Apostol Vassilev, Technical Director, Research Lead–STVM, Computer Security Division, NIST
Barry Fussel, Senior Software Engineer, Cisco Systems
Take a look at Verizon's Breach report. It's been going on for 9 years, and we see things are not getting better. It takes attackers only minutes to subvert your security and they are financially motivated. Most of the industry doesn't even have mature patching process.
We hope validation can help here, but vendors complain it takes too long, the testing depth is too shallow, and it is too costly and rigid.
In the past, we leveraged code reviews to make sure code was correctly implemented. Data shows that code reviews, though, only find 50% of the bugs. Better than 0, but not complete. Can we do better?
Speeding up the process to validate, allows people to validate more products.
Patching is important - but the dilemma for the industry is "do I fix my CVE or maintain my validation?" This is not a choice we want our vendors to make. We should have some ability for people to patch and still maintain validation.
The conformance program needs to be objective, yet we have different labs, companies and validators relying on these written test reports. This is a very complex essay! Reading the results becomes dizzying. We want to improve our consistency and objectivity, how can we do this? So, we asked the industry for feedback on what the industry looks like and how we could improve the program. We started the CMVP working group.
The problem is not just technical, but also economical. To make changes, you have to address all of the problems.
Additionally, we need to reconcile our (NIST's) needs with NIAP's (for common criteria).
And a new problem - how to validate in the cloud? :)
The largest membership is in the Software Module sub group - whether that is due to the current FIPS 140-2 handling software so poorly, or reflective of a changing marketplace is unclear.
Fussell took us into a deep dive of the automated run-time validation protocol.
The tool started out as an internal CIsco project under the oversite of David McGrew, but didn't get a lot of traction. Found a home in the CMVP working group.
One of the primary requirements of this protocol is that it be an open standard.
Case example: Cisco has a crypto library that is used in many different products. First they verify that the library is implemented correctly, but then they need a way to verify that when products integrate it they do it correctly.
The protocol is a light weight standard's based protocol (HTTPS/TLS/JSON). No need to reinvent the wheel.
Authentication will be configurable - multi factor authentication should be an option, but for some deployments you won't need a heavy authentication model.
And Barry had a video! (hope to have linked soon)
If things are going to be as cool as the video promises, you'll be able to get a certificate quickly -from a computer. :) And if you find a new
LET'S RUIN SOME BIRTHDAYS - BIRTHDAYS, am I right? They're just so... *predictable*. Every year like clockwork, the same old parties, the same cracks about getting old, the same leg...