ah, here's where it starts. You know, there are indeed a lot of clueless
wonders out there on the other end of a DSL pipe, or cable modem. Hell,
some of them are on this list. ;-} It doesn't mean that I want or need the
protection you are offering. Personally, I'd be happy to abide by a TOS
that said you have to fix your broken machines, or you lose your access,
AND we will bill you for the clean up costs.

If you can do what you need from a firewalling standpoint on
the CPE, it makes life a lot easier. If you can provide a default firewall
installation on your choice of CPE, configuration scaling becomes much
easier.

Works fine for CoLo. You going to make me put in some kind of firewall on
my network at home? No thanks, I want that direct connection. I REQUIRE it,
unfiltered, for what I do. Nothing wrong with offering this (I think a
couple of DSL providers had a reduced price on a sonicwall for a while).
Nothing wrong with links on a page that provide the latest security patches
for the most common OSes (red hat linux and windows 2k spring to mind).

I'd think that a good default stance would be to block all incoming TCP
connections that aren't part of an established session, for all broadband
customers.

How nice for you to make that choice for me. No thanks.

Most of them would never notice, as email and http still work.

Bet you are wrong here. I have something called business class DSL (how you
can think that DSL is business class is beyond me, but it's fine and dandy
for my purposes), but I know a LOT of gamers that might not be too happy
with your suggestions.

However, at the scale you're talking about, I don't see blocking anything on
the aggregation device itself ... it'd have to happen in the CPE, since
firewall rules are going to have to be customized for clients who do need to
run servers on their LAN.

This is just so shortsighted. What I'd like to see is the large service
providers having some sort of point of contact for issues like this. I see
tons of hits still from pacbell and concentric (you'd expect me to see a
lot from concentric, since that's the IP space I'm in), and none of them
seem to disappear. I'm sure that with the THOUSANDS of affected machines in
those spaces that administrators for the networks are just swamped trying
to track them down.

[snipped a whole bunch of well-meaning stuff that jumped my blood pressure
about a hundred points]

Run an abuse department that responds quickly to customers, and to other
providers, within limits. 24 x 7 is necessary, responding instantly to
black ice freaking out because someone ran nmap past it is not.

This is a good point, and similar to what I just said. The problem is:

How do you (the abuse department) tell the difference between blackice or
snort logs, and someone who has a valid problem that needs to be addressed?

Feh. Enough. It just doesn't have easy solutions, but then, what does?

I'd think that a good default stance would be to block all incoming TCP
connections that aren't part of an established session, for all broadband
customers. Most of them would never notice, as email and http still work.

Consider things like IRC DCC and (more mainstream) instant messaging
direct connections for file transfers, voice, etc. Limiting this to
privileged ports (<1024) might be more viable.

Run an abuse department that responds quickly to customers

I thought there was an RFC defining the abuse@ alias as the bit bucket...
;-]

... except to say it's nice to see someone trying to wrap their head around
these issues.

Wholeheartedly agreed.
-jeff

I think you need to differentiate between broadband cable/DSl customers
at 'home' and those who run a business over it. There's alot of ranting
on /. about the fact that AT&T Broadband is stopping port 80 into the
cable modem and Verizon also not allowing port 25 in, ie stopping the
end user running web and mail servers over their nice new broadband
connection.

Certain users want this so they can run these services locally without
paying fees for leased lines, colo's etc. Obviously the ISP's don't
like it (or the telco's) as it means they loose their leased lines that
are nice and profitable.

Maybe the providers should offer to do this port blocking if the
customer requests it, of at least have the options to remove the port
blocking is I want to run all this stuff locally.

Now Colo's are a different issue and IHMO the servers there should be
well segmented, but it depends on the contract. Does the colo look after
the O/S and applications or is the customer responsible. In the cases
I've seen in the UK the colo usually does this as an added service.

just my 2 pence worth

Hey Martin. I think what i'm suggesting is a "security by default" stance,
even for small businesses or power users on the other end of these
connections. It makes the system monstrously more complex, but I'd rather
see a situation where the access customer has to "opt in" to any given open
port across an upstream link, and has to take some responsibility to secure
it. It is a large change from the current thinking -- a.k.a. "we just give
you the line, what you do with it is your business", but it is blindingly
obvious to me that the current line of thinking has failed miserably.

Granted, performance considerations on faster links and any given customer's
desire to manage their own security must be taken into account, but those
seem to be exceptions to the rule. How many DS3 and above customers and
yahoo-style server farms are we really dealing with, and how many small
businesses with a competent security admin, as compared to T1/E1 and
broadband customers who take the line, plug it in, and hope for the best?

-travis