MarkLogic Server v9 Security Technical Implementation Guide

Enterprise environments make account management for applications and databases challenging and complex. A manual process for account management functions adds the risk of a potential oversight or other error. Managing accounts for the same person in multiple places is inefficient and prone to problems with consistency and synchronization. A comprehensive application account management process that includes automation helps to ensure accounts designated as requiring attention are consistently and promptly addressed. Examples include, but are not limited to, using automation to take action on multiple accounts designated as inactive, suspended, or terminated, or by disabling accounts located in non-centralized account stores, such as multiple servers. Account management functions can also include: assignment of group or role membership; identifying account type; specifying user access authorizations (i.e., privileges); account removal, update, or termination; and administrative alerts. The use of automated mechanisms can include, for example: using email or text messaging to notify account managers when users are terminated or transferred; using the information system to monitor account usage; and using automated telephone notification to report atypical system account usage. The DBMS must be configured to automatically utilize organization-level account management functions and these functions must immediately enforce the organization's current account policy. Automation may be comprised of differing technologies that when placed together contain an overall mechanism supporting an organization's automated account management requirements. MarkLogic Server can be configured so that users are authenticated using an external authentication protocol, such as Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP), Kerberos, or certificate. These external agents serve as centralized points of authentication or repositories for user information from which authorization decisions can be made. MarkLogic Server can be configured with multiple external security providers. A user only needs to authenticate with one of them to gain access.

Non-repudiation of actions taken is required in order to maintain data integrity. Examples of particular actions taken by individuals include creating information, sending a message, approving information (e.g., indicating concurrence or signing a contract), and receiving a message. Non-repudiation protects against later claims by a user of not having created, modified, or deleted a particular data item or collection of data in the database. In designing a database, the organization must define the types of data and the user actions that must be protected from repudiation. The implementation must then include building audit features into the application data tables and configuring the DBMS's audit tools to capture the necessary audit trail. Design and implementation also must ensure that applications pass individual user identification to the DBMS, even where the application connects to the DBMS with a standard, shared account. MarkLogic Server includes an auditing capability. Auditing can be enabled to capture security-relevant events to monitor suspicious database activity or to satisfy applicable auditing requirements. Configure the generation of audit events by including or excluding MarkLogic Server roles, users, or documents based on URI. More information on auditing can be found here: https://docs.marklogic.com/guide/security/auditing

Without the capability to generate audit records, it would be difficult to establish, correlate, and investigate the events relating to an incident or identify those responsible for one. Audit records can be generated from various components within the DBMS (e.g., process, module). Certain specific application functionalities may be audited as well. The list of audited events is the set of events for which audits are to be generated. This set of events is typically a subset of the list of all events for which the system is capable of generating audit records. DoD has defined the list of events for which the DBMS will provide an audit record generation capability as the following: (i) Successful and unsuccessful attempts to access, modify, or delete privileges, security objects, security levels, or categories of information (e.g., classification levels); (ii) Access actions, such as successful and unsuccessful logon attempts, privileged activities, or other system-level access, starting and ending time for user access to the system, concurrent logons from different workstations, successful and unsuccessful accesses to objects, all program initiations, and all direct access to the information system; and (iii) All account creation, modification, disabling, and termination actions. Organizations may define additional events requiring continuous or ad hoc auditing. MarkLogic Server includes an auditing capability. Auditing can be enabled to capture security-relevant events to monitor suspicious database activity or to satisfy applicable auditing requirements. The generation of audit events can be configured by including or excluding MarkLogic Server roles, users, or documents based on URI. Some actions that can be audited are the following: - Startup and shutdown of MarkLogic Server - Adding or removing roles from a user - Usage of amps - Starting and stopping the auditing system For the complete list of auditable events and their descriptions, see Auditing Events in the Administrator's Guide: https://docs.marklogic.com/guide/admin/auditing

Without the capability to restrict which roles and individuals can select which events are audited, unauthorized personnel may be able to prevent or interfere with the auditing of critical events. Suppression of auditing could permit an adversary to evade detection. Misconfigured audits can degrade the system's performance by overwhelming the audit log, and can make it more difficult to establish, correlate, and investigate the events relating to an incident or identify those responsible for one. MarkLogic Server includes an auditing capability. Auditing can be enabled to capture security-relevant events to monitor suspicious database activity or to satisfy applicable auditing requirements. The generation of audit events can be configured by including or excluding MarkLogic Server roles, users, or documents based on URI. Some actions that can be audited are the following: - Startup and shutdown of MarkLogic Server - Adding or removing roles from a user - Usage of amps - Starting and stopping the auditing system For the complete list of auditable events and their descriptions, see Auditing Events in the Administrator's Guide: https://docs.marklogic.com/guide/admin/auditing

Under some circumstances, it may be useful to monitor who/what is reading privilege/permission/role information. Therefore, it must be possible to configure auditing to do this. DBMSs typically make such information available through views or functions. This requirement addresses explicit requests for privilege/permission/role membership information. It does not refer to the implicit retrieval of privileges/permissions/role memberships that the DBMS continually performs to determine if any and every action on the database is permitted.

Under some circumstances, it may be useful to monitor who/what is reading privilege/permission/role information. Therefore, it must be possible to configure auditing to do this. DBMSs typically make such information available through views or functions. This requirement addresses explicit requests for privilege/permission/role membership information. It does not refer to the implicit retrieval of privileges/permissions/role memberships that the DBMS continually performs to determine if any and every action on the database is permitted. To aid in diagnosis, it is necessary to keep track of failed attempts in addition to the successful ones. MarkLogic Server includes an auditing capability. Auditing can be enabled to capture security-relevant events to monitor suspicious database activity or to satisfy applicable auditing requirements. The generation of audit events can be configured by including or excluding MarkLogic Server roles, users, or documents based on URI. Some actions that can be audited are the following: - Startup and shutdown of MarkLogic Server - Adding or removing roles from a user - Usage of amps - Starting and stopping the auditing system For the complete list of auditable events and their descriptions, see Auditing Events in the Administrator's Guide: https://docs.marklogic.com/guide/admin/auditing

Session auditing is used when a user's activities are under investigation. To ensure all activity is captured during the periods when session auditing is in use, it must be in operation for the entire time the DBMS is running.

It is critical that when the DBMS is at risk of failing to process audit logs as required, it take action to mitigate the failure. Audit processing failures include: software/hardware errors, failures in the audit capturing mechanisms, and audit storage capacity being reached or exceeded. Responses to audit failure depend upon the nature of the failure mode. When the need for system availability does not outweigh the need for a complete audit trail, the DBMS should shut down immediately, rolling back all in-flight transactions. Systems in which audit trail completeness is paramount will most likely be at a lower MAC level than MAC I; the final determination is the prerogative of the application owner, subject to Authorizing Official concurrence. Sufficient auditing resources must be allocated to avoid a shutdown in all but the most extreme situations.

If audit data were to become compromised, then competent forensic analysis and discovery of the true source of potentially malicious system activity is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. In addition, access to audit records provides information an attacker could potentially use to their advantage. To ensure the veracity of audit data, the information system and/or the application must protect audit information from any and all unauthorized access. This includes read, write, copy, etc. This requirement can be achieved through multiple methods, which will depend upon system architecture and design. Some commonly employed methods include: ensuring log files enjoy the proper file system permissions, utilizing file system protections, and limiting log data location. Additionally, applications with user interfaces to audit records should not allow for the unfettered manipulation of or access to those records via the application. If the application provides access to the audit data, the application becomes accountable for ensuring audit information is protected from unauthorized access. Audit information includes all information (e.g., audit records, audit settings, and audit reports) needed to successfully audit information system activity. When auditing is enabled, MarkLogic Server writes audit events to the AuditLog.txt file. Each host in a cluster maintains its own audit log files. Some actions might trigger multiple audit events, and those events might be logged over multiple hosts, as events are audited on the host in which the event occurs. For more information about the audit events, see Auditable Events. Note the following about the audit event log files: - Writes messages to AuditLog.txt file for various events. - Each event has a timestamp, event type, user, role, and other information relevant to the event (for example, document URI for document-read event). For an example of log entries, see Sample Audit Logs. - How often to rotate the audit files (similar to the log files, as described in Log Files) can be configured. - The Audit log files are stored in the same directory as the Access log files (port_AccessLog.txt) and the Error log files (ErrorLog.txt), which is in the /Logs directory. These files are private to the host in which the audit event occurred. - View the current or any archived file log at any time using standard text file viewing tools. Additionally, the log files can be accessed from the Log tab on the main page of the Admin Interface.

If audit data were to become compromised, then competent forensic analysis and discovery of the true source of potentially malicious system activity is impossible to achieve. To ensure the veracity of audit data, the information system and/or the application must protect audit information from unauthorized modification. This requirement can be achieved through multiple methods that will depend upon system architecture and design. Some commonly employed methods include ensuring log files enjoy the proper file system permissions and limiting log data locations. Applications providing a user interface to audit data will leverage user permissions and roles identifying the user accessing the data and the corresponding rights that the user enjoys in order to make access decisions regarding the modification of audit data. Audit information includes all information (e.g., audit records, audit settings, and audit reports) needed to successfully audit information system activity. Modification of database audit data could mask the theft of, or the unauthorized modification of, sensitive data stored in the database. When auditing is enabled, MarkLogic Server writes audit events to the AuditLog.txt file. Each host in a cluster maintains its own audit log files. Some actions might trigger multiple audit events, and those events might be logged over multiple hosts, as events are audited on the host in which the event occurs. For more information about the audit events, see Auditable Events. Note the following about the audit event log files: - Writes messages to AuditLog.txt file for various events. - Each event has a timestamp, event type, user, role, and other information relevant to the event (e.g., document URI for document-read event). For an example of log entries, see Sample Audit Logs. - How often to rotate the audit files (similar to the log files, as described in Log Files) can be configured. - The Audit log files are stored in the same directory as the Access log files (port_AccessLog.txt) and the Error log files (ErrorLog.txt), which is in the /Logs directory. These files are private to the host in which the audit event occurred. - View the current or any archived file log at any time using standard text file viewing tools. Additionally, the log files can be accessed from the Log tab on the main page of the Admin Interface.

If audit data becomes compromised, then competent forensic analysis and discovery of the true source of potentially malicious system activity is impossible to achieve. To ensure the veracity of audit data, the information system and/or the application must protect audit information from unauthorized deletion. This requirement can be achieved through multiple methods depending on system architecture and design. Some commonly employed methods include: ensuring log files employ the proper file system permissions, utilizing file system protections, restricting access; and backing up log data to ensure log data is retained. Applications providing a user interface to audit data will leverage user permissions and roles identifying the user accessing the data and the corresponding rights the user enjoys to make access decisions regarding the deletion of audit data. Audit information includes all information (e.g., audit records, audit settings, and audit reports) needed to successfully audit information system activity. When auditing is enabled, MarkLogic Server writes audit events to the AuditLog.txt file. Each host in a cluster maintains its own audit log files. Some actions might trigger multiple audit events, and those events might be logged over multiple hosts, as events are audited on the host in which the event occurs. For more information about the audit events, see Auditable Events. Note the following about the audit event log files: - Writes messages to AuditLog.txt file for various events. - Each event has a timestamp, event type, user, role, and other information relevant to the event (for example, document URI for document-read event). For an example of log entries, see Sample Audit Logs. - How often to rotate the audit files (similar to the log files, as described in Log Files) can be configured. - The Audit log files are stored in the same directory as the Access log files (port_AccessLog.txt) and the Error log files (ErrorLog.txt), which is in the /Logs directory. These files are private to the host in which the audit event occurred. - View the current or any archived file log at any time using standard text file viewing tools. Additionally, the log files can be accessed from the Log tab on the main page of the Admin Interface. Deletion of database audit data could mask the theft of, or the unauthorized modification of, sensitive data stored in the database.

Protecting audit data also includes identifying and protecting the tools used to view and manipulate log data. Depending upon the log format and application, system and application log tools may provide the only means to manipulate and manage application and system log data. Access to audit tools must be controlled and protected from unauthorized access. Applications providing tools to interface with audit data will leverage user permissions and roles identifying the user accessing the tools and the corresponding rights the user enjoys in order make access decisions regarding the access to audit tools. Audit tools include, but are not limited to, OS-provided audit tools, vendor-provided audit tools, and open source audit tools needed to successfully view and manipulate audit information system activity and records. If an attacker were to gain access to audit tools, he could analyze audit logs for system weaknesses or weaknesses in the auditing itself. An attacker could also manipulate logs to hide evidence of malicious activity. When auditing is enabled, MarkLogic Server writes audit events to the AuditLog.txt file. Each host in a cluster maintains its own audit log files. Some actions might trigger multiple audit events, and those events might be logged over multiple hosts, as events are audited on the host in which the event occurs. For more information about the audit events, see Auditable Events. Note the following about the audit event log files: - Writes messages to AuditLog.txt file for various events. - Each event has a timestamp, event type, user, role, and other information relevant to the event (for example, document URI for document-read event). For an example of log entries, see Sample Audit Logs. - How often to rotate the audit files (similar to the log files, as described in Log Files) can be configured. - Audit log files are stored in the same directory as the Access log files (port_AccessLog.txt) and the Error log files (ErrorLog.txt), which is in the /Logs directory. These files are private to the host in which the audit event occurred. - View the current or any archived file log at any time using standard text file viewing tools. Additionally, the log files can be accessed from the Log tab on the main page of the Admin Interface.

Protecting audit data also includes identifying and protecting the tools used to view and manipulate log data. Therefore, protecting audit tools is necessary to prevent unauthorized operation on audit data. Applications providing tools to interface with audit data will leverage user permissions and roles identifying the user accessing the tools and the corresponding rights the user enjoys to make access decisions regarding the modification of audit tools. Audit tools include, but are not limited to, vendor-provided and open source audit tools needed to successfully view and manipulate audit information system activity and records. Audit tools include custom queries and report generators.

Protecting audit data also includes identifying and protecting the tools used to view and manipulate log data. Therefore, protecting audit tools is necessary to prevent unauthorized operation on audit data. Applications providing tools to interface with audit data will leverage user permissions and roles identifying the user accessing the tools and the corresponding rights the user enjoys to make access decisions regarding the deletion of audit tools. Audit tools include, but are not limited to, vendor-provided and open source audit tools needed to successfully view and manipulate audit information system activity and records. Audit tools include custom queries and report generators.

If the system were to allow any user to make changes to software libraries, then those changes might be implemented without undergoing the appropriate testing and approvals that are part of a robust change management process. Accordingly, only qualified and authorized individuals must be allowed to obtain access to information system components for purposes of initiating changes, including upgrades and modifications. Unmanaged changes that occur to the database software libraries or configuration can lead to unauthorized or compromised installations.

When dealing with change control issues, it should be noted any changes to the hardware, software, and/or firmware components of the information system and/or application could have significant effects on the overall security of the system. If the system were to allow any user to make changes to software libraries, then those changes might be implemented without undergoing the appropriate testing and approvals that are part of a robust change management process. Accordingly, only qualified and authorized individuals must be allowed access to information system components for purposes of initiating changes, including upgrades and modifications. DBA and other privileged administrative or application owner accounts are granted privileges that allow actions that can have a great impact on database security and operation. It is especially important to grant privileged access to only those persons who are qualified and authorized to use them.

When dealing with change control issues, it should be noted any changes to the hardware, software, and/or firmware components of the information system and/or application could potentially have significant effects on the overall security of the system. Multiple applications can provide a cumulative negative effect. A vulnerability and subsequent exploit to one application can lead to an exploit of other applications sharing the same security context. For example, an exploit to a web server process that leads to unauthorized administrative access to host system directories can most likely lead to a compromise of all applications hosted by the same system. Database software not installed using dedicated directories both threatens, and is threatened by, other hosted applications. Access controls defined for one application may by default provide access to the other application's database objects or directories. Any method that provides any level of separation of security context assists in the protection between applications.

Within the database, object ownership implies full privileges to the owned object, including the privilege to assign access to the owned objects to other subjects. Database functions and procedures can be coded using definer's rights. This allows anyone who utilizes the object to perform the actions if they were the owner. If not properly managed, this can lead to privileged actions being taken by unauthorized individuals. Conversely, if critical tables or other objects rely on unauthorized owner accounts, these objects may be lost when an account is removed.

If the DBMS were to allow any user to make changes to database structure or logic, then those changes might be implemented without undergoing the appropriate testing and approvals that are part of a robust change management process. Accordingly, only qualified and authorized individuals must be allowed to obtain access to information system components for purposes of initiating changes, including upgrades and modifications. Unmanaged changes that occur to the database software libraries or configuration can lead to unauthorized or compromised installations.

Information systems are capable of providing a wide variety of functions and services. Some of the functions and services, provided by default, may not be necessary to support essential organizational operations (e.g., key missions, functions). It is detrimental for software products to provide, or install by default, functionality exceeding requirements or mission objectives. DBMSs must adhere to the principles of least functionality by providing only essential capabilities.

Information systems are capable of providing a wide variety of functions and services. Some of the functions and services, provided by default, may not be necessary to support essential organizational operations (e.g., key missions, functions). It is detrimental for applications to provide, or install by default, functionality exceeding requirements or mission objectives. Applications must adhere to the principles of least functionality by providing only essential capabilities. DBMSs may spawn additional external processes to execute procedures that are defined in the DBMS but stored in external host files (external procedures). The spawned process used to execute the external procedure may operate within a different OS security context than the DBMS and provide unauthorized access to the host system.

In order to prevent unauthorized connection of devices, unauthorized transfer of information, or unauthorized tunneling (i.e., embedding of data types within data types), organizations must disable or restrict unused or unnecessary physical and logical ports/protocols/services on information systems. Applications are capable of providing a wide variety of functions and services. Some of the functions and services provided by default may not be necessary to support essential organizational operations. Additionally, it is sometimes convenient to provide multiple services from a single component (e.g., email and web services); however, doing so increases risk over limiting the services provided by any one component. To support the requirements and principles of least functionality, the application must support the organizational requirements providing only essential capabilities and limiting the use of ports, protocols, and/or services to only those required, authorized, and approved to conduct official business or to address authorized quality of life issues. Database Management Systems using ports, protocols, and services deemed unsafe are open to attack through those ports, protocols, and services. This can allow unauthorized access to the database and through the database to other components of the information system.

To ensure accountability and prevent unauthenticated access, organizational users must be identified and authenticated to prevent potential misuse and compromise of the system. Organizational users include organizational employees or individuals the organization deems to have equivalent status of employees (e.g., contractors). Organizational users (and any processes acting on behalf of users) must be uniquely identified and authenticated for all accesses, except the following: (i) Accesses explicitly identified and documented by the organization. Organizations document specific user actions that can be performed on the information system without identification or authentication; and (ii) Accesses that occur through authorized use of group authenticators without individual authentication. Organizations may require unique identification of individuals using shared accounts, for detailed accountability of individual activity.

OS/enterprise authentication and identification must be used (SRG-APP-000023-DB-000001). Native DBMS authentication may be used only when circumstances make it unavoidable, and must be documented and Authorizing Official (AO)-approved. The DOD standard for authentication is DOD-approved PKI certificates. Authentication based on User ID and Password may be used only when it is not possible to employ a PKI certificate, and requires AO approval. In such cases, the DOD standards for password complexity and lifetime must be implemented. DBMS products that can inherit the rules for these from the operating system or access control program (e.g., Microsoft Active Directory) must be configured to do so. For other DBMSs, the rules must be enforced using available configuration parameters or custom code. Types of Authentication Control the authentication scheme for HTTP, WebDAV, ODBC, and XDBC App Servers. - Basic authentication is the typical authentication scheme for web applications. A user is prompted for a username and password when accessing an application page. In basic mode, the password is obfuscated but not encrypted. - Digest authentication works the same way as basic, but offers encryption of passwords sent over the network. A user is prompted for a username and password when accessing an application page. - The digest-basic authentication scheme uses the more secure digest scheme whenever possible, but reverts to basic authentication when needed. Some older browsers, for example, do not support digest authentication. The digest-basic scheme is also useful if basic authentication was previously used, but must be migrated to digest. The first time a user accesses the server after changing from basic to digest-basic authentication scheme, the server computes the digest password by extracting the relevant information from the credentials supplied in basic mode. - Certificate-based authentication requires internal and external users and HTTPS clients to authenticate to MarkLogic Server via a client certificate, either in addition to, or rather than a password. - Application-level authentication bypasses all authentication and automatically logs all users in as a specified default user. Specify the default user in the Admin Interface, and any users accessing the server automatically inherit the security attributes (roles, privileges, default permissions) of the default user. Application-level authentication is available on HTTP, ODBC, and WebDAV servers. - In Kerberos Ticket, the user is authenticated by Kerberos and a Kerberos session ticket is used to authenticate the user to access MarkLogic Server. - When SAML authentication is used, a client requests a resource from MarkLogic Server with no security context. MarkLogic redirects the authentication request to an Identity Provider, the Identity Provider prompts the user to login, if necessary, and sends the authentication request back to MarkLogic Server (the Service Provider) for validation.

The DoD standard for authentication is DoD-approved PKI certificates. A certificate’s certification path is the path from the end entity certificate to a trusted root certification authority (CA). Certification path validation is necessary for a relying party to make an informed decision regarding acceptance of an end entity certificate. Certification path validation includes checks such as certificate issuer trust, time validity, and revocation status for each certificate in the certification path. Revocation status information resource/or CA and subject certificates in a certification path is commonly provided via certificate revocation lists (CRLs) or online certificate status protocol (OCSP) responses. Database Management Systems that do not validate certificates by performing RFC 5280-compliant certification path validation are in danger of accepting certificates that are invalid and/or counterfeit. This could allow unauthorized access to the database.

Non-organizational users include all information system users other than organizational users, which include organizational employees or individuals the organization deems to have equivalent status of employees (e.g., contractors, guest researchers, individuals from allied nations). Non-organizational users must be uniquely identified and authenticated for all accesses other than those accesses explicitly identified and documented by the organization when related to the use of anonymous access, such as accessing a web server. Accordingly, a risk assessment is used in determining the authentication needs of the organization. Scalability, practicality, and security are simultaneously considered in balancing the need to ensure ease of use for access to federal information and information systems with the need to protect and adequately mitigate risk to organizational operations, organizational assets, individuals, other organizations, and the Nation.

Information system management functionality includes functions necessary to administer databases, network components, workstations, or servers, and typically requires privileged user access. The separation of user functionality from information system management functionality is either physical or logical and is accomplished by using different computers, different central processing units, different instances of the operating system, different network addresses, combinations of these methods, or other methods, as appropriate. An example of this type of separation is observed in web administrative interfaces that use separate authentication methods for users of any other information system resources. This may include isolating the administrative interface on a different domain and with additional access controls. If administrative functionality or information regarding DBMS management is presented on an interface available for users, information on DBMS settings may be inadvertently made available to the user.

One class of man-in-the-middle, or session hijacking, attacks involves the adversary guessing at valid session identifiers based on patterns in known identifiers. The preferred technique for thwarting guesses at Session IDs is the generation of unique session identifiers using a FIPS 140-2 or 140-3 approved random number generator. However, it is recognized that available DBMS products do not all implement the preferred technique yet may have other protections against session hijacking. Therefore, other techniques are acceptable, provided they are demonstrated to be effective. MarkLogic Server uses OpenSSL to implement the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL v3) and Transport Layer Security (TLS v1) protocols.

Applications, including DBMSs, must prevent unauthorized and unintended information transfer via shared system resources. Permitting only DBMS processes and authorized, administrative users to have access to the files where the database resides helps ensure those files are not shared inappropriately and are not open to backdoor access and manipulation. Encryption at rest protects data on media, that is, data at rest as opposed to data moving across a communications channel, otherwise known as data in motion. Increasing security risks and compliance requirements sometimes mandate the use of encryption at rest to prevent unauthorized access to data on disk. Encryption at rest can be configured to encrypt data, log files, and configuration files separately. Encryption is only applied to newly created files once encryption at rest is enabled, and does not apply to existing files without further action by the user. For existing data, a merge or re-index will trigger encryption of data, a configuration change will trigger encryption of configuration files, and log rotation will initiate log encryption. For more information: See: https://docs.marklogic.com/guide/security/encryption

Any DBMS or associated application providing too much information in error messages on the screen or printout risks compromising the data and security of the system. The structure and content of error messages must be carefully considered by the organization and development team. Databases can inadvertently provide a wealth of information to an attacker through improperly handled error messages. In addition to sensitive business or personal information, database errors can provide host names, IP addresses, user names, and other system information not required for troubleshooting but very useful to someone targeting the system. Carefully consider the structure/content of error messages. The extent to which information systems are able to identify and handle error conditions is guided by organizational policy and operational requirements. Information that could be exploited by adversaries includes, for example, logon attempts with passwords entered by mistake as the username, mission/business information that can be derived from (if not stated explicitly by) information recorded, and personal information, such as account numbers, social security numbers, and credit card numbers. This calls for inspection of application source code, which will require collaboration with the application developers. It is recognized that in many cases, the database administrator (DBA) is organizationally separate from the application developers, and may have limited, if any, access to source code. Nevertheless, protections of this type are so important to the secure operation of databases that they must not be ignored. At a minimum, the DBA must attempt to obtain assurances from the development organization that this issue has been addressed, and must document what has been discovered.

Without the association of security labels to information, there is no basis for the DBMS to make security-related access-control decisions. Security labels are abstractions representing the basic properties or characteristics of an entity (e.g., subjects and objects) with respect to safeguarding information. These labels are typically associated with internal data structures (e.g., tables, rows) within the database and are used to enable the implementation of access control and flow control policies; reflect special dissemination, handling, or distribution instructions; or support other aspects of the information security policy. One example includes marking data as classified or FOUO. These security labels may be assigned manually or during data processing, and it is imperative these assignments are maintained while the data is in storage. If the security labels are lost when the data is stored, there is the risk of a data compromise. The mechanism used to support security labeling may be a feature of the DBMS product, a third-party product, or custom application code.

Without the association of security labels to information, there is no basis for the DBMS to make security-related access-control decisions. Security labels are abstractions representing the basic properties or characteristics of an entity (e.g., subjects and objects) with respect to safeguarding information. These labels are typically associated with internal data structures (e.g., tables, rows) within the database and are used to enable the implementation of access control and flow control policies; reflect special dissemination, handling, or distribution instructions; or support other aspects of the information security policy. One example includes marking data as classified or FOUO. These security labels may be assigned manually or during data processing, and it is imperative these assignments are maintained while the data is in storage. If the security labels are lost when the data is stored, there is the risk of a data compromise. The mechanism used to support security labeling may be a feature of the DBMS product, a third-party product, or custom application code.

Preventing non-privileged users from executing privileged functions mitigates the risk that unauthorized individuals or processes may gain unnecessary access to information or privileges. System documentation should include a definition of the functionality considered privileged. Depending on circumstances, privileged functions can include, for example, establishing accounts, performing system integrity checks, or administering cryptographic key management activities. Non-privileged users are individuals that do not possess appropriate authorizations. Circumventing intrusion detection and prevention mechanisms or malicious code protection mechanisms are examples of privileged functions that require protection from non-privileged users. A privileged function in the DBMS/database context is any operation that modifies the structure of the database, its built-in logic, or its security settings. This would include all Data Definition Language (DDL) statements and all security-related statements. In an SQL environment, it encompasses, but is not necessarily limited to: CREATE ALTER DROP GRANT REVOKE DENY There may also be Data Manipulation Language (DML) statements that, subject to context, should be regarded as privileged. Possible examples include: TRUNCATE TABLE; DELETE, or DELETE affecting more than n rows, for some n, or DELETE without a WHERE clause; UPDATE or UPDATE affecting more than n rows, for some n, or UPDATE without a WHERE clause; any SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE to an application-defined security table executed by other than a security principal. Depending on the capabilities of the DBMS and the design of the database and associated applications, the prevention of unauthorized use of privileged functions may be achieved by means of DBMS security features, database triggers, other mechanisms, or a combination of these.

In certain situations, to provide required functionality, a DBMS needs to execute internal logic (stored procedures, functions, triggers, etc.) and/or external code modules with elevated privileges. However, if the privileges required for execution are at a higher level than the privileges assigned to organizational users invoking the functionality applications/programs, those users are indirectly provided with greater privileges than assigned by organizations. Privilege elevation must be utilized only where necessary and protected from misuse. This calls for inspection of application source code, which will require collaboration with the application developers. It is recognized that in many cases, the database administrator (DBA) is organizationally separate from the application developers, and may have limited, if any, access to source code. Nevertheless, protections of this type are so important to the secure operation of databases that they must not be ignored. At a minimum, the DBA must attempt to obtain assurances from the development organization that this issue has been addressed, and must document what has been discovered.

To ensure sufficient storage capacity for the audit logs, the DBMS must be able to allocate audit record storage capacity. Although another requirement (SRG-APP-000515-DB-000318) mandates that audit data be off-loaded to a centralized log management system, it remains necessary to provide space on the database server to serve as a buffer against outages and capacity limits of the off-loading mechanism. The task of allocating audit record storage capacity is usually performed during initial installation of the DBMS and is closely associated with the DBA and system administrator roles. The DBA or system administrator will usually coordinate the allocation of physical drive space with the application owner/installer and the application will prompt the installer to provide the capacity information, the physical location of the disk, or both. In determining the capacity requirements, consider such factors as: total number of users; expected number of concurrent users during busy periods; number and type of events being monitored; types and amounts of data being captured; the frequency/speed with which audit records are off-loaded to the central log management system; and any limitations that exist on the DBMS's ability to reuse the space formerly occupied by off-loaded records.

Organizations are required to use a central log management system, so, under normal conditions, the audit space allocated to the DBMS on its own server will not be an issue. However, space will still be required on the DBMS server for audit records in transit, and, under abnormal conditions, this could fill up. Since a requirement exists to halt processing upon audit failure, a service outage would result. If support personnel are not notified immediately upon storage volume utilization reaching 75 percent, they are unable to plan for storage capacity expansion. The appropriate support staff include, at a minimum, the ISSO and the DBA/SA.

It is critical for the appropriate personnel to be aware if a system is at risk of failing to process audit logs as required. Without a real-time alert, security personnel may be unaware of an impending failure of the audit capability, and system operation may be adversely affected. The appropriate support staff include, at a minimum, the ISSO and the DBA/SA. A failure of database auditing will result in either the database continuing to function without auditing or a complete halt to database operations. When audit processing fails, appropriate personnel must be alerted immediately to avoid further downtime or unaudited transactions. Alerts provide organizations with urgent messages. Real-time alerts provide these messages immediately (i.e., the time from event detection to alert occurs in seconds or less).

Without auditing the enforcement of access restrictions against changes to configuration, it would be difficult to identify attempted attacks and an audit trail would not be available for forensic investigation for after-the-fact actions. Enforcement actions are the methods or mechanisms used to prevent unauthorized changes to configuration settings. Enforcement action methods may be as simple as denying access to a file based on the application of file permissions (access restriction). Audit items may consist of lists of actions blocked by access restrictions or changes identified after the fact.

Use of nonsecure network functions, ports, protocols, and services exposes the system to avoidable threats.

If cached authentication information is out-of-date, the validity of the authentication information may be questionable.

Only DoD-approved external PKIs have been evaluated to ensure that they have security controls and identity vetting procedures in place sufficient for DoD systems to rely on the identity asserted in the certificate. PKIs lacking sufficient security controls and identity vetting procedures risk being compromised and issuing certificates that enable adversaries to impersonate legitimate users. The authoritative list of DoD-approved PKIs is published at https://public.cyber.mil/pki-pke/interoperability/. This requirement focuses on communications protection for the DBMS session rather than for the network packet.

Security flaws with software applications, including database management systems, are discovered daily. Vendors are constantly updating and patching their products to address newly discovered security vulnerabilities. Organizations (including any contractor to the organization) are required to promptly install security-relevant software updates (e.g., patches, service packs, and hot fixes). Flaws discovered during security assessments, continuous monitoring, incident response activities, or information system error handling must also be addressed expeditiously. Organization-defined time periods for updating security-relevant software may vary based on a variety of factors including, for example, the security category of the information system or the criticality of the update (i.e., severity of the vulnerability related to the discovered flaw). This requirement will apply to software patch management solutions used to install patches across the enclave and also to applications themselves not part of that patch management solution. For example, many browsers today provide the capability to install their own patch software. Patch criticality, as well as system criticality, will vary. Therefore, the tactical situations regarding the patch management process will also vary. This means that the time period utilized must be a configurable parameter. Time frames for application of security-relevant software updates may be dependent upon the Information Assurance Vulnerability Management (IAVM) process. The application will be configured to check for and install security-relevant software updates within an identified time period from the availability of the update. The specific time period will be defined by an authoritative source (e.g. IAVM, CTOs, DTMs, and STIGs). MarkLogic releases full software package updates that include all relevant security updates as well as enhancements and bug fixes. Larger updates are usually released quarterly, with smaller updates provided as needed between quarterly releases. Security updates are not packaged separately.

Changes to the security configuration must be tracked. This requirement applies to situations where security data is retrieved or modified via data manipulation operations, as opposed to via specialized security functionality.

Changes to the security configuration must be tracked. This requirement applies to situations where security data is retrieved or modified via data manipulation operations, as opposed to via specialized security functionality. To aid in diagnosis, it is necessary to keep track of failed attempts in addition to the successful ones.

Changes in categories of information must be tracked. Without an audit trail, unauthorized access to protected data could go undetected. For detailed information on categorizing information, refer to FIPS Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems, and FIPS Publication 200, Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems.

Changes in categories of information must be tracked. Without an audit trail, unauthorized access to protected data could go undetected. To aid in diagnosis, it is necessary to keep track of failed attempts in addition to the successful ones. For detailed information on categorizing information, refer to FIPS Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems, and FIPS Publication 200, Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems.

Changes in the permissions, privileges, and roles granted to users and roles must be tracked. Without an audit trail, unauthorized elevation or restriction of privileges could go undetected. Elevated privileges give users access to information and functionality that they should not have; restricted privileges wrongly deny access to authorized users.

Failed attempts to change the permissions, privileges, and roles granted to users and roles must be tracked. Without an audit trail, unauthorized attempts to elevate or restrict privileges could go undetected. To aid in diagnosis, it is necessary to keep track of failed attempts in addition to the successful ones.

Changes in the permissions, privileges, and roles granted to users and roles must be tracked. Without an audit trail, unauthorized elevation or restriction of privileges could go undetected. Elevated privileges give users access to information and functionality that they should not have; restricted privileges wrongly deny access to authorized users.

Failed attempts to change the permissions, privileges, and roles granted to users and roles must be tracked. Without an audit trail, unauthorized attempts to elevate or restrict privileges could go undetected. To aid in diagnosis, it is necessary to keep track of failed attempts in addition to the successful ones.

Changes in the database objects (tables, views, procedures, functions) that record and control permissions, privileges, and roles granted to users and roles must be tracked. Without an audit trail, unauthorized changes to the security subsystem could go undetected. The database could be severely compromised or rendered inoperative.

Changes in the database objects (tables, views, procedures, functions) that record and control permissions, privileges, and roles granted to users and roles must be tracked. Without an audit trail, unauthorized changes to the security subsystem could go undetected. The database could be severely compromised or rendered inoperative. To aid in diagnosis, it is necessary to keep track of failed attempts in addition to the successful ones.

Changes in categories of information must be tracked. Without an audit trail, unauthorized access to protected data could go undetected. For detailed information on categorizing information, refer to FIPS Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems, and FIPS Publication 200, Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems.

Changes in categories of information must be tracked. Without an audit trail, unauthorized access to protected data could go undetected. To aid in diagnosis, it is necessary to keep track of failed attempts in addition to the successful ones. For detailed information on categorizing information, refer to FIPS Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems, and FIPS Publication 200, Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems.

Changes in the permissions, privileges, and roles granted to users and roles must be tracked. Without an audit trail, unauthorized elevation or restriction of privileges could go undetected. Elevated privileges give users access to information and functionality that they should not have; restricted privileges wrongly deny access to authorized users.

Failed attempts to change the permissions, privileges, and roles granted to users and roles must be tracked. Without an audit trail, unauthorized attempts to elevate or restrict privileges could go undetected. To aid in diagnosis, it is necessary to keep track of failed attempts in addition to the successful ones.

The removal of security objects from the database/DBMS would seriously degrade a system's information assurance posture. If such an event occurs, it must be logged.

The removal of security objects from the database/DBMS would seriously degrade a system's information assurance posture. If such an action is attempted, it must be logged. To aid in diagnosis, it is necessary to keep track of failed attempts in addition to the successful ones.

Changes in categories of information must be tracked. Without an audit trail, unauthorized access to protected data could go undetected. For detailed information on categorizing information, refer to FIPS Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems, and FIPS Publication 200, Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems.

Changes in categories of information must be tracked. Without an audit trail, unauthorized access to protected data could go undetected. To aid in diagnosis, it is necessary to keep track of failed attempts in addition to the successful ones. For detailed information on categorizing information, refer to FIPS Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems, and FIPS Publication 200, Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems.

For completeness of forensic analysis, it is necessary to track who/what (a user or other principal) logs on to the DBMS.

For completeness of forensic analysis, it is necessary to track failed attempts to log on to the DBMS. While positive identification may not be possible in a case of failed authentication, as much information as possible about the incident must be captured.

Without tracking privileged activity, it would be difficult to establish, correlate, and investigate the events relating to an incident or identify those responsible for one. System documentation should include a definition of the functionality considered privileged. A privileged function in this context is any operation that modifies the structure of the database, its built-in logic, or its security settings. This would include all Data Definition Language (DDL) statements and all security-related statements. Depending on the capabilities of the DBMS and the design of the database and associated applications, audit logging may be achieved by means of DBMS auditing features, database triggers, other mechanisms, or a combination of these. Note that it is particularly important to audit, and tightly control, any action that weakens the implementation of this requirement itself, since the objective is to have a complete audit trail of all administrative activity.

Without tracking privileged activity, it would be difficult to establish, correlate, and investigate the events relating to an incident or identify those responsible for one. System documentation should include a definition of the functionality considered privileged. A privileged function in this context is any operation that modifies the structure of the database, its built-in logic, or its security settings. This would include all Data Definition Language (DDL) statements and all security-related statements. Depending on the capabilities of the DBMS and the design of the database and associated applications, audit logging may be achieved by means of DBMS auditing features, database triggers, other mechanisms, or a combination of these. Note that it is particularly important to audit, and tightly control, any action that weakens the implementation of this requirement itself, since the objective is to have a complete audit trail of all administrative activity. To aid in diagnosis, it is necessary to keep track of failed attempts in addition to the successful ones.

For completeness of forensic analysis, it is necessary to track who logs on to the DBMS. Concurrent connections by the same user from multiple workstations may be valid uses of the system, such connections may be due to improper circumvention of the requirement to use the CAC for authentication, may indicate unauthorized account sharing, or may be because an account has been compromised. (If the fact of multiple, concurrent logons by a given user can be reliably reconstructed from the log entries for other events (logons/connections; voluntary and involuntary disconnections), then it is not mandatory to create additional log entries specifically for this.)

Without tracking all or selected types of access to all or selected objects (tables, views, procedures, functions, etc.), it would be difficult to establish, correlate, and investigate the events relating to an incident, or identify those responsible for one.

Use of weak or untested encryption algorithms undermines the purposes of utilizing encryption to protect data. The application must implement cryptographic modules adhering to the higher standards approved by the federal government since this provides assurance they have been tested and validated. For detailed information, refer to NIST FIPS Publication 140-2 or Publication 140-3, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules. Note that the product's cryptographic modules must be validated and certified by NIST as FIPS-compliant.

Use of weak or untested encryption algorithms undermines the purposes of utilizing encryption to protect data. The application must implement cryptographic modules adhering to the higher standards approved by the federal government since this provides assurance they have been tested and validated. For detailed information, refer to NIST FIPS Publication 140-2 or Publication 140-3, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules. Note that the product's cryptographic modules must be validated and certified by NIST as FIPS-compliant.

Use of weak or untested encryption algorithms undermines the purposes of utilizing encryption to protect data. The application must implement cryptographic modules adhering to the higher standards approved by the federal government since this provides assurance they have been tested and validated. It is the responsibility of the data owner to assess the cryptography requirements in light of applicable federal laws, Executive Orders, directives, policies, regulations, and standards. For detailed information, refer to NIST FIPS Publication 140-2 or Publication 140-3, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules. Note that the product's cryptographic modules must be validated and certified by NIST as FIPS-compliant.

Configuring the DBMS to implement organization-wide security implementation guides and security checklists ensures compliance with federal standards and establishes a common security baseline across DoD that reflects the most restrictive security posture consistent with operational requirements. In addition to this SRG, sources of guidance on security and information assurance exist. These include NSA configuration guides, CTOs, DTMs, and IAVMs. The DBMS must be configured in compliance with guidance from all such relevant sources.