Trend Micro Deep Security 9.x Security Technical Implementation Guide

Application management includes the ability to control the number of users and user sessions that utilize an application. Limiting the number of allowed users and sessions per user is helpful in limiting risks related to DoS attacks. This requirement may be met via the application or by utilizing information system session control provided by a web server with specialized session management capabilities. If it has been specified that this requirement will be handled by the application, the capability to limit the maximum number of concurrent single user sessions must be designed and built into the application. This requirement addresses concurrent sessions for information system accounts and does not address concurrent sessions by single users via multiple system accounts. The maximum number of concurrent sessions should be defined based upon mission needs and the operational environment for each system.

A session time-out lock is a temporary action taken when a user stops work and moves away from the immediate physical vicinity of the information system, but does not log out because of the temporary nature of the absence. Rather than relying on the user to manually lock their application session prior to vacating the vicinity, applications need to be able to identify when a user's application session has idled and take action to initiate the session lock. The session lock is implemented at the point where session activity can be determined and/or controlled. This is typically at the operating system-level and results in a system lock, but may be at the application-level where the application interface window is secured instead.

Once an attacker establishes initial access to a system, the attacker often attempts to create a persistent method of re-establishing access. One way to accomplish this is for the attacker to simply create a new account. Auditing of account creation is one method for mitigating this risk. A comprehensive account management process will ensure an audit trail documents the creation of application user accounts and, as required, notifies administrators and/or application owners exists. Such a process greatly reduces the risk that accounts will be surreptitiously created and provides logging that can be used for forensic purposes. To address access requirements, many application developers choose to integrate their applications with enterprise-level authentication/access/auditing mechanisms meeting or exceeding access control policy requirements. Such integration allows the application developer to off-load those access control functions and focus on core application features and functionality.

Once an attacker establishes initial access to a system, the attacker often attempts to create a persistent method of re-establishing access. One way to accomplish this is for the attacker to simply modify an existing account. Auditing of account creation is one method for mitigating this risk. A comprehensive account management process will ensure an audit trail documents the creation of application user accounts and, as required, notifies administrators and/or application owners exists. Such a process greatly reduces the risk that accounts will be surreptitiously created and provides logging that can be used for forensic purposes. To address access requirements, many application developers choose to integrate their applications with enterprise-level authentication/access/auditing mechanisms meeting or exceeding access control policy requirements. Such integration allows the application developer to off-load those access control functions and focus on core application features and functionality.

When application accounts are disabled, user accessibility is affected. Accounts are utilized for identifying individual application users or for identifying the application processes themselves. In order to detect and respond to events affecting user accessibility and application processing, applications must audit account disabling actions and, as required, notify the appropriate individuals, so they can investigate the event. Such a capability greatly reduces the risk that application accessibility will be negatively affected for extended periods of time and provides logging that can be used for forensic purposes. To address access requirements, many application developers choose to integrate their applications with enterprise-level authentication/access/audit mechanisms meeting or exceeding access control policy requirements. Such integration allows the application developer to off-load those access control functions and focus on core application features and functionality.

When application accounts are removed, user accessibility is affected. Accounts are utilized for identifying individual application users or for identifying the application processes themselves. In order to detect and respond to events affecting user accessibility and application processing, applications must audit account removal actions and, as required, notify the appropriate individuals, so they can investigate the event. Such a capability greatly reduces the risk that application accessibility will be negatively affected for extended periods of time and provides logging that can be used for forensic purposes. To address access requirements, many application developers choose to integrate their applications with enterprise-level authentication/access/audit mechanisms meeting or exceeding access control policy requirements. Such integration allows the application developer to off-load those access control functions and focus on core application features and functionality.

A mechanism to detect and prevent unauthorized communication flow must be configured or provided as part of the system design. If information flow is not enforced based on approved authorizations, the system may become compromised. Information flow control regulates where information is allowed to travel within a system and between interconnected systems. The flow of all system information must be monitored and controlled so it does not introduce any unacceptable risk to the systems or data. Application specific examples of enforcement occurs in systems that employ rule sets or establish configuration settings that restrict information system services, or message-filtering capability based on message content (e.g., implementing key word searches or using document characteristics). Applications providing information flow control must be able to enforce approved authorizations for controlling the flow of information within the system in accordance with applicable policy.

A mechanism to detect and prevent unauthorized communication flow must be configured or provided as part of the system design. If information flow is not enforced based on approved authorizations, the system may become compromised. Information flow control regulates where information is allowed to travel within a system and between interconnected systems. The flow of all application information must be monitored and controlled so it does not introduce any unacceptable risk to the systems or data. Application specific examples of enforcement occurs in systems that employ rule sets or establish configuration settings that restrict information system services, or provide a message filtering capability based on message content (e.g., implementing key word searches or using document characteristics). Applications providing information flow control must be able to enforce approved authorizations for controlling the flow of information between interconnected systems in accordance with applicable policy.

By limiting the number of failed logon attempts, the risk of unauthorized system access via user password guessing, otherwise known as brute forcing, is reduced. Limits are imposed by locking the account.

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 application (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 application 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.

Without the capability to restrict which roles and individuals can select which events are audited, unauthorized personnel may be able to prevent the auditing of critical events. Misconfigured audits may degrade the system's performance by overwhelming the audit log. Misconfigured audits may also make it more difficult to establish, correlate, and investigate the events relating to an incident, or identify those responsible for one. 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.

Without generating audit records that are specific to the security and mission needs of the organization, 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 information system (e.g., module or policy filter).

If auditing is enabled late in the startup process, the actions of some start-up processes may not be audited. Some audit systems also maintain state information only available if auditing is enabled before a given process is created.

Without the capability to capture, record, and log all content related to a user session, investigations into suspicious user activity would be hampered. This requirement does not apply to applications that do not have a concept of a user session (e.g., calculator).

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 this notification, the security personnel may be unaware of an impending failure of the audit capability and system operation may be adversely affected. Audit processing failures include software/hardware errors, failures in the audit capturing mechanisms, and audit storage capacity being reached or exceeded. This requirement applies to each audit data storage repository (i.e., distinct information system component where audit records are stored), the centralized audit storage capacity of organizations (i.e., all audit data storage repositories combined), or both.

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 his or her 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, and copy access. This requirement can be achieved through multiple methods which will depend upon system architecture and design. Commonly employed methods for protecting audit information include least privilege permissions as well as restricting the location and number of log file repositories. 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.

If audit data were to become compromised, then 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, which will depend upon system architecture and design. Some commonly employed methods include ensuring log files receive 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.

If audit data were to become compromised, then 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, which will depend upon system architecture and design. Some commonly employed methods include: ensuring log files receive 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 in order 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. Audit information may include data from other applications or be included with the audit application itself.

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 in order make access decisions regarding the access to 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 in order 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 in order 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.

Protection of log data includes assuring log data is not accidentally lost or deleted. Backing up audit records to a different system or onto separate media than the system being audited on an organizationally defined frequency helps to assure in the event of a catastrophic system failure, the audit records will be retained. This helps to ensure a compromise of the information system being audited does not also result in a compromise of the audit records. This requirement only applies to applications that have a native backup capability for audit records. Operating system backup requirements cover applications that do not provide native backup functions.

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 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.

There are security-related issues arising from software brought into the information system specifically for diagnostic and repair actions (e.g., a software packet sniffer installed on a system in order to troubleshoot system traffic, or a vendor installing or running a diagnostic application in order to troubleshoot an issue with a vendor supported system). If, upon inspection of media containing maintenance diagnostic and test programs, organizations determine that the media contain malicious code, the incident is handled consistent with organizational incident handling policies and procedures. This requirement addresses security-related issues associated with maintenance tools used specifically for diagnostic and repair actions on organizational information systems. Maintenance tools can include hardware, software, and firmware items. Maintenance tools are potential vehicles for transporting malicious code, either intentionally or unintentionally, into a facility and subsequently into organizational information systems. Maintenance tools can include, for example, hardware/software diagnostic test equipment and hardware/software packet sniffers. This requirement does not cover hardware/software components that may support information system maintenance, yet are a part of the system (e.g., the software implementing "ping," "ls," "ipconfig," or the hardware and software implementing the monitoring port of an Ethernet switch).

Enterprise environments make application account management challenging and complex. A manual process for account management functions adds the risk of a potential oversight or other error. 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. This requirement applies to all account types, including individual/user, shared, group, system, guest/anonymous, emergency, developer/manufacturer/vendor, temporary, and service. The application must be configured to automatically provide account management functions and these functions must immediately enforce the organization's current account policy. The automated mechanisms may reside within the application itself or may be offered by the operating system or other infrastructure providing automated account management capabilities. Automated mechanisms may be comprised of differing technologies that when placed together contain an overall automated mechanism supporting an organization's automated account management requirements. Account management functions 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 automatically notify account managers when users are terminated or transferred; using the information system to monitor account usage; and using automated telephonic notification to report atypical system account usage.

To assure 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 in group accounts (e.g., shared privilege accounts) or for detailed accountability of individual activity.

The shorter the password, the lower the number of possible combinations that need to be tested before the password is compromised. Password complexity, or strength, is a measure of the effectiveness of a password in resisting attempts at guessing and brute-force attacks. Password length is one factor of several that helps to determine strength and how long it takes to crack a password. The shorter the password, the lower the number of possible combinations that need to be tested before the password is compromised. Use of more characters in a password helps to exponentially increase the time and/or resources required to compromise the password.

Use of a complex password helps to increase the time and resources required to compromise the password. Password complexity, or strength, is a measure of the effectiveness of a password in resisting attempts at guessing and brute-force attacks. Password complexity is one factor of several that determine how long it takes to crack a password. The more complex the password is, the greater the number of possible combinations that need to be tested before the password is compromised.

Use of a complex password helps to increase the time and resources required to compromise the password. Password complexity, or strength, is a measure of the effectiveness of a password in resisting attempts at guessing and brute-force attacks. Password complexity is one factor of several that determine how long it takes to crack a password. The more complex the password, the greater the number of possible combinations that need to be tested before the password is compromised.

Use of a complex password helps to increase the time and resources required to compromise the password. Password complexity, or strength, is a measure of the effectiveness of a password in resisting attempts at guessing and brute-force attacks. Password complexity is one factor in determining how long it takes to crack a password. The more complex the password, the greater the number of possible combinations that need to be tested before the password is compromised. Special characters are those characters that are not alphanumeric. Examples include: ~ ! @ # $ % ^ *.

Any password, no matter how complex, can eventually be cracked. Therefore, passwords need to be changed at specific intervals. One method of minimizing this risk is to use complex passwords and periodically change them. If the application does not limit the lifetime of passwords and force users to change their passwords, there is the risk that the system and/or application passwords could be compromised. This requirement does not include emergency administration accounts which are meant for access to the application in case of failure. These accounts are not required to have maximum password lifetime restrictions.

Lack of authentication and identification enables non-organizational users to gain access to the application or possibly other information systems and provides an opportunity for intruders to compromise resources within the application or information system. 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 and guest researchers). 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.

Terminating an idle session within a short time period reduces the window of opportunity for unauthorized personnel to take control of a management session enabled on the console or console port that has been left unattended. In addition, quickly terminating an idle session will also free up resources committed by the managed network element. Terminating network connections associated with communications sessions includes, for example, de-allocating associated TCP/IP address/port pairs at the operating system level, or de-allocating networking assignments at the application level if multiple application sessions are using a single, operating system level network connection. This does not mean that the application terminates all sessions or network access; it only ends the inactive session and releases the resources associated with that session.

An isolation boundary provides access control and protects the integrity of the hardware, software, and firmware that perform security functions. Security functions are the hardware, software, and/or firmware of the information system responsible for enforcing the system security policy and supporting the isolation of code and data on which the protection is based. Developers and implementers can increase the assurance in security functions by employing well-defined security policy models; structured, disciplined, and rigorous hardware and software development techniques; and sound system/security engineering principles. Implementation may include isolation of memory space and libraries. Applications restrict access to security functions through the use of access control mechanisms and by implementing least privilege capabilities.

DoS is a condition where a resource is not available for legitimate users. When this occurs, the organization either cannot accomplish its mission or must operate at degraded capacity. Individuals of concern can include hostile insiders or external adversaries that have successfully breached the information system and are using the system as a platform to launch cyber attacks on third parties. Applications and application developers must take the steps needed to ensure users cannot use an authorized application to launch DoS attacks against other systems and networks. For example, applications may include mechanisms that throttle network traffic so users are not able to generate unlimited network traffic via the application. Limiting system resources that are allocated to any user to a bare minimum may also reduce the ability of users to launch some DoS attacks. The methods employed to counter this risk will be dependent upon the application layer methods that can be used to exploit it.

DoS is a condition when a resource is not available for legitimate users. When this occurs, the organization either cannot accomplish its mission or must operate at degraded capacity. In the case of application DoS attacks, care must be taken when designing the application to ensure the application makes the best use of system resources. SQL queries have the potential to consume large amounts of CPU cycles if they are not tuned for optimal performance. Web services containing complex calculations requiring large amounts of time to complete can bog down if too many requests for the service are encountered within a short period of time. The methods employed to meet this requirement will vary depending upon the technology the application utilizes. However, a variety of technologies exist to limit or, in some cases, eliminate the effects of application related DoS attacks. Employing increased capacity and bandwidth combined with specialized application layer protection devices and service redundancy may reduce the susceptibility to some DoS attacks.

Malicious software detection applications need to be constantly updated in order to identify new threats as they are discovered. All malicious software detection software must come with an update mechanism that automatically updates the application and any associated signature definitions. The organization (including any contractor to the organization) is required to promptly install security-relevant malicious code protection software updates. Examples of relevant updates include anti-virus signatures, detection heuristic rule sets, and/or file reputation data employed to identify and/or block malicious software from executing. Malicious code includes viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and Spyware. This requirement applies to applications providing malicious code protection.

If personnel are not notified of failed security verification tests, they will not be able to take corrective action and the unsecure condition(s) will remain. Security function is defined as the hardware, software, and/or firmware of the information system responsible for enforcing the system security policy and supporting the isolation of code and data on which the protection is based. Security functionality includes, but is not limited to, establishing system accounts, configuring access authorizations (i.e., permissions, privileges), setting events to be audited, and setting intrusion detection parameters. Notifications provided by information systems include messages to local computer consoles, and/or hardware indications, such as lights. This requirement applies to applications performing security functions and the applications performing security function verification/testing.

Malicious code includes viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and spyware. The code provides the ability for a malicious user to read from and write to files and folders on a computer's hard drive. Malicious code may also be able to run and attach programs, which may allow the unauthorized distribution of malicious mobile code. Once this code is installed on endpoints within the network, unauthorized users may be able to breach firewalls and gain access to sensitive data. This requirement applies to applications providing malicious code protection. Malicious code protection mechanisms include, but are not limited, to, anti-virus and malware detection software. Malicious code protection mechanisms (including signature definitions and rule sets) must be updated when new releases are available.

Malicious code protection mechanisms include, but are not limited, to anti-virus and malware detection software. In order to minimize potential negative impact to the organization that can be caused by malicious code, it is imperative that malicious code is identified and eradicated. Malicious code includes viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and Spyware. It is not enough to simply have the software installed; this software must periodically scan the system to search for malware on an organization-defined frequency. This requirement applies to applications providing malicious code protection.

Malicious code protection mechanisms include, but are not limited, to, anti-virus and malware detection software. In order to minimize potential negative impact to the organization that can be caused by malicious code, it is imperative that malicious code is identified and eradicated. Malicious code includes viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and Spyware. It is not enough to simply have the software installed; this software must periodically scan the system to search for malware on an organization-defined frequency. This requirement applies to applications providing malicious code protection.

Malicious code protection mechanisms include, but are not limited, to anti-virus and malware detection software. In order to minimize potential negative impact to the organization that can be caused by malicious code, it is imperative that malicious code is identified and eradicated. Applications providing this capability must be able to perform actions in response to detected malware. Responses include blocking, quarantining, deleting, and alerting. Other technology- or organization-specific responses may also be employed to satisfy this requirement. Malicious code includes viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and Spyware. This requirement applies to applications providing malicious code protection.

Once an attacker establishes initial access to a system, the attacker often attempts to create a persistent method of re-establishing access. One way to accomplish this is for the attacker to simply create a new account. Notification of account creation is one method for mitigating this risk. A comprehensive account management process will ensure an audit trail which documents the creation of application user accounts and notifies administrators and Information System Security Officers (ISSO) exists. Such a process greatly reduces the risk that accounts will be surreptitiously created and provides logging that can be used for forensic purposes. To address access requirements, many application developers choose to integrate their applications with enterprise-level authentication/access/auditing mechanisms that meet or exceed access control policy requirements. Such integration allows the application developer to off-load those access control functions and focus on core application features and functionality.

Once an attacker establishes initial access to a system, the attacker often attempts to create a persistent method of re-establishing access. One way to accomplish this is for the attacker to simply modify an existing account. Notification of account modification is one method for mitigating this risk. A comprehensive account management process will ensure an audit trail which documents the creation of application user accounts and notifies administrators and Information System Security Officers (ISSOs) exists. Such a process greatly reduces the risk that accounts will be surreptitiously created and provides logging that can be used for forensic purposes. To address access requirements, many application developers choose to integrate their applications with enterprise-level authentication/access/auditing mechanisms that meet or exceed access control policy requirements. Such integration allows the application developer to off-load those access control functions and focus on core application features and functionality.

When application accounts are disabled, user accessibility is affected. Accounts are utilized for identifying individual application users or for identifying the application processes themselves. In order to detect and respond to events that affect user accessibility and application processing, applications must audit account disabling actions and, as required, notify the appropriate individuals so they can investigate the event. Such a capability greatly reduces the risk that application accessibility will be negatively affected for extended periods of time and also provides logging that can be used for forensic purposes. To address access requirements, many application developers choose to integrate their applications with enterprise-level authentication/access/auditing mechanisms that meet or exceed access control policy requirements. Such integration allows the application developer to off-load those access control functions and focus on core application features and functionality.

When application accounts are removed, user accessibility is affected. Accounts are utilized for identifying individual application users or for identifying the application processes themselves. In order to detect and respond to events that affect user accessibility and application processing, applications must audit account removal actions and, as required, notify the appropriate individuals so they can investigate the event. Such a capability greatly reduces the risk that application accessibility will be negatively affected for extended periods of time and also provides logging that can be used for forensic purposes. To address access requirements, many application developers choose to integrate their applications with enterprise-level authentication/access/auditing mechanisms that meet or exceed access control policy requirements. Such integration allows the application developer to off-load those access control functions and focus on core application features and functionality.

Once an attacker establishes initial access to a system, the attacker often attempts to create a persistent method of re-establishing access. One way to accomplish this is for the attacker to simply enable a new or disabled account. Notification of account enabling is one method for mitigating this risk. A comprehensive account management process will ensure an audit trail which documents the creation of application user accounts and notifies administrators and Information System Security Officers (ISSO) exists. Such a process greatly reduces the risk that accounts will be surreptitiously created and provides logging that can be used for forensic purposes. To address access requirements, many application developers choose to integrate their applications with enterprise-level authentication/access/auditing mechanisms that meet or exceed access control policy requirements. Such integration allows the application developer to off-load those access control functions and focus on core application features and functionality.

Once an attacker establishes initial access to a system, the attacker often attempts to create a persistent method of re-establishing access. One way to accomplish this is for the attacker to simply enable a new or disabled account. Notification of account enabling is one method for mitigating this risk. A comprehensive account management process will ensure an audit trail which documents the creation of application user accounts and notifies administrators and ISSOs exists. Such a process greatly reduces the risk that accounts will be surreptitiously enabled and provides logging that can be used for forensic purposes. In order to detect and respond to events that affect user accessibility and application processing, applications must audit account enabling actions and, as required, notify the appropriate individuals so they can investigate the event. To address access requirements, many application developers choose to integrate their applications with enterprise-level authentication/access/auditing mechanisms that meet or exceed access control policy requirements. Such integration allows the application developer to off-load those access control functions and focus on core application features and functionality.

Misuse of privileged functions, either intentionally or unintentionally by authorized users, or by unauthorized external entities that have compromised information system accounts, is a serious and ongoing concern and can have significant adverse impacts on organizations. Auditing the use of privileged functions is one way to detect such misuse, and identify the risk from insider threats and the advanced persistent threat.

Information stored in one location is vulnerable to accidental or incidental deletion or alteration. Off-loading is a common process in information systems with limited audit storage capacity.

If security personnel are not notified immediately upon storage volume utilization reaching 75%, they are unable to plan for storage capacity expansion.

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. 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).

Unauthorized software not only increases risk by increasing the number of potential vulnerabilities, it also can contain malicious code. Sending an alert (in real time) when unauthorized software is detected allows designated personnel to take action on the installation of unauthorized software. This requirement applies to configuration management applications or similar types of applications designed to manage system processes and configurations (e.g., HBSS and software wrappers).

Allowing regular users to install software, without explicit privileges, creates the risk that untested or potentially malicious software will be installed on the system. Explicit privileges (escalated or administrative privileges) provide the regular user with explicit capabilities and control that exceeds the rights of a regular user. Application functionality will vary, and while users are not permitted to install unapproved applications, there may be instances where the organization allows the user to install approved software packages such as from an approved software repository. The application must enforce software installation by users based upon what types of software installations are permitted (e.g., updates and security patches to existing software) and what types of installations are prohibited (e.g., software whose pedigree with regard to being potentially malicious is unknown or suspect) by the organization. This requirement applies, for example, to applications that provide the ability to extend application functionality (e.g., plug-ins, add-ons) and software management applications.

Unauthorized changes to the baseline configuration could make the system vulnerable to various attacks or allow unauthorized access to the system. Changes to information system configurations can have unintended side effects, some of which may be relevant to security. Detecting such changes and providing an automated response can help avoid unintended, negative consequences that could ultimately affect the security state of the application. Examples of security responses include, but are not limited to the following: halting application processing; halting selected application functions; or issuing alerts/notifications to organizational personnel when there is an unauthorized modification of a configuration item.

Failure to provide logical access restrictions associated with changes to application configuration may have significant effects on the overall security of the system. When dealing with access restrictions pertaining to change control, it should be noted that any changes to the hardware, software, and/or firmware components of the information system and/or application can potentially have significant effects on the overall security of the system. Accordingly, only qualified and authorized individuals should be allowed to obtain access to application components for the purposes of initiating changes, including upgrades and modifications. Logical access restrictions include, for example, controls that restrict access to workflow automation, media libraries, abstract layers (e.g., changes implemented into third-party interfaces rather than directly into information systems), and change windows (e.g., changes occur only during specified times, making unauthorized changes easy to discover).

Without auditing the enforcement of access restrictions against changes to the application configuration, it will be difficult to identify attempted attacks and an audit trail will 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.

Untrusted Certificate Authorities (CA) can issue certificates, but they may be issued by organizations or individuals that seek to compromise DoD systems or by organizations with insufficient security controls. If the CA used for verifying the certificate is not a DoD-approved CA, trust of this CA has not been established. The DoD will only accept PKI certificates obtained from a DoD-approved internal or external certificate authority. Reliance on CAs for the establishment of secure sessions includes, for example, the use of SSL/TLS certificates. This requirement focuses on communications protection for the application session rather than for the network packet. This requirement applies to applications that utilize communications sessions. This includes, but is not limited to, web-based applications and Service-Oriented Architectures (SOA).

Applications can maintain separate execution domains for each executing process by assigning each process a separate address space. Each process has a distinct address space so that communication between processes is performed in a manner controlled through the security functions, and one process cannot modify the executing code of another process. Maintaining separate execution domains for executing processes can be achieved, for example, by implementing separate address spaces. An example is a web browser with process isolation that provides tabs that are separate processes using separate address spaces to prevent one tab crashing the entire browser.

DoS is a condition when a resource is not available for legitimate users. When this occurs, the organization either cannot accomplish its mission or must operate at degraded capacity. This requirement addresses the configuration of applications to mitigate the impact of DoS attacks that have occurred or are ongoing on application availability. For each application, known and potential DoS attacks must be identified and solutions for each type implemented. A variety of technologies exist to limit or, in some cases, eliminate the effects of DoS attacks (e.g., limiting processes or restricting the number of sessions the application opens at one time). Employing increased capacity and bandwidth, combined with service redundancy, may reduce the susceptibility to some DoS attacks.

Some adversaries launch attacks with the intent of executing code in non-executable regions of memory or in memory locations that are prohibited. Security safeguards employed to protect memory include, for example, data execution prevention and address space layout randomization. Data execution prevention safeguards can either be hardware-enforced or software-enforced with hardware providing the greater strength of mechanism. Examples of attacks are buffer overflow attacks.

Security flaws with software applications 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 that are used to install patches across the enclave and also to applications themselves that are 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).

Unauthorized or unapproved network services lack organizational verification or validation and therefore, may be unreliable or serve as malicious rogues for valid services. This requirement can be addressed by a host-based IDS capability or by remote scanning functionality.

Unauthorized or unapproved network services lack organizational verification or validation and therefore, may be unreliable or serve as malicious rogues for valid services. The detection of such unauthorized services must be logged and appropriate personnel must be notified. This requirement can be addressed by a host-based IDS capability or by remote scanning functionality.

Evidence of malicious code is used to identify potentially compromised information systems or information system components. Unusual/unauthorized activities or conditions related to information system inbound communications traffic include, for example, internal traffic that indicates the presence of malicious code within organizational information systems or propagating among system components, the unauthorized exporting of information, or signaling to external information systems. This requirement applies to applications that provide monitoring capability for unusual/unauthorized activities including, but are not limited to, host-based intrusion detection, anti-virus, and malware applications.

When a security event occurs, the application that has detected the event must immediately notify the appropriate support personnel so they can respond appropriately. Alerts may be generated from a variety of sources, including, audit records or inputs from malicious code protection mechanisms, intrusion detection, or prevention mechanisms. Alerts may be transmitted, for example, telephonically, by electronic mail messages, or by text messaging. Individuals designated by the local organization to receive alerts may include, for example, system administrators, mission/business owners, or system owners. IOCs are forensic artifacts from intrusions that are identified on organizational information systems (at the host or network level). IOCs provide organizations with valuable information on objects or information systems that have been compromised. These indicators reflect the occurrence of a compromise or a potential compromise. This requirement applies to applications that provide monitoring capability for unusual/unauthorized activities including, but are not limited to, host-based intrusion detection, anti-virus, and malware applications.

If anomalies are not acted upon, security functions may fail to secure the system. Security function is defined as the hardware, software, and/or firmware of the information system responsible for enforcing the system security policy and supporting the isolation of code and data on which the protection is based. Security functionality includes, but is not limited to, establishing system accounts, configuring access authorizations (i.e., permissions, privileges), setting events to be audited, and setting intrusion detection parameters. Notifications provided by information systems include messages to local computer consoles, and/or hardware indications, such as lights. This requirement applies to applications performing security functions and the applications performing security function verification/testing.

Unauthorized changes to software, firmware, and information can occur due to errors or malicious activity (e.g., tampering). Information includes metadata, such as security attributes associated with information. State-of-the-practice integrity-checking mechanisms (e.g., parity checks, cyclical redundancy checks, cryptographic hashes) and associated tools can automatically monitor the integrity of information systems and hosted applications. Organizations may define different integrity checking and anomaly responses by type of information (e.g., firmware, software, user data); by specific information (e.g., boot firmware, boot firmware for a specific types of machines); or a combination of both. Automatic implementation of specific safeguards within organizational information systems includes, for example, reversing the changes, halting the information system, restarting the information system, notification to the appropriate personnel or roles, or triggering audit alerts when unauthorized modifications to critical security files occur. This capability must take into account operational requirements for availability for selecting an appropriate response.

Without generating audit records that are specific to the security and mission needs of the organization, 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 information system (e.g., module or policy filter).

Without generating audit records that are specific to the security and mission needs of the organization, 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 information system (e.g., module or policy filter).

Without generating audit records that are specific to the security and mission needs of the organization, 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 information system (e.g., module or policy filter).

Without generating audit records that are specific to the security and mission needs of the organization, 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 information system (e.g., module or policy filter).

Without generating audit records that are specific to the security and mission needs of the organization, 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 information system (e.g., module or policy filter).

Without generating audit records that are specific to the security and mission needs of the organization, 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 information system (e.g., module or policy filter).

Without generating audit records that are specific to the security and mission needs of the organization, 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 information system (e.g., module or policy filter).

Without generating audit records that are specific to the security and mission needs of the organization, 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 information system (e.g., module or policy filter).

Without generating audit records that are specific to the security and mission needs of the organization, 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 information system (e.g., module or policy filter).

Without generating audit records that are specific to the security and mission needs of the organization, 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 information system (e.g., module or policy filter).

Without generating audit records that are specific to the security and mission needs of the organization, 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 information system (e.g., module or policy filter).

Information stored in one location is vulnerable to accidental or incidental deletion or alteration. Off-loading is a common process in information systems with limited audit storage capacity.

Configuring the application 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. Configuration settings are the set of parameters that can be changed that affect the security posture and/or functionality of the system. Security-related parameters are those parameters impacting the security state of the application, including the parameters required to satisfy other security control requirements.

Use of a complex password helps to increase the time and resources required to compromise the password. Password complexity, or strength, is a measure of the effectiveness of a password in resisting attempts at guessing and brute-force attacks. Password complexity is one factor of several that determine how long it takes to crack a password. The more complex the password, the greater the number of possible combinations that need to be tested before the password is compromised.