The Top 10, Top Predictions for 2012
Around this time of year, almost everyone and their brother put out their annual predictions for the coming year. So instead of coming up with my own, I figured I’d simply regurgitate what many others are expecting to happen. Security Predictions 2012 & 2013 - The Emerging Security Threat – SANS talks Custom Malware, IPv6, ARM hacking and Social Media. Top 7 Cybersecurity Predictions for 2012 - From Stuxnet to Sony, a number of cyberattacks emerged in 2011 that experts have predicted for quite some time. Webroot’s top seven forecasts for the year ahead. Zero-day targets and smartphones are on this list. Top 8 Security Predictions for 2012 – Fortinet’s Security Predictions for 2012. Sponsored attacks and SCADA Under the Scope. Security Predictions for 2012 - With all of the crazy 2011 security breaches, exploits and notorious hacks, what can we expect for 2012? Websense looks at blended attacks, social media identity and SSL. Top 5 Security Predictions For 2012 – The escalating change in the threat landscape is something that drives the need for comprehensive security ever-forward. Firewalls and regulations in this one. Gartner Predicts 2012 – Special report addressing the continuing trend toward the reduction of control IT has over the forces that affect it. Cloud, mobile, data management and context-aware computing. 2012 Cyber Security Predictions – Predicts cybercriminals will use cyber-antics during the U.S. presidential election and will turn cell phones into ATMs. Top Nine Cyber Security Trends for 2012 – Imperva’s predictions for the top cyber security trends for 2012. DDoS, HTML 5 and social media. Internet Predictions for 2012 – QR codes and Flash TOP 15 Internet Marketing Predictions for 2012 – Mobile SEO, Social Media ROI and location based marketing. Certainly not an exhaustive list of all the various 2012 predictions including the doomsday and non-doomsday claims but a good swath of what the experts believe is coming. Wonder if anyone predicted that Targeted attacks increased four-fold in 2011. ps Technorati Tags: F5, cyber security, predictions, 2012, Pete Silva, security, mobile, vulnerabilities, crime, social media, hacks, the tube, internet, identity theftSANS 20 Critical Security Controls
A couple days ago, The SANS Institute announced the release of a major update (Version 3.0) to the 20 Critical Controls, a prioritized baseline of information security measures designed to provide continuous monitoring to better protect government and commercial computers and networks from cyber attacks. The information security threat landscape is always changing, especially this year with the well publicized breaches. The particular controls have been tested and provide an effective solution to defending against cyber-attacks. The focus is critical technical areas than can help an organization prioritize efforts to protect against the most common and dangerous attacks. Automating security controls is another key area, to help gauge and improve the security posture of an organization. The update takes into account the information gleaned from law enforcement agencies, forensics experts and penetration testers who have analyzed the various methods of attack. SANS outlines the controls that would have prevented those attacks from being successful. Version 3.0 was developed to take the control framework to the next level. They have realigned the 20 controls and the associated sub-controls based on the current technology and threat environment, including the new threat vectors. Sub-controls have been added to assist with rapid detection and prevention of attacks. The 20 Controls have been aligned to the NSA’s Associated Manageable Network Plan Revision 2.0 Milestones. They have added definitions, guidelines and proposed scoring criteria to evaluate tools for their ability to satisfy the requirements of each of the 20 Controls. Lastly, they have mapped the findings of the Australian Government Department of Defence, which produced the Top 35 Key Mitigation Strategies, to the 20 Controls, providing measures to help reduce the impact of attacks. The 20 Critical Security Controls are: Inventory of Authorized and Unauthorized Devices Inventory of Authorized and Unauthorized Software Secure Configurations for Hardware and Software on Laptops, Workstations, and Servers Secure Configurations for Network Devices such as Firewalls, Routers, and Switches Boundary Defense Maintenance, Monitoring, and Analysis of Security Audit Logs Application Software Security Controlled Use of Administrative Privileges Controlled Access Based on the Need to Know Continuous Vulnerability Assessment and Remediation Account Monitoring and Control Malware Defenses Limitation and Control of Network Ports, Protocols, and Services Wireless Device Control Data Loss Prevention Secure Network Engineering Penetration Tests and Red Team Exercises Incident Response Capability Data Recovery Capability Security Skills Assessment and Appropriate Training to Fill Gaps And of course, F5 has solutions that can help with most, if not all, the 20 Critical Controls. ps Resources: SANS 20 Critical Controls Top 35 Mitigation Strategies: DSD Defence Signals Directorate NSA Manageable Network Plan (pdf) Internet Storm Center Google Report: How Web Attackers Evade Malware Detection F5 Security SolutionsIPS or WAF Dilemma
As they endeavor to secure their systems from malicious intrusion attempts, many companies face the same decision: whether to use a web application firewall (WAF) or an intrusion detection or prevention system (IDS/IPS). But this notion that only one or the other is the solution is faulty. Attacks occur at different layers of the OSI model and they often penetrate multiple layers of either the stack or the actual system infrastructure. Attacks are also evolving—what once was only a network layer attack has shifted into a multi-layer network and application attack. For example, malicious intruders may start with a network-based attack, like denial of service (DoS), and once that takes hold, quickly launch another wave of attacks targeted at layer 7 (the application). Ultimately, this should not be an either/or discussion. Sound security means not only providing the best security at one layer, but at all layers. Otherwise organizations have a closed gate with no fence around it. Often, IDS and IPS devices are deployed as perimeter defense mechanisms, with an IPS placed in line to monitor network traffic as packets pass through. The IPS tries to match data in the packets to data in a signature database, and it may look for anomalies in the traffic. IPSs can also take action based on what it has detected, for instance by blocking or stopping the traffic. IPSs are designed to block the types of traffic that they identify as threatening, but they do not understand web application protocol logic and cannot decipher if a web application request is normal or malicious. So if the IPS does not have a signature for a new attack type, it could let that attack through without detection or prevention. With millions of websites and innumerable exploitable vulnerabilities available to attackers, IPSs fail when web application protection is required. They may identify false positives, which can delay response to actual attacks. And actual attacks might also be accepted as normal traffic if they happen frequently enough since an analyst may not be able to review every anomaly. WAFs have greatly matured since the early days. They can create a highly customized security policy for a specific web application. WAFs can not only reference signature databases, but use rules that describe what good traffic should look like with generic attack signatures to give web application firewalls the strongest mitigation possible. WAFs are designed to protect web applications and block the majority of the most common and dangerous web application attacks. They are deployed inline as a proxy, bridge, or a mirror port out of band and can even be deployed on the web server itself, where they can audit traffic to and from the web servers and applications, and analyze web application logic. They can also manipulate responses and requests and hide the TCP stack of the web server. Instead of matching traffic against a signature or anomaly file, they watch the behavior of the web requests and responses. IPSs and WAFs are similar in that they analyze traffic; but WAFs can protect against web-based threats like SQL injections, session hijacking, XSS, parameter tampering, and other threats identified in the OWASP Top 10. Some WAFs may contain signatures to block well-known attacks, but they also understand the web application logic. In addition to protecting the web application from known attacks, WAFs can also detect and potentially prevent unknown attacks. For instance, a WAF may observe an unusually large amount of traffic coming from the web application. The WAF can flag it as unusual or unexpected traffic, and can block that data. A signature-based IPS has very little understanding of the underlying application. It cannot protect URLs or parameters. It does not know if an attacker is web-scraping, and it cannot mask sensitive information like credit cards and Social Security numbers. It could protect against specific SQL injections, but it would have to match the signatures perfectly to trigger a response, and it does not normalize or decode obfuscated traffic. One advantage of IPSs is that they can protect the most commonly used Internet protocols, such as DNS, SMTP, SSH, Telnet, and FTP. The best security implementation will likely involve both an IPS and a WAF, but organizations should also consider which attack vectors are getting traction in the malicious hacking community. An IDS or IPS has only one solution to those problems: signatures. Signatures alone can’t protect against zero-day attacks for example; proactive URLs, parameters, allowed methods, and deep application knowledge are essential to this task. And if a zero-day attack does occur, an IPS’s signatures can’t offer any protection. However if a zero-day attack occurs that a WAF doesn’t detect, it can still be virtually patched using F5’s iRules until a there’s a permanent fix. A security conversation should be about how to provide the best layered defense. Web application firewalls like BIG-IP ASM protects traffic at multiple levels, using several techniques and mechanisms. IPS just reads the stream of data, hoping that traffic matches its one technique: signatures. Web application firewalls are unique in that they can detect and prevent attacks against a web application. They provide an in-depth inspection of web traffic and can protect against many of the same vulnerabilities that IPSs look for. They are not designed, however, to purely inspect network traffic like an IPS. If an organization already has an IPS as part of the infrastructure, the ideal secure infrastructure would include a WAF to enhance the capabilities offered with an IPS. This is a best practice of layered defenses. The WAF provides yet another layer of protection within an organization’s infrastructure and can protect against many attacks that would sail through an IPS. If an organization has neither, the WAF would provide the best application protection overall. ps Related: 3 reasons you need a WAF even if your code is (you think) secure Web App Attacks Rise, Disclosed Bugs Decline Next-Gen Firewalls Make Old Arguments New Again Why Developers Should Demand Web App Firewalls. Too Dangerous to Enter? Asian IT security study finds enterprises revising strategy to accommodate new IT trends Protecting the navigation layer from cyber attacks OWASP Top Ten Project F5 Case Study: WhiteHat Security Technorati Tags: F5, PCI DSS, waf, owasp, Pete Silva, security, ips, vulnerabilities, compliance, web, internet, cybercrime, web application, identity theftICSA Certified Network Firewall for Data Centers
The BIG-IP platform is now ICSA Certified as a Network Firewall. Internet threats are widely varied and multi-layered. Although applications and their data are attackers’ primary targets, many attackers gain entry at the network layer. Internet data centers and public-facing web properties are constant targets for large-scale attacks by hacker/hactivist communities and others looking to grab intellectual property or cause a service outage. Organizations must prepare for the normal influx of users, but they also must defend their infrastructure from the daily barrage of malicious users. Security administrators who manage large web properties are struggling with security because traditional firewalls are not meeting their fundamental performance needs. Dynamic and layered attacks that necessitate multiple-box solutions, add to IT distress. Traditional firewalls can be overwhelmed by their limited ability to scale under a DDoS attack while keeping peak connection performance for valid users, which renders not only the firewalls themselves unresponsive, but the web sites they are supposed to protect. Additionally, traditional firewalls’ limited capacity to interpret context means they may be unable to make an intelligent decision about how to deliver the application while also keeping services available for valid requests during a DDoS attack. Traditional firewalls also lack specialized capabilities like SSL offload, which not only helps reduce the load on the web servers, but enables inspection, re-encryption, and certificate storage. Most traditional firewalls lack the agility to react quickly to changes and emerging threats, and many have only limited ability to provide new services such as IP geolocation, traffic redirection, traffic manipulation, content scrubbing, and connection limiting. An organization’s inability to respond to these threats dynamically, and to minimize the exposure window, means the risk to the overall business is massive. There are several point solutions in the market that concentrate on specific problem areas; but this creates security silos that only make management and maintenance more costly, more cumbersome, and less effective. The BIG-IP platform provides a unified view of layer 3 through 7 for both general and ICSA required reporting and alerts, as well as integration with SIEM vendors. BIG-IP Local Traffic Manager offers native, high-performance firewall services to protect the entire infrastructure. BIG-IP LTM is a purpose-built, high-performance Application Delivery Controller designed to protect Internet data centers. In many instances, BIG-IP LTM can replace an existing firewall while also offering scale, performance, and persistence. Performance: BIG-IP LTM manages up to 48 million concurrent connections and 72 Gbps of throughput with various timeout behaviors, buffer sizes, and more when under attack. Protocol security: The BIG-IP system natively decodes IPv4, IPv6, TCP, HTTP, SIP, DNS, SMTP, FTP, Diameter, and RADIUS. Organizations can control almost every element of the protocols they’re deploying. DDoS prevention capabilities: An integrated architecture enables organizations to combine traditional firewall layers 3 and 4 with application layers 5 through 7. DDoS mitigations: The BIG-IP system protects UDP, TCP, SIP, DNS, HTTP, SSL, and other network attack targets while delivering uninterrupted service for legitimate connections. SSL termination: Offload computationally intensive SSL to the BIG-IP system and gain visibility into potentially harmful encrypted payloads. Dynamic threat mitigation: iRules provide a flexible way to enforce protocol functions on both standard and emerging or custom protocols. With iRules, organizations can create a zero day dynamic security context to react to vulnerabilities for which an associated patch has not yet been released. Resource cloaking and content security: Prevent leaks of error codes and sensitive content. F5 BIG-IP LTM has numerous security features so Internet data centers can deliver applications while protecting the infrastructure that supports their clients and, BIG-IP is now ICSA Certified as a Network Firewall. ps Resources: F5’s Certified Firewall Protects Against Large-Scale Cyber Attacks on Public-Facing Websites F5 BIG-IP Data Center Firewall – Overview BIG-IP Data Center Firewall Solution – SlideShare Presentation High Performance Firewall for Data Centers – Solution Profile The New Data Center Firewall Paradigm – White Paper Vulnerability Assessment with Application Security – White Paper Challenging the Firewall Data Center Dogma Technorati Tags: F5, big-ip, virtualization, cloud computing, Pete Silva, security, icsa, iApp, compliance, network firewall, internet, TMOS, big-ip, vCMPThe Exec-Disconnect on IT Security
Different Chiefs give Different Security Stories. A recent survey shows that there is a wide gap between CEOs and Chief Security Officers when it comes to the origin and seriousness of security threats. They differ on how they view threats to IT Infrastructure and remain far apart on how to best address an issue that according to analyst reports, costs organizations more than $30 billion annually. The survey of 100 CEOs and 100 CISO (or other C-levels with security responsibility), shows that the discrepancy is often due to lack of communication. 36% of CEOs said that they never get a security report from their CISO and only 27% receive updates on a regular basis. Is it the CISO that doesn’t report back or the CEO that is not interested? Let’s look at some more data. The CISO felt that the biggest threat was from internal (their employees) due to lack of education and attention while the CEO felt that the biggest threat was from the outside, such as phishing attacks. Thus, 61% of CEOs said they did have enough time and resources to adequately train the staff on how to mitigate threats while Only 27% of CISOs felt the same. It’s opposite day. When asked if their IT systems were ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ under attack without their knowledge, 58% of CISOs said yes while only 26% of CEOs agreeing. The chasm grows. What percentage of each, do you think, said they were very concerned about their IT systems getting hacked? 30 seconds on the clock, please. Don’t peek. Only 15% of CEOs and ‘only’ 62% of CISOs are anxious about breaches. 15%? That’s it? Maybe they have great confidence in their security team…or, they don’t have the information. 65% of CEOs admitted to not having the sufficient data needed to interpret how security threats translate to overall business risk. Wow, the very day-to-day operations. Granted, the CEO is further removed from the specific threats and how they are handled but there is clearly a distance between how each views threats and the company’s ability to successfully mitigate them. Lack of interest or lack of understanding/information? Probably both. An old adage was that a great boss hired people who were good at the things he/she wasn’t so good at. Surround yourself with those who know their areas better. Or maybe there is a culture that you don’t alert the top unless it’s dire, critical or unstoppable. Communication or interest, it is evident that the C-suite isn’t really talking about these critical business issues especially when 3 times as many CEOs worried about losing their jobs following an attack than did CISOs. ps References SECURITY: A LACK OF CEO INSIGHT OR CEO INTEREST? CEOs Lack Visibility Into Origin and Seriousness of Security Threats Talking About Security Bores the Boss, Survey Shows Myth or Fact? Debunking 15 of the Biggest Information Security Myths The CEO/CISO Disconnect InfographicWhere Do You Wear Your Malware?
The London Stock Exchange, Android phones and even the impenetrable Mac have all been malware targets recently. If you’re connected to the internet, you are at risk. It is no surprise that the crooks will go after whatever device people are using to conduct their life – mobile for example, along with trying to achieve that great financial heist….’if we can just get this one big score, then we can hang up our botnets and retire!’ Perhaps Homer Simpson said it best, ‘Ooh, Mama! This is finally really happening. After years of disappointment with get-rich-quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get Rich with this scheme...and quick!’ Maybe we call this the Malware Mantra! Malware has been around for a while, has changed and evolved over the years and we seem to have accepted it as part of the landmines we face when navigating the internet. I would guess that we might not even think about malware until it has hit us….which is typical when it comes to things like this. Out of sight, Out of mind. I don’t think ‘absence makes the heart grow fonder’ works with malware. We certainly take measures to guard ourselves, anti-virus/firewall/spoof toolbars/etc, which gives us the feeling of protection and we click away thinking that our sentinels will destroy anything that comes our way. Not always so. It was reported that the London Stock Exchange was delivering malvertising to it’s visitors. The LSE site itself was not infected but the pop-up ads from the site delivered some nice fake warnings saying the computer was infected and in danger. This is huge business for cybercriminals since they insert their code with the third-party advertiser and never need to directly attack the main site. Many sites rely on third-party ads so this is yet another area to be cautious of. One of the things that Web 2.0 brought was the ability to deliver or feed other sites with content. If you use NoScript with Firefox on your favorite news site (or any major site for that matter), you can see the amazing amount of content coming from other sources. Sometimes, 8-10 or more domains are listed as content generators so be very careful as to which ones you allow. With the success of the Android platform, it also becomes a target. This particular mobile malware looks and acts like the actual app. The problem is that it also installs a backdoor to the phone and asks for additional permissions. Once installed, it can connect to a command server and receive instructions; including sending text messages, add URL’s/direct a browser to a site along with installing additional software. The phone becomes part of a botnet. Depending on your contract, all these txt can add up leading to a bill that looks like you just bought a car. In fact, Google has just removed 21 free apps from the Android Market saying its malware designed to get root access to the user’s device. They were all masquerading as legitimate games and utilities. If you got one of these, it’s highly recommended that you simply take your phone back to the carrier and swap it for a new one, since there’s no way of telling what has been compromised. As malware continues to evolve, the mobile threat is not going away. This RSA2011 recap predicts mobile device management as the theme for RSA2012. And in related news, F5 recently released our Edge Portal application for the Android Market – malware free. Up front, I’m not a Mac user. I like them, used them plenty over the years and am not opposed to getting one in the future, just owned Windows devices most of my life. Probably due to the fact that my dad was an IBM’r for 30 years. Late last week, stories started to appear about some beta malware targeting Macs. It is called BlackHole RAT. It is derived from a Windows family of trojans and re-written to target Mac. It is spreading through torrent sites and seems to be a proof-of-concept of what potentially can be accomplished. Reports say that it can do remote control of an infected machine, open web pages, display messages and force re-boots. There is also some disagreement around the web as to the seriousness of the threat but despite that, criminals are trying. Once we all get our IPv6 chips installed in our earlobes and are able to take calls by pulling on our ear, a la Carol Burnett style, I wonder when the first computer to human virus will be reported. The wondering is over, it has already happened. ps Resources: London Stock Exchange site shows malicious adverts When malware messes with the markets Android an emerging target for cyber criminals Google pulls 21 apps in Android malware scare More Android mobile malware surfaces in third-party app repositories Infected Android app runs up big texting bills Ignoring mobile hype? Don't overlook growing mobile device threats "BlackHole" malware, in beta, aims for Mac users Mac Trojan uses Windows backdoor code I'll Believe Mac malware is a problem when I see it BlackHole RAT is Really No Big Deal 20 years of innovative Windows malware Edge Portal application on Android Market5 Stages of a Data Breach
One thing I’ve noticed over the last couple years is that there are 5 Stages of a Data Breach: Denial: We do not believe these attacks breached our critical servers. Anger: We want to make it clear that we take security seriously! Bargaining: We’d like to offer our affected customers a credit monitoring service. Depression: We wish we could have done things differently. Acceptance: Well, it just shows that no one is safe from hackers. ps Technorati Tags: F5, cyber-crime, trojan, Pete Silva, security, business, education, 5 stages, cyber war, hackers, breach, verisign, internet, security, privacy,Custom Code for Targeted Attacks
Botnets? Old school. Spam? So yesterday. Phishing? Don’t even bother…well, on second thought. Spaghetti hacking like spaghetti marketing, toss it and see what sticks, is giving way to specific development of code (or stealing other code) to breach a particular entity. In the past few weeks, giants like Sony, Google, Citibank, Lockheed and others have fallen victim to serious intrusions. The latest to be added to that list: The IMF – International Monetary Fund. IMF is an international, intergovernmental organization which oversees the global financial system. First created to help stabilize the global economic system, they oversee exchange rates and functions to improve the economies of the member countries, which are primarily the 187 members of the UN. In this latest intrusion, it has been reported that this might have been the result of ‘spear phishing,’ getting someone to click a malicious but valid looking link to install malware. The malware however was apparently developed specifically for this attack. There was also a good amount of exploration prior to the attempt – call it spying. So once again, while similar to other breaches where unsuspecting human involvement helped trigger the break, this one seems to be using purpose built malware. As with any of these high-profile attacks, the techniques used to gain unauthorized access are slow to be divulged but insiders have said it was a significant breach with emails and other documents taken in this heist. While a good portion of the recent attacks are digging for personal information, this certainly looks more like government espionage looking for sensitive information pertaining to nations. Without directly pointing, many are fingering groups backed by foreign governments in this latest encroachment. A year (and longer) ago, most of these types of breaches would be kept under wraps for a while until someone leaked it. There was a hesitation to report it due to the media coverage and public scrutiny. Now that many of these attacks are targeting large international organizations with very sophisticated methods there seems to be a little more openness in exposing the invasion. Hopefully this can lead to more cooperation amongst many different groups/organizations/governments to help defend against these. Exposing the exposure also informs the general public of the potential dangers even though it might not be happening to them directly. If an article, blog or other story helps folks be a little more cautious with whatever they are doing online, even preventing someone from simply clicking an email/social media/IM/txt link, then hopefully less people will fall victim. Since we have Web 2.0 and Infrastructure 2.0, it might be time to adopt Hacking 2.0, except for the fact that Noah Schiffman talks about misuse and all the two-dot-oh-ness, particularly Hacking 2.0 in an article 3 years ago. He mentions, ‘Security is a process’ and I certainly agree. Plus I love, ‘If the term Hacking 2.0 is adopted, or even suggested, by anyone, their rights to free speech should be revoked.’ So how about Intrusion 2.0? ps Resources: Inside The Terrifying IMF Hack: Who The Hackers Were And What They Took IMF Hacked; No End in Sight to Security Horror Shows Join the Club: International Monetary Fund Gets Hacked IMF State-Backed Cyber-Attack Follows Hacks of Atomic Lab, G-20 IMF cyber attack boosts calls for global action I.M.F. Reports Cyberattack Led to ‘Very Major Breach’ IMF Network Hit By Sophisticated Cyberattack Where Do You Wear Your Malware? The Big Attacks are Back…Not That They Ever Stopped Technology Can Only Do So Much 3 Billion Malware Attacks and Counting Unplug Everything! And The Hits Keep Coming Security Phreak: Web 2.0, Security 2.0 and Hacking 2.0 F5 Security SolutionsDefense in Depth in Context
In the days of yore, a military technique called Defense-in-Depth was used to protect kingdoms, castles, and other locations where you might be vulnerable to attack. It's a layered defense strategy where the attacker would have to breach several layers of protection to finally reach the intended target. It allows the defender to spread their resources and not put all of the protection in one location. It's also a multifaceted approach to protection in that there are other mechanisms in place to help; and it's redundant so if a component failed or is compromised, there are others that are ready to step in to keep the protection in tack. Information technology also recognizes this technique as one of the 'best practices' when protecting systems. The infrastructure and systems they support are fortified with a layered security approach. There are firewalls at the edge and often, security mechanisms at every segment of the network. Circumvent one, the next layer should net them. There is one little flaw with the Defense-in-Depth strategy - it is designed to slow down attacks, not necessarily stop them. It gives you time to mobilize a counter-offensive and it's an expensive and complex proposition if you are an attacker. It's more of a deterrent than anything and ultimately, the attacker could decide that the benefits of continuing the attack outweigh the additional costs. In the digital world, it is also interpreted as redundancy. Place multiple iterations of a defensive mechanism within the path of the attacker. The problem is that the only way to increase the cost and complexity for the attacker is to raise the cost and complexity of your own defenses. Complexity is the kryptonite of good security and what you really need is security based on context. Context takes into account the environment or conditions surrounding an event to make an informed decision about how to apply security. This is especially true when protecting a database. Database firewalls are critical components to protecting your valuable data and can stop a SQL Injection attack, for instance, in an instant. What they lack is the ability to decipher contextual data like userid, session, cookie, browser type, IP address, location and other meta-data of who or what actually performed the attack. While it can see that a particular SQL query is invalid, it cannot decipher who made the request. Web Application Firewalls on the other hand can gather user side information since many of its policy decisions are based on the user's context. A WAF monitors every request and response from the browser to the web application and consults a policy to determine if the action and data are allowed. It uses such information as user, session, cookie and other contextual data to decide if it is a valid request. Independent technologies that protect against web attacks or database attacks are available, but they have not been linked to provide unified notification and reporting. Now imagine if your database was protected by a layered, defense-in-depth architecture along with the contextual information to make informed, intelligent decisions about database security incidents. The integration of BIG-IP ASM with Oracle's Database Firewall offers the database protection that Oracle is known for and the contextual intelligence that is baked into every F5 solution. Unified reporting for both the application firewall and database firewall provides more convenient and comprehensive security monitoring. Integration between the two security solutions offers a holistic approach to protecting web and database tiers from SQL injection type of attacks. The integration gives you the layered protection many security professionals recognize as a best practice, plus the contextual information needed to make intelligent decisions about what action to take. This solution provides improved SQL injection protection to F5 customers and correlated reporting for richer forensic information on SQL injection attacks to Oracle database customers. It’s an end-to-end web application and database security solution to protect data, customers, and their businesses. ps Resources: F5 Joins with Oracle to Offer Enhanced Security for Web-Based Database Applications Security for Web-Based Database Applications Enhanced With F5 and Oracle Product Integration Using Oracle Database Firewall with BIG-IP ASM F5 Networks Adds To Oracle Database Oracle Database Firewall BIG-IP Application Security Manager The “True Security Company” Red Herring F5 Friday: Two Heads are Better Than One
