WSCC Security Considerations Cloud Computing - WHP - Eng - 0912 PDF
WSCC Security Considerations Cloud Computing - WHP - Eng - 0912 PDF
About ISACA®
With more than 100,000 constituents in 180 countries, ISACA (www.isaca.org) is a leading global
provider of knowledge, certifications, community, advocacy and education on information systems
(IS) assurance and security, enterprise governance and management of IT, and IT-related risk and
compliance. Founded in 1969, the nonprofit, independent ISACA hosts international conferences,
publishes the ISACA® Journal, and develops international IS auditing and control standards,
which help its constituents ensure trust in, and value from, information systems. It also advances
and attests IT skills and knowledge through the globally respected Certified Information Systems
Auditor® (CISA®), Certified Information Security Manager® (CISM®), Certified in the Governance
of Enterprise IT® (CGEIT®) and Certified in Risk and Information Systems ControlTM (CRISCTM)
designations.
ISACA continually updates and expands the practical guidance and product family based on the
COBIT® framework. COBIT helps IT professionals and enterprise leaders fulfill their IT governance
and management responsibilities, particularly in the areas of assurance, security, risk and control, and
deliver value to the business.
Disclaimer
ISACA has designed and created Security Considerations for Cloud Computing (the “Work”)
primarily as an educational resource for governance and assurance professionals. ISACA makes
no claim that use of any of the Work will assure a successful outcome. The Work should not
be considered inclusive of all proper information, procedures and tests or exclusive of other
information, procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In
determining the propriety of any specific information, procedure or test, governance and assurance
professionals should apply their own professional judgment to the specific circumstances presented
by the particular systems or information technology environment.
Reservation of Rights
© 2012 ISACA. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used, copied, reproduced,
modified, distributed, displayed, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any
means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written
authorization of ISACA. Reproduction and use of all or portions of this publication are permitted
solely for academic, internal and noncommercial use and for consulting/advisory engagements, and
must include full attribution of the material’s source. No other right or permission is granted with
respect to this work.
ISACA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 1010
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 USA
Phone: +1.847.253.1545
Fax: +1.847.253.1443
Email: [email protected]
Web site: www.isaca.org
Feedback: www.isaca.org/cloud-security
Participate in the ISACA Knowledge Center: www.isaca.org/knowledge-center
Follow ISACA on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ISACANews
Join ISACA on LinkedIn: ISACA (Official), http://linkd.in/ISACAOfficial
Like ISACA on Facebook: www.facebook.com/ISACAHQ
ISBN 978-60420-263-2
Security Considerations for Cloud Computing
Acknowledgments
ISACA wishes to recognize:
Development Team
Stefanie Grijp, PwC, Belgium
Chris Kappler, PwC, Belgium
Bart Peeters, CISA, PwC, Belgium
Tomas Clemente Sanchez, PwC, Belgium
Work Group
Yves Marcel Le Roux, CISM, CISSP, CA Technologies, France
Alan Mayer, USA
Perry Menezes, CISM, CRISC, CIPP, CISSP, Deutsche Bank, USA
Yogendra Rajput, India
Paras Shah, CISA, CGEIT, CRISC, CA, Transpire Pty Ltd., Australia
Brett Smith, CISSP, ISSAP, Deutsche Bank, USA
Expert Reviewers
Muhammad Amir, CISA, CISM, CRISC, CEH, CISSP, MCSE Security, Security+,
NetSol Technologies Ltd., Pakistan
Mark E.S. Bernard, CISA, CSIM, CGEIT, CRISC, CISSP, PM, ISO 27001, SABSA-F2,
TechSecure Holdings Inc., Canada
Roberta Donaldson Caraglia, EMCIS, ITIL V3, EMC Consulting, USA
Christos K. Dimitriadis, Ph.D., CISA, CISM, CRISC, INTRALOT S.A., Greece
Meenu Gupta, CISA, CISM, CBP, CIPP, CISPP, Mittal Technologies, USA
Masatoshi Kajimoto, CISA, CRISC, Independent Consultant, Japan
Hesham Moussa, CISM, Lumension Security, USA
Jo Stewart-Rattray, CISA, CISM, CGEIT, CRISC, CSEPS, RSM Bird Cameron, Australia
Lou Tinto, CISA, CRISC, CFE, CIA, NYLB, USA
Sukhwinder Wadhwa, ITIL V3, Infosys Ltd, India
Justin Williams, CA (SA), Transnet, South Africa
Knowledge Board
Marc Vael, Ph.D., CISA, CISM, CGEIT, CRISC, CISSP, Valuendo, Belgium, Chairman
Steven A. Babb, CGEIT, CRISC, Betfair, UK
Thomas E. Borton, CISA, CISM, CRISC, CISSP, Cost Plus, USA
Phillip J. Lageschulte, CGEIT, CPA, KPMG LLP, USA
Salomon Rico, CISA, CISM, CGEIT, Deloitte, Mexico
Steven E. Sizemore, CISA, CIA, CGAP, Texas Health and Human Services Commission, USA
Acknowledgments (cont.)
Guidance and Practices Committee
Phillip J. Lageschulte, CGEIT, CPA, KPMG LLP, USA, Chairman
Dan Haley, CISA, CGEIT, CRISC, MCP, Johnson & Johnson, USA
Yves Marcel Le Roux, CISM, CISSP, CA Technologies, France
Aureo Monteiro Tavares Da Silva, CISM, CGEIT, Pelissari, Brazil
Jotham Nyamari, CISA, Deloitte, USA
Connie Lynn Spinelli, CISA, CRISC, CFE, CGMA, CIA, CISSP, CMA, CPA, GRC Solutions LLC, USA
John William Walker, CISM, CRISC, FBCS CITP, ITPC Secure Bastion Limited, UK
Siang Jun Julia Yeo, CISA, CPA (Australia), Visa Worldwide Pte. Limited, Singapore
Nikolaos Zacharopoulos, CISA, CISSP, DeutschePost–DHL, Germany
ASIS International
Hewlett-Packard
IBM
Symantec Corp.
TruArx Inc.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 7
Background.................................................................................................................... 7
Purpose of This Document........................................................................................... 7
Who Should Use This Guide?..................................................................................... 7
Scope and Approach..................................................................................................... 7
2. Cloud Computing........................................................................................................ 9
Essential Characteristics............................................................................................... 9
Cloud Service Models.................................................................................................. 9
Cloud Deployment Models........................................................................................ 10
The Key Element of Trust.......................................................................................... 10
Appendix B. O
verview of Different Risk Factors per Service
and Deployment Model ....................................................................... 55
Appendix C. M
apping Threats and Mitigating Actions to
COBIT 5 for Information Security...................................................... 65
Abbreviations................................................................................................................. 77
References....................................................................................................................... 79
1. Introduction
Background
In recent years cloud computing has become more than a just another IT buzzword.
It refers to a business trend that is expected to have—and for some enterprises
already has—a significant impact on the way enterprises operate. It is likely that
cloud computing will gain even more importance as both the cloud and cloud
service provider markets mature. In times of cost optimization and economic
downturn the cloud can be perceived as a way to realize a more cost-effective
approach to technological support of the enterprise. However, security and data
privacy concerns are frequently seen as critical issues or even barriers for adopting
cloud computing services.
Just as cloud computing is about more than just IT infrastructures, platforms and
applications, the decision to operate in the cloud should not be taken solely by IT
organizations. The use of cloud services might entail high risk for the business
and should therefore be evaluated by responsible parties from the different control
functions within an enterprise. This guide is meant for all current and potential
cloud users who need to ensure protection of information assets.
2. Cloud Computing
Cloud computing is defined by the US National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) as “a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand
network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks,
servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and
released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.”1
There are five essential characteristics, three types of service models and four major
deployment models to be taken into account relative to cloud computing. To ensure
a common understanding of these models, the characteristics of each are described
in the following sections.
Essential Characteristics
In each of these models, cloud users do not own, operate or control the underlying
cloud infrastructure. They may, however, have (limited) control over operating
systems and applications.
The cloud is most often deployed in one of three models—also frequently referred
to as cloud structures:
• Public cloud—The infrastructure is made available to the general public (e.g.,
Google Apps, Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2TM), Apple® iCloud). It is
deployed within the CSP infrastructure, offsite to the enterprise infrastructure.
• Community cloud—The cloud infrastructure is provisioned for exclusive use
by a specific community of consumers from enterprises or interest groups (e.g.,
vertical industries, schools, researchers, software developers) that have shared
concerns. It can be deployed onsite (within the enterprise infrastructure) or offsite
(within the CSP infrastructure, also called “outsourced”).
• Private cloud—The infrastructure can be used only by one single enterprise. As
for community clouds, it can be deployed onsite or offsite enterprise premises.
• Hybrid cloud—The cloud infrastructure is a composition of two or more distinct
cloud infrastructures (private, community or public) that remain unique entities.
Security and data privacy concerns are typically seen as critical barriers to the
adoption of cloud services. To mitigate identified risk, cloud users can opt to set in
place service level agreements (SLAs) or they can ask cloud service providers to
meet certain control objectives. In the end, however, the discussion comes down
to the key element of trust, which is a major component in the cloud computing
business model. There can never be sufficient controls and agreements to mitigate
all concerns if trust is a missing factor in the client-supplier relationship.
The answer to the question “How can I rely on a CSP to protect my data?” will be
influenced by a number of aspects:
• The possibility for auditing and the verification of controls. Does the cloud user
have a view of the CSP’s mitigating controls to handle risk—controls related to
security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality and privacy? In this
context, several standards or best practices are available for CSPs to report on
their security status. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
(AICPA) SOC 2 report or any security certification (International Organization
for Standardization [ISO 2700x]) can be used to evaluate the security practices
of a possible CSP. Guidance on how to fully understand and use AICPA SOC
2 reports can be found in ISACA’s SOC 2SM User Guide, scheduled to be
available by the end of September 2012. The enterprise must identify compliance
requirements or select a recognized security framework (e.g., ISO, Statements on
Standards for Attestation Agreements [SSAE] 16, Payment Card Industry Data
Security Standard [PCI DSS], Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
[HIPAA], US Sarbanes-OxleyAct [SOX]) and request proof of compliance from
the CSP.
• The CSP financial position and market recognition
• Is the CSP certified or recognized by one or more security standards authorities
(e.g., the National Information Assurance Partnership [NIAP], which is a
US government body operated by the National Security Agency [NSA], and NIST)?
• The availability of business continuity plans (BCPs), disaster recovery plans
(DRPs) and robust backup procedures, taking into account multifacility,
multicountry CSPs
• The quality of the user’s own data and data classification; policies, principles and
frameworks; processes; organizational structures; culture, ethics and behaviour;
services, infrastructure and applications; people, skills and competencies; and risk
appetite (see chapter 4)
• General negotiations and relationship with the service provider: contracts, SLAs,
communication processes, roles and responsibilities matrices, etc.
Once the enterprise is aware of the risk and threats, it can implement a series of
mitigating actions and controls to reduce or eliminate the threats related to the
service and delivery model it has chosen and to ensure that the benefits of moving
to the cloud are realized as expected.
The decision to move to the cloud implies that the information assets of the
enterprise will be “managed” by the CSP. However, the enterprise—the owner
of the assets—is likely to have little knowledge or “visibility” into the people,
processes and technology supporting its information assets. The lack of visibility
is also known as “abstraction;” to counter the effects the CSP should provide to
customers full details on how its assets are managed.
The higher the abstraction level, the higher the risk or the number of threats to take
into account because risk is cumulative (figure 1). However, CSPs often offer only
visibility into the cloud stack corresponding to the service model chosen. Security
professionals must be aware of this factor when evaluating a move to the cloud. A
common mistake is to assume that SaaS will not also be subject to risk related to
infrastructure; however, risk and threats are there. They are on a layer that is less
visible because it is no longer under the operational responsibility of the enterprise,
but is under that of the CSP.
The first question to ask when evaluating cloud-related risk is: “Which information
assets are we considering moving to the cloud?”
Data are commonly the most valuable assets and the most probable targets of
attacks in the cloud. However, it is important not to overlook the risk related to
applications and processes. The business impact of long DDoS attacks cannot
always be absorbed by an enterprise; although no data loss or disclosure is suffered,
2
I SACA’s Risk IT framework considers the following risk events: interruption, destruction, theft and
disclosure. However, the terms “unavailability” (interruption) and “loss” (destruction) are found to be
more suitable for the assets presented in this context.
Personal Copy of SULEYMAN GULCAN (ISACA ID: 582306)
3. Overview of Security Risk and Threats 15
Related to Operating in the Cloud
paralyzing the systems has direct, negative effects on the data. Disclosure of details
about how applications handle critical information or about internal enterprise
processes could pave the way to more selective attacks with greater consequences.
Figure 2 explains at a high level the possible impact of the four risk events on assets.
Consider the following case: an enterprise that neglects the cost impact of a
migration to a CSP can see its information assets seized by the CSP if proper
payment is not made. In this case, the asset could be effectively lost to the
enterprise, and possibly disclosed, although there is no technical reason or a
technical countermeasure to prevent it.
It is not the purpose of this document to explain financial analysis and risk.
However, as described, other technical risk areas can be triggered due to cost
considerations. Therefore, in some specific cases described in the document,
cost will be included as a risk event (in addition to unavailability, loss, theft
and disclosure).
Privacy Considerations
Privacy is one of the most common concerns when considering a move to the
cloud. In most cases, this concern arises when an information asset is composed
of personal or extremely sensitive data. There is, however, another component
to consider besides the content of the information asset: the difference between
privacy of data within the information asset and privacy of data outside the
information asset.
In the first case (privacy of data within information assets), the primary concern is
to ensure that the information asset is not disclosed. Such assets should be identified
through proper data classification prior to migration and should then be protected against
disclosure. (Factors that increase the risk of disclosure within cloud infrastructures and
appropriate prevention measures are explained later in this chapter.)
The second case (privacy of data outside information assets) is more complex because
it involves the collection, retention and processing of data that are not part of the
information assets of the enterprise. Such data are often collected by service providers
for benign purposes (like troubleshooting and incident analysis) or for legal reasons
(data retention policies, for example) so it can be very difficult to prevent disclosure
or theft. Often it is unavoidable; however, this specific problem is not particular to
CSPs as it can apply to any infrastructure that is not entirely under control of the
enterprise. Therefore, it is not discussed in detail in this publication.
The impact of a migration to the cloud depends on the cloud service model and
deployment model being considered. The combination of service model and
deployment model can help identify an appropriate balance for organizational assets
(e.g., choosing a private cloud deployment model can help balance the risk related
to multitenancy). In the previous section entitled, Information Assets and Risk, the
possible risk affecting information assets (unavailability, theft, loss and disclosure) were
enumerated. Following is a discussion of risk-decreasing and risk-increasing factors by
service model. These risk factors will then be linked to actual threats and mitigating
actions. (A table listing all risk factors can be found in the appendices section.)
S1. IaaS
With IaaS, the CSP provides the enterprise with fundamental computing
resources/equipment (storage, hardware, servers and network components) while the
enterprise remains in control of the operating system (OS) and applications installed.
Risk-decreasing factors:
S1.A Scalability and elasticity—Lack of physical resources is no longer an
issue. Due to the scalable nature of cloud technologies, the CSP can
provide capacity on demand at low cost to support peak loads (expected or
unexpected). Elasticity eliminates overprovisioning and underprovisioning
of IT resources, allowing better cost optimization. This becomes a great
advantage for resilience when defensive measures or resources need to be
expanded quickly (e.g., during DDoS attacks).
Risk affected—Unavailability
S1.B DRP and backup—CSPs should already have in place, as common practice,
disaster recovery and backup procedures. However, recovery point objective
(RPO), recovery time objective (RTO), and backup testing frequency and
procedures provided by the CSP should be consistent with the enterprise
security policy.
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss
S1.C Patch management—Cloud infrastructures are commonly based on
hypervisors and are controlled through a central hypervisor manager or
client. The hypervisor manager allows the necessary patches to be applied
across the infrastructure in a short time, reducing the time available for a new
vulnerability to be exploited.
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss, theft, disclosure
Risk-increasing factors:
S1.D Legal transborder requirements—CSPs are often transborder, and different
countries have different legal requirements, especially concerning personal
private information. The enterprise might be committing a violation of
regulations in other countries when storing, processing or transmitting data
within the CSP’s infrastructure without the necessary compliance controls.
Furthermore, government entities in the hosting country may require access
to the enterprise’s information with or without proper notification.
Risk affected—Disclosure
S1.E Multitenancy and isolation failure—One of the primary benefits of the
cloud is the ability to perform dynamic allocation of physical resources when
required. The most common approach is a multi-tenant environment (public
cloud), where different entities share a pool of resources, including storage,
hardware and network components. All resources allocated to a particular
tenant should be “isolated” and protected to avoid disclosure of information
to other tenants. For example, when allocated storage is no longer needed
S2. PaaS
PaaS adds a layer to IaaS by providing the capability to deploy applications in
a cloud infrastructure. The applications are developed using the programming
languages and tools supported by the CSP. Thus, physical support, OS and
programming tools are the responsibility of the CSP, while the applications and the
data remain under the control of the enterprise. This service model entails the same
impacts on risk as IaaS, plus the following factors.
Risk-decreasing factor:
S2.A Short development time—Using the service oriented architecture (SOA)
library provided by the CSP, applications can be developed and tested within
a reduced time frame because SOA provides a common framework for
application development.
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss
Risk-increasing factors:
S2.B Application mapping—If current applications are not perfectly aligned with
the capabilities provided by the CSP, additional undesirable features (and
vulnerabilities) could be introduced.
Risk affected—Theft, disclosure
S2.C SOA-related vulnerabilities—Security for SOA presents new challenges
because vulnerabilities arise not only from the individual elements, but
also from their mutual interaction. Because the SOA libraries are under the
responsibility of the CSP and are not completely visible to the enterprise,
there may exist unnoticed application vulnerabilities.
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss, theft, disclosure
S2.D Application disposal—When applications are developed in a PaaS
environment, originals and backups should always be available. In the event
of a contract termination, the details of the application could be disclosed
and used to create more selective attacks on applications.
Risk affected—Theft, disclosure
S3. SaaS
In a SaaS model, the CSP provides to the enterprise the capability to use
applications running on the cloud infrastructure. The enterprise, in turn, provides to
the CSP the data necessary to run the application. The physical infrastructure, OS,
applications and data are the responsibility of the CSP. The enterprise has only the
role of client/user. This service model entails the same impacts on risk as PaaS, plus
the following factors.
Risk-decreasing factors:
S3.A Improved security—CSPs depend on the good reputation of their software
capabilities to maintain their SaaS offering. Consequently, they introduce
additional features to improve the resilience of their software (e.g., security
testing or strict versioning) or to inform users about the exact state of their
business application (e.g., specific software logging and monitoring).
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss
S3.B Application patch management—Due to the fact that the SaaS application
service is managed globally and only by the CSPs, application patch
management is more effective, allowing patches to be deployed in little time
with limited impact.
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss
Risk-increasing factors:
S3.C Data ownership—The CSP provides the applications and the customer
provides the data. If data ownership is not clearly defined, the CSP could
refuse access to data when required or even demand fees to return the data
once the service contracts are terminated.
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss, disclosure
S3.D Data disposal—In the event of a contract termination, the data fed into the
CSP’s application must be erased immediately using the necessary tools to
avoid disclosures and confidentiality breaches (forensic cleaning may be
required for sensitive data).
Risk affected—Theft, disclosure
S3.E Lack of visibility into software systems development life cycle (SDLC)—
Enterprises that use cloud applications have little visibility into the software
SDLC. Customers do not know in detail how the applications were
developed and what security considerations were taken into account during
the SDLC. This could lead to an imbalance between the security provided by
the application and the security required by customers/users.
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss, theft, disclosure
S3.F Identity and access management (IAM)—To maximize their revenues,
CSPs offer their services and applications to several customers concurrently.
Those customers share servers, applications and, eventually, data. If data
access is not properly managed by the CSP application, one customer could
obtain access to another customer’s data.
Risk affected—Loss, theft, disclosure
Cloud deployment models do not have the same abstraction as cloud service
models. That is, risk is not cumulative, but particular to each model. However,
“trust” among the different entities (CSP, customers, CSP’s third-party service
providers, etc.) is an important factor—not just trust between the CSP and the
customer, but enough trust in the other tenants sharing computing resources
Personal Copy of SULEYMAN GULCAN (ISACA ID: 582306)
22 Security Considerations for Cloud Computing
hosting the enterprise’s information assets. If a user abuses the infrastructure and
services of the public cloud, the entire infrastructure might be at risk of failure,
theft or seizure (for forensics), including the services used by other enterprises. It
is important as part of the decision process to carefully consider which assets can
securely be hosted in a public cloud and which cannot.
Risk-decreasing factors:
D1.A Public reputation—Providers of public cloud services are aware that they are
generally perceived as more “risky.” It is critical for them to ensure a good
reputation as a secure provider or customers will simply move elsewhere.
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss, theft, disclosure
Risk-increasing factors:
D1.B Full sharing of the cloud (data pooling)—The cloud infrastructure is
shared by multiple tenants of the cloud service provider. These tenants have
no relation to the enterprise or other tenants in the same space, therefore no
common interest and concerns for security.
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss, theft, disclosure
D1.C Collateral damage—If one tenant of a public cloud is attacked, there could
be an impact to the other tenants of the same CSP, even if they are not
the intended target (e.g., DDoS). Another possible scenario of collateral
damage could be a public cloud IaaS that is affected by an attack exploiting
vulnerabilities of software installed by one of the tenants.
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss, theft, disclosure
Risk-decreasing factors:
D2.A Same group of entities—The component of “trust” among the entities in
a community cloud makes the level of risk lower than in a public cloud.
(However, it remains higher than in a private cloud.)
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss, theft, disclosure
D2.B Dedicated access for the community—Dedicated access can be configured
for authorized community users only.
Risk affected—Theft, disclosure
Risk-increasing factor:
D2.C Sharing of the cloud—Different entities may have different security
measures or security requirements in place, even if they belong to the
same enterprise. This could render an entity at risk because of the faulty
procedures or SLAs of another entity, or simply because of differing security
levels for the same type of data.
Risk affected—Loss, theft, disclosure
Risk-decreasing factors:
D3.A Can be built on-premises—Physical or location-related considerations can
be more closely controlled by the enterprise because the cloud infrastructure
can be located on the enterprise’s premises. Global enterprise security
policies would apply.
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss, theft, disclosure
D3.B Performance—Affects on-site private clouds. Because the private cloud is
deployed inside the firewall on the enterprise’s intranet, transfer rates are
dramatically increased (fewer nodes to cross). Storage capacity can also be
higher; private clouds usually start with a few terabytes and can be increased
by adding disks.
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss
Risk-increasing factors:
D3.C Application compatibility—While applications that have already been confirmed
to be virtualization-friendly are likely to run well in a private cloud environment,
problems can occur with older and/or customized software that assumes direct
access to resources. Larger applications that currently run on dedicated specialized
clusters with hardwiring into proprietary runtime and management environments
may also be questionable candidates for migration, at least until standards settle
and vendors take steps to make their solutions private-cloud-compatible. In the
meantime, compatibility testing and remediation are critical.
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss
D3.D Investments required—Making a business case for shared infrastructure
and the necessary training or recruitment to acquire associated skills is
notoriously hard at the best of times. Although the word “cloud” has a high
profile, messages from vendors and service providers are often confusing
and contradictory, making seeking support from senior stakeholders even
more of an issue. If the head of finance thinks cloud is all about getting rid
of infrastructure, it can be difficult to explain that investments are needed in
new equipment, software and tools. The enterprise must conduct a cost-benefit
analysis and prepare a business case to determine whether the cloud is a viable
solution to meet specific business requirements, and justify any expenses.
Risk affected—Cost
Personal Copy of SULEYMAN GULCAN (ISACA ID: 582306)
24 Security Considerations for Cloud Computing
Because hybrid clouds are a mix of the other three models, their risk-increasing or
risk-decreasing factors are the same as those models. There is, however, one
risk-increasing factor related mainly to this model:
D4.A Cloud-interdependency—If the enterprise mixes two or more different
types of clouds, strict identity controls and strong credentials will be needed
to allow one cloud to have access to another. This is similar to a common
network infrastructure problem: how to allow access from a low-level
security zone to a high-level security zone?
Risk affected—Unavailability, loss, theft, disclosure
When considering these implementation strategies, service models and related risk,
it is noteworthy that most of the risk-increasing factors affect theft and disclosure
while most of the risk-decreasing factors affect unavailability and loss. This could
be interpreted as a trade-off.
This section addresses the possible threats that could exploit any of the risk-increasing
factors previously described. It also maps the threats to mitigating actions found in
COBIT 5 for Information Security, which explains in more detail selected terminology
and how to implement certain actions within the enterprise. (A table mapping threats
and mitigating actions can be found in the appendices section.)
With the implementation of these mitigation actions, the impact and probability of
a risk event are greatly reduced, depending on the level of severity of the controls
involved. But risk and threats still exist, although reduced. Specific risk assessments
must be conducted periodically to evaluate the risk situation of the assets specific to
the enterprise and identify improvement opportunities.
Personal Copy of SULEYMAN GULCAN (ISACA ID: 582306)
3. Overview of Security Risk and Threats 25
Related to Operating in the Cloud
Technical 3
A. Vulnerable access management (infrastructure and application, public cloud):
• Related risk factors: S1.D, S3.F, D1.B, D2.C
• Description: Information assets could be accessed by unauthorized entities due
to faulty or vulnerable access management measures or processes. This could
result from a forgery/theft of legitimate credentials or a common technical
practice (e.g., administrator permissions override).
• Mitigation:
– A contractual agreement is necessary to officially clarify who is allowed to
access the enterprise’s information, naming specific roles for CSP employees
and external partners.
– Request that the CSP provide detailed technical specifications of its IAM
system for the enterprise’s CISO (or equivalent authority) to review and
approve. If necessary, include additional controls to ensure robustness of the
CSP’s IAM system. Most CSPs will not provide such details due to internal
security policies, but the enterprise can request controls and benchmarks as
an alternative (e.g., result of penetration testing on the CSP’s IAM systems).
– Use corporate IAM systems instead of CSP’s IAM systems. The IAM
remains the responsibility of the enterprise, so no access to assets can be
granted without the knowledge of the enterprise. It requires the approval
of the CSP and the establishment of a secure channel between the CSP
infrastructure and the corporate IAM system.
• Related guidance in COBIT 5 for Information Security:
– A ppendix A. Detailed Guidance: Principles, Policies and Frameworks Enabler
. A.2 Information Security Policy
– Appendix F. Detailed Guidance: Services, Infrastructure and Applications
Enabler
. F.6 User Access and Access Rights in Line With Business Requirements
. F.10 Monitoring and Alert Services for Security-related Events
B. Data visible to other tenants when resources are allocated dynamically
• Related risk factor: S1.E
• Description: This refers to data that have been stored in memory space or
disk space that can be recovered by other entities sharing the cloud by using
forensics techniques.
• Mitigation:
– A contractual agreement is necessary to officially clarify who is allowed to
access the enterprise’s information, naming specific roles for CSP employees
and external partners. All controls protecting the enterprise’s information
assets must be clearly documented in the contract agreement or SLA.
– Encrypt all sensitive assets that are being migrated to the CSP, and ensure
that proper key management processes are in place. This will consume part
of the allocated resources due to the encrypt/decrypt process and global
performance can be affected.
– Request the CSP’s technical specifications and controls to ensure that the data
are properly wiped when requested.
– Use a private cloud deployment model (no multitenancy).
3
elated guidance on technical threats and mitigating actions can also be found in COBIT 5, DSS05
R
Manage Personal
security services.
Copy of SULEYMAN GULCAN (ISACA ID: 582306)
26 Security Considerations for Cloud Computing
G. Collateral damage
• Related risk factor: D1.C
• Description: The enterprise can be affected by issues involving other entities
sharing the cloud. For example, DDoS attacks affecting another entity in the
cloud can leave the enterprise without access to business applications (for SaaS
models) or extra computing resources to handle peak loads (for IaaS models).
• Mitigation:
– Ask the CSP to include the enterprise in its incident management process
that deals with notification of collateral events.
– Include contract clauses and controls to ensure that the enterprise’s
contracted capacity is always available and cannot be directed to other
tenants without approval.
– Use a private cloud deployment model (no multitenancy).
• Related guidance in COBIT 5 for Information Security:
– Appendix E. Detailed Guidance: Information Enabler:
. E.6 Information Security Requirements
– Appendix G. Detailed Guidance: People, Skills and Competencies Enabler:
. G.3 Information Risk Management
– Appendix F. Detailed Guidance: Services, Infrastructure and Applications
Enabler:
. F.8 Adequate Incident Response
H. SaaS access security
• Related risk factor: S3.K
• Description: Access to SaaS applications (either via browser or specific
end-user clients) must be secure in order to control the exposure to attacks and
protect the enterprise and his assets.
• Mitigation:
– Use hardened web browsers and/or specific end-user client applications
which include appropriate security measures (anti-malware, encryption,
sandboxes, etc.).
– Use secure virtual desktops or specific browser clients when connecting to
cloud applications.
– Educate corporate users about the risk of running SaaS applications using
insecure devices.
• Related guidance in COBIT 5 for Information Security:
– Appendix F. Detailed Guidance: Services, Infrastructure and Applications
Enabler:
. F.6 User Access and Access Rights in Line With Business Requirements
. F.10 Monitoring and Alert Services for Security-related Events
– Appendix G. Detailed Guidance: People, Skills and Competencies Enabler:
. G.5 Information Security Operations
I. Outdated VM security
• Related risk factor: S1.K
• Description: An inactive VM could be easily overlooked and important
security patches could be left unapplied. This out-of-date VM could become
compromised when activated and expose other VM connected to the cloud.
• Mitigation:
– Introduce procedures within the enterprise to verify the state of software
security updates prior to the activation of any VMs.
– Contractually request the CSP to apply security patches on inactive VMs.
• Related guidance in COBIT 5 for Information Security:
– Appendix A. Detailed Guidance: Principles, Policies and Framework
Enabler:
. A.2 Information Security Policy
– Appendix F. Detailed Guidance: Services, Infrastructure and Applications
Enabler:
. F.5 Adequately Secured and Configured Systems, Aligned With Security
Requirements and Security Architecture
Regulatory 4
A. Asset ownership
• Related risk factors: S2.D, S3.C
• Description: Any asset (data, application or process) migrated to a CSP could be
legally owned by the CSP based on contract terms. Thus, the enterprise can lose
sensitive data or have data disclosed because the enterprise is no longer the sole
legal owner of the asset. In the event of contract termination, the enterprise could
even be subject (by contract) to pay fees to retrieve its own assets.
• Mitigation:
– Include terms in the contract with the CSP that ensure that the enterprise
remains the sole legal owner of any asset migrated to the CSP.
– Encrypt all sensitive assets being migrated to the CSP prior to the migration
to prevent disclosure and ensure proper key management is in place. This can
affect the performance of the system.
• Related guidance in COBIT 5 for Information Security:
– Appendix C. Detailed Guidance: Organizational Structures Enabler:
. C.5 Information Custodians/Business Owners
B. Asset disposal
• Related risk factors: S1.I, S2.E, S3.D
• Description: In the event of contract termination, to prevent disclosure of
the enterprise’s assets, those assets should be removed from the cloud using
tools and processes commensurate to data classification; forensic tools
may be necessary to remove sensitive data (or other tools that ensure a
complete wipeout).
• Mitigation:
– Request CSP’s technical specifications and controls that ensure that data are
properly wiped and backup media are destroyed when requested.
– Include terms in the contract that require, upon contract expiration or any
event ending the contract, a mandatory data wipe carried out under the
enterprise’s review.
• Related guidance in COBIT 5 for Information Security:
– Appendix G. Detailed Guidance: People, Skills and Competencies Enabler:
. G.3 Information Risk Management
4
elated guidance on regulatory threats and mitigating actions can be found in COBIT 5, MEA03
R
Monitor, evaluate and assess compliance with external requirements.
Personal Copy of SULEYMAN GULCAN (ISACA ID: 582306)
30 Security Considerations for Cloud Computing
C. Asset location
• Related risk factor: S1.D
• Description: Technical information assets (data, logs, etc.) are subject to the
regulations of the country where they are stored or processed. In the cloud, an
enterprise may, without notification, migrate information assets to countries
where regulations are less restrictive or their transmission is prohibited
(personal information in particular). Unauthorized entities that cannot have
access to assets in one country may be able to obtain legal access in another
country. Conversely, if assets are moved to countries with stricter regulations,
the enterprise can be subject to legal actions and fines for noncompliance.
• Mitigation:
– Request the CSP’s list of infrastructure locations and verify that regulation in
those locations is aligned with the enterprise’s requirements.
– Include terms in the service contract to restrict the moving of enterprise
assets to only those areas known to be compliant with the enterprise’s own
regulation.
– To prevent disclosure, encrypt any asset prior to migration to the CSP, and
ensure proper key management is in place.
• Related guidance in COBIT 5 for Information Security:
– Appendix G. Detailed Guidance: People, Skills and Competencies Enabler:
. G.4 Information Security Architecture Development
. G.6 Information Assessment and Testing and Compliance
– Appendix F. Detailed Guidance: Services, Infrastructure and Applications
Enabler:
. F.2 Security Awareness
5
elated guidance on information security governance threats and mitigating actions can be found in
R
COBIT 5, EDM01 through EDM05 processes.
Personal Copy of SULEYMAN GULCAN (ISACA ID: 582306)
3. Overview of Security Risk and Threats 31
Related to Operating in the Cloud
business disruption or failure should the CSP go bankrupt, face legal action, or be
the potential target for an acquisition (with the likelihood of sudden changes in
CSP policies and any agreements in place). Another possibility is the “run on the
banks” scenario, in which there is a crisis of confidence in the CSP’s financial
position resulting in a mass exit and withdrawal on first-come,
first-served basis. If there are limits to the amount of content that can be
withdrawn in a given time frame, then the enterprise might not be able to retrieve
all its data in the time specified. Another possibility may occur if the enterprise
decides, for any reason, to end the relationship with the CSP. The complexity of
the business logic and data models could make it impossible for the enterprise to
extract its data, reconstruct the business logic and rebuild the applications.
• Mitigation:
– Ensure by contract or SLA with the CSP an exit strategy that specifies the
terms that should trigger the retrieval of the enterprise’s assets in the time
frame required by the enterprise.
– Implement a DRP, taking into account the possibility of complete CSP
disruption.
• Related guidance in COBIT 5 for Information Security:
– Appendix B. Detailed Guidance: Processes Enabler:
. B.2 Align, Plan and Organize: APO09 Manage Service Agreements
– Appendix B. Detailed Guidance: Processes Enabler:
. B.4 Deliver, Service and Support: DSS04 Manage Continuity
– Appendix G. Detailed Guidance: People, Skills and Competencies Enabler:
. G.3 Information Risk Management
G. Solid enterprise governance:
• Related risk factor: S3.I
• Description: Enterprises turn to CSPs in search of solutions that can be
implemented easily and at low cost. This ease can be tempting, especially when
the enterprise is facing urgent deadlines that require an urgent solution (e.g.,
the expiration of application licenses or the need of more computing capacity).
This can become an issue because enterprises may contract cloud applications
without proper procurement and approval oversight, thus bypassing compliance
with internal policies.
• Mitigation:
– Ensure that internal governance controls are in place within the enterprise to
involve the necessary governance organization (legal, compliance, finance,
etc.) during the decision process of migrating to cloud services.
• Related guidance in COBIT 5 for Information Security:
– Appendix B. Detailed Guidance: Processes Enabler:
. B.1 Evaluate, Direct and Monitor: EDM01 Ensure Governance Framework
Setting and Maintenance.
. B.5 Monitor, Evaluate and Assess: MEA02 Monitor, Evaluate and Assess
the System of Internal Control
However, the challenge does not end after step 4. Even if the enterprise has decided
to go to the cloud based on the steps above and the enterprise trusts the CSP, there
are still a number of questions that must be answered. These questions have been
already touched on through the mitigating actions mentioned in chapter 3. These
mitigating actions can be translated into a checklist that management should use in
deciding to move to the cloud. The actions can be divided into four categories:
• Actions to be done prior to moving to the cloud (preparatory work)
• Cloud provider checks and requests
• Contract terms to be negotiated
• Preventive measures to be taken
6
Commercial analysis must, of course, be done, but it is out of scope for this publication.
Personal Copy of SULEYMAN GULCAN (ISACA ID: 582306)
36 Security Considerations for Cloud Computing
After the preparation of the internal environment, the following step is to look into
the selection of a cloud service and deployment model. The flowcharts presented in
steps 2 and 3 will help the enterprise to determine which cloud service model and
which cloud deployment model could best suit the enterprise needs.
The most common technical reason not to move to the cloud is that the cost of
customization outweighs the benefits of the cloud solution.
The decision tree presented in figure 3 is designed to help the enterprise determine
which service model best serves its business needs. The decision tree may lead to
a decision to migrate to the cloud, but it may also suggest that the cloud is not the
optimal solution for the enterprise and that other solutions, such as outsourcing,
may be more viable options.
The cloud deployment model addresses potential risk and its mitigation, while the
service model is more focused on a technical solution. This explains why not all
possible outcomes in the decision tree end in a cloud service model.
Y Y
2. Interdependencies
with other SaaS
business processes? N
4. Applications/hardware/OS
custom? N
5. Hardware/OS custom?
N
PaaS
While there are four common cloud deployment models, the decision tree presented
in this section focuses on deciding between a private or public cloud. Hybrid cloud
or community cloud are deployment models that arise for consideration when
evaluating several cloud solutions that are present in one enterprise or collection of
enterprises.
A hybrid cloud is most commonly used when there is a data classification system
in place and the decision is made to use different deployment models for different
data classifications (e.g., a private cloud model for HR data and a public cloud for
storage of publications).
The same goes for a community cloud. A community cloud is created when several
allied companies or enterprises decide to move to the cloud together. Either the
community as a whole decides to create a common infrastructure platform for all
to use (common reasons being the ease of sharing information and cost reduction),
or one member or sponsor provides the necessary infrastructure that is used by
the community.
The decision tree (shown in figure 5) also offers the options of not going to the
cloud at all or considering alternatives to the cloud. This decision (among others)
is made when the data or the process is too critical or contains so much sensitive or
business-critical data that the risk of going to the cloud outweighs the benefits.
NOTE: When the situation addressed in the question is not occurring or when it
can be adequately covered by technical means, policies or contracts, the question
should be answered affirmatively.
Y 18. Legal/
Y Y
N N N
Cloud may
5. Adequate N N not be the Y
infrastructure? 13. Can upgrade? 20. Jurisdiction?
best solution.
Y Y N
N N
N Y 11. Cost
6. Predictable? 10. SLA?
Figure 5—Decision Tree: Choosing a Deployment Model
efficient?
Y Y
7. Legal/compliance N 8. Data N N
ownership? 9. Jurisdiction? Public cloud
impediments?
4. The Path to the Decision and Beyond
41
42 Security Considerations for Cloud Computing
Once the best-suited cloud flavor is established, it is key to find the best-suited
cloud service provider. Matching the correct CSP to the enterprise needs could
prove challenging. The key is to find the CSP that bests serves the business needs
while minimizing potential risk.
While there are many suitable smaller CSPs, it is important to choose an established
CSP with the proper references. Established CSPs will potentially be more
experienced with running cloud infrastructures, adapting to change and generally
faster in responding to an incident or threat, thus being able to maintain stability
Personal Copy of SULEYMAN GULCAN (ISACA ID: 582306)
52 Security Considerations for Cloud Computing
more efficiently. One must keep in mind that a larger CSP will also be stricter
toward its offerings, which will greatly reduce the possibility of fine-tuning services
not fully compatible with the enterprise needs.
Vendor location (storage and processing centers) is of key importance for legal
reasons. Laws are applicable locally, which can result in a multitude of different
law systems applicable to data or business processes stored in the cloud.
Larger CSPs will take legal matters into account when deploying their data centers
and storage centers to specifically avoid legal issues. It is important, however, to
have the CSP’s storage regions backed up by an independent organization so it can
be assured that data or business process are in the best possible hands.
The goal is to find the CSP that best serves the standards and business needs of the
enterprise. A transition to the cloud will be much easier when a CSP has the same
industry certifications as the enterprise. This also goes for the business needs of the
enterprise: If the business is changing rapidly, the enterprise will want to choose
a CSP that can change quickly as well and that is agile. If, for example, computing
requirements change daily, the enterprise will want a CSP that can accommodate
those changes rapidly and fluently. A CSP that can only change processor power
every two weeks while also being required to fill in four different forms may not
be the best-suited choice for the enterprise. One must keep in mind that CSPs offer
services for a large variety of disparate customers. And while some deployment
and service models will leave room for minor adjustments, this puts the CSP at risk
because it forces it to go outside its known area of expertise. The rule of thumb is
that the better an offered service complies with the business needs, the more a CSP
will be compliant with the enterprise.
IaaS
S1.A Scalability/ X Decreasing Lack of physical resources is no longer an issue. Due to the scalable
elasticity nature of cloud technologies, the CSP can provide capacity on
demand at low cost to support peak loads (expected or unexpected).
Elasticity eliminates overprovisioning and underprovisioning of IT
resources, allowing better cost optimization. This becomes a great
advantage for resilience when defensive measures or resources need
to be expanded quickly (e.g., during DDoS attacks).
S1.B Disaster X X Decreasing CSPs should already have in place, as common practice, disaster
recovery and recovery and backup procedures. However, RPO, RTO, and backup
backup testing frequency and procedures provided by the CSP should be
consistent with the enterprise security policy.
S1.C Patch X X X Decreasing Cloud infrastructures are based on hypervisors and are controlled
management through a central hypervisor manager or client. The hypervisor
manager allows the necessary patches to be applied across the
PaaS
S2.A Short X X X X Decreasing Using the SOA library provided by the CSP, applications can be
development developed and tested within a reduced timeframe because SOA
time provides a common framework for application development.
S2.B Application X X Increasing If current applications are not perfectly aligned with the capabilities
mapping provided by the CSP, additional undesirable features (and
vulnerabilities) could be introduced.
S2.C SOA-related X X X X Increasing Security for SOA presents new challenges because vulnerabilities
vulnerabilities arise not only from the individual elements, but also from their mutual
interaction. Because the SOA libraries are under the responsibility of
the CSP and are not completely visible to the enterprise, there may
monitoring).
S3.B Application X X Decreasing Application patch management—Due to the fact that the SaaS
patch application service is managed globally and only by the CSPs,
management application patch management is more effective, allowing patches to
be deployed in little time with limited impact.
S3.C Data ownership X X X X Increasing The CSP provides the applications and the customer provides the
data. If data ownership is not clearly defined, the CSP could refuse
access to data when required or even demand fees to return the data
once the service contracts are terminated.
S3.D Data disposal X X Increasing In the event of a contract termination, the data fed into the CSP’s
application must be erased immediately using forensic tools to avoid
disclosures and confidentiality breaches.
S3.E Lack of visibility X X X X Increasing Enterprises that use cloud applications have little visibility into the
into software software SDLC. Customers do not know in detail how the applications
SDLC were developed and what security considerations were taken into
management approval (or even the knowledge) of the application users for merely
process practical reasons: If an application is used by hundreds of different
enterprises, it would take an extremely long time for a CSP to look
for the formal approval of every customer. In this case, the enterprise
could have no control (or no view) of the release management
process and could be subject to unexpected side effects.
S3.K Browser X X Increasing As a common practice, applications offered by SaaS providers are
vulnerabilities accessible to customers via secure communication through a web
browser. Web browsers are a common target for malware and
attacks. If the customer’s browser becomes infected, the access to
the application can be compromised as well.
Public Cloud
D1.A Public X X X X Decreasing Providers of public cloud services are aware that they are generally
reputation perceived as more “risky.” It is critical for them to ensure a good
reputation because a secure provider or customers will simply
D3.C Application X X Increasing While applications that have already been confirmed to be
compatibility virtualization-friendly are likely to run well in a private cloud
environment, problems can occur with older and/or customized
software that assumes direct access to resources. Larger applications
that currently run on dedicated specialized clusters with hardwiring
into proprietary runtime and management environments may
also be questionable candidates for migration, at least until
standards settle and vendors take steps to make their solutions
private-cloud-compatible. In the meantime, compatibility testing and
remediation are critical.
D3.D Investments (can be (can be (can be (can be Increasing Making a business case for shared infrastructure and the necessary
required triggered by triggered triggered triggered training or recruitment to acquire associated skills is notoriously hard
cost) by cost) by cost) by cost) at the best of times. Although the word “cloud” has a high profile,
messages from vendors and service providers are often confusing
and contradictory, making seeking support from senior stakeholders
even more of an issue. If the head of finance thinks cloud is all
Figure 9—Cloud Threats and Mitigating Actions Mapped to COBIT 5 for Information Security
Risk Mapping to
Threat Description Factors Mitigation COBIT 5 for Information Security
Technical Threats
A. Vulnerable Information assets could be accessed S1.D • A contractual agreement is necessary to • Appendix A. Detailed Guidance:
access by unauthorized entities due to faulty or S3.F officially clarify who is allowed to access Principles, Policies and Frameworks
management vulnerable access management measures D1.B the enterprise’s information, naming Enabler
(infrastructure or processes. This could result from a D2.C specific roles for CSP employees and – A.2 Information Security Policy
and application, forgery/theft of legitimate credentials external partners. • Appendix F. Detailed Guidance:
public cloud) or a common technical practice (e.g., • Request that the CSP provide detailed Services, Infrastructure and Applications
administrator permissions override) technical specifications of its IAM system Enabler
for the enterprise’s CISO to review and – F.6 User Access and Access Rights in
approve. Include additional controls to Line With Business Requirements
ensure robustness of the CSP’s IAM – F.10 Monitoring and Alert Services for
system. Most CSPs will not provide such Security-related Events
details due to internal security policies,
but the enterprise can request controls
and benchmarks as an alternative (e.g.,
result of penetration testing on the CSP’s
IAM systems).
Figure 9—Cloud Threats and Mitigating Actions Mapped to COBIT 5 for Information Security (cont.)
Risk Mapping to
Threat Description Factors Mitigation COBIT 5 for Information Security
Technical Threats (cont.)
A. Vulnerable • Use corporate IAM systems instead of
access CSP IAM systems. The IAM remains
management the responsibility of the enterprise, so
(infrastructure no access to assets can be granted
and application, without the knowledge of the enterprise.
public cloud) It requires the approval of the CSP and
(cont.) the establishment of a secure channel
between the CSP infrastructure and the
corporate IAM system.
B. Data visible to This refers to data that have been stored S1.E • A contractual agreement is necessary to • Appendix G. Detailed Guidance: People,
other tenants in memory space or disk space that can officially clarify who is allowed to access Skills and Competencies Enabler
Security Considerations for Cloud Computing
when resources be recovered by other entities sharing the the enterprise’s information, naming – G.3 Information Risk Management
are allocated cloud by using forensics techniques. specific roles for CSP employees and – G.6 Information Assessment and
dynamically external partners. All controls protecting Testing and Compliance
the enterprise’s information assets must • Appendix F. Detailed Guidance:
be clearly documented in the contract Services, Infrastructure and Applications
agreement or SLA. Enabler
• Encrypt all sensitive assets that are being – F.5 Adequately Secured and Configured
migrated to the CSP, and ensure that Systems, in Line With Security
proper key management processes are Requirements and Security Architecture
in place. This will consume part of the – F.9 Security Testing
allocated resources due to the
encrypt/decrypt process so global
performance could be affected.
information, e.g., by utilizing shared routing specific roles for CSP employees and – C.1 Chief Information Security Officer
tables to map the internal network topology external partners. All controls protecting (CISO)
of an enterprise, preparing the way for an the enterprise’s information assets must • Appendix F. Detailed Guidance:
internal attack. be clearly documented in the contract Services, Infrastructure and Applications
agreement or SLA. Enabler
• Use a private cloud deployment model – F.10 Monitoring and Alert Services for
(no multitenancy). Security-related Events
D. Hypervisor Hypervisors are vital for cloud virtualization. S1.E • Request the CSP’s internal SLA for • Appendix B. Detailed Guidance:
attacks They provide the link between virtual hypervisor vulnerability management, Processes Enabler
machines and the underlying physical patch management and release – B.2
Align, Plan and Organize (APO)
resources required to run the machines by management when new hypervisor . APO09 Manage Service Agreements.
using hypercalls (similar to system calls, vulnerabilities are discovered. The SLA • Appendix G. Detailed Guidance: People,
but for virtualized systems). An attacker must contain detailed specifications about Skills and Competencies Enabler
using a VM in the same cloud could fake vulnerability classification and actions – G.3 Information Risk Management
hypercalls to inject malicious code or taken according to the severity level. • Appendix A. Detailed Guidance:
trigger bugs in the hypervisor. This could • Use a private cloud deployment model Principles, Policies and Framework
Figure 9—Cloud Threats and Mitigating Actions Mapped to COBIT 5 for Information Security (cont.)
Risk Mapping to
Threat Description Factors Mitigation COBIT 5 for Information Security
Technical Threats (cont.)
E. Application Due to the nature of SaaS, the applications S3.H • Request that the CSP implements • Appendix G. Detailed Guidance: People,
attacks offered by a CSP are more broadly application firewalls, antivirus, and Skills and Competencies Enabler
exposed. Because they can be the target of anti-malware tools. – G.5 Information Security Operations
massive and elaborate application attacks, • The SLA must contain detailed – G.6 Information Assessment and
additional security measures (besides specifications about vulnerability Testing and Compliance
standard network firewalls) are required to classification and actions taken • Appendix F. Detailed Guidance:
protect them. according to the severity level, which Services, Infrastructure and Applications
must align with corporate policies and Enabler
procedures for similar events. – F.10 Monitoring and Alert Services for
Security-related Events
F. Application In a virtualized environment, direct access D3.C • Evaluate extensively the design and • Appendix B. Detailed Guidance:
Security Considerations for Cloud Computing
compatibility to resources is no longer possible (the requirements of application candidates Processes Enabler
hypervisor stays in the middle). This to move to the cloud and/or request of –B .3 Build, Acquire and Implement (BAI)
could generate issues with older and/ the CSP a test period to identify possible . BAI02 Manage Requirements
or customized software that could go issues. Definition.
unnoticed until it is too late to fall back. • Require continuous communication and • Appendix E. Detailed Guidance:
notification of major changes to ensure Information Enabler
that compatibility testing is included in – E.6 Information Security Requirements
the change plans. • Appendix F. Detailed Guidance:
Services, Infrastructure and Applications
Enabler
– F.3 Secure Development
computing resources to handle peak loads capacity is always available and cannot – F.8 Adequate Incident Response
(for IaaS models). be directed to other tenants without • Appendix G. Detailed Guidance: People,
approval. Skills and Competencies Enabler
• Use a private cloud deployment model – G.3 Information Risk Management
(no multitenancy).
H. SaaS access Access to SaaS applications (either via S3.K • Use hardened web browsers and/or • Appendix F. Detailed Guidance:
security browser or specific end-user clients) must specific end-user client applications Services, Infrastructure and Applications
be secure in order to control the exposure which include appropriate security Enabler
to attacks and protect the enterprise and measures (anti-malware, encryption, – F.6 User Access and Access Rights in
assets. sandboxes, etc.). Line With Business Requirements
•Use secure virtual desktops or specific – F.10 Monitoring and Alert Services for
browser clients when connecting to cloud Security-related Events
applications. • Appendix G. Detailed Guidance: People,
Skills and Competencies Enabler
– G.5 Information Security Operations
Figure 9—Cloud Threats and Mitigating Actions Mapped to COBIT 5 for Information Security (cont.)
Risk Mapping to
Threat Description Factors Mitigation COBIT 5 for Information Security
Technical Threats (cont.)
I. Outdated VM An inactive VM could be easily overlooked S1.K • Introduce procedures within the • Appendix A. Detailed Guidance:
security and important security patches could be enterprise to verify the state of software Principles, Policies and Framework
left unapplied. This out-of-date VM could security updates prior to the activation of Enabler
become compromised when activated. any VMs. – A.2 Information Security Policy
• Empower the CSP to apply security • Appendix F. Detailed Guidance: Services,
patches on inactive VMs. Infrastructure and Applications Enabler
– F.5 Adequately Secured and Configured
Systems, Aligned With Security
Requirements and Security Architecture
Regulatory Threats
A. Asset ownership Any asset (data, application or process) S2.D • Include terms in the contract with • Appendix C. Detailed Guidance:
Security Considerations for Cloud Computing
migrated to a CSP could be legally owned S3.C the CSP to ensure that the enterprise Organizational Structures Enabler
by the CSP based on contract terms. remains the sole legal owner of any –C .5 Information Custodians/Business
Thus, the enterprise can lose sensitive asset migrated to the CSP. Owners
data or have them disclosed because • Encrypt all sensitive assets being
the enterprise is no longer the sole legal migrated to the CSP prior to the
owner of the asset. In the event of contract migration to prevent disclosure and
termination, the enterprise could even be ensure proper key management is in
subject (by contract) to pay fees to retrieve place. This could affect the performance
its own assets. of the system.
B. Asset disposal In the event of contract termination, to S1.I • Request CSP’s technical specifications • Appendix G. Detailed Guidance: People,
prevent disclosure of the enterprise’s S2.E and controls that ensure that data are Skills and Competencies Enabler:
assets, those assets should be removed S3.D properly wiped and backup media is – G.3 Information Risk Management
less restrictive or their transmission assets to only those areas known to • Appendix F. Detailed Guidance:
is prohibited (personal information in be compliant with the enterprise’s own Services, Infrastructure and Applications
particular). Unauthorized entities that regulation. Enabler
cannot have access to assets in one • To prevent disclosure, encrypt any asset – F.2 Security Awareness
country may be able to obtain legal prior to migration to the CSP, and ensure
access in another country. Conversely, proper key management is in place.
if assets are moved to countries with
stricter regulations, the enterprise can
be subject to legal actions and fines for
noncompliance.
Figure 9—Cloud Threats and Mitigating Actions Mapped to COBIT 5 for Information Security (cont.)
Risk Mapping to
Threat Description Factors Mitigation COBIT 5 for Information Security
Information Security Governance Threats
A. Physical security Physical security is required in any S1.H • Request the CSP’s physical security • Appendix E. Detailed Guidance:
on all premises infrastructure. When the enterprise policy and ensure that it is aligned with Information Enabler
where migrates assets to a cloud infrastructure, the enterprise’s security policy. – E.6 Information Security Requirements
data/applications those assets are still subject to the • Request that the CSP provide proof • Appendix A. Detailed Guidance:
are stored corporate security policy, but they can of independent security reviews or Principles, Policies and Frameworks
also be physically accessed by the CSP’s certification reports (e.g., AICPA SSAE 16 Enabler
staff, which is subject to the CSP’s security SOC 2 report or ISO certification). – A.2 Information Security Policy
policy. There could be a gap between the • Include in the contract language that
security measures provided by the CSP requires the CSP to be aligned with
and the requirements of the enterprise. the enterprise’s security policy and to
implement necessary controls to
ensure it.
Security Considerations for Cloud Computing
including management of security certification reports (e.g., AICPA SSAE 16 • Appendix F. Detailed Guidance:
incidents. SOC 2 report or ISO certification). Services, Infrastructure and Applications
• Include in the contract language Enabler
that requires the CSP to provide the – F.10 Monitoring and Alert Services for
enterprise with regular reporting on Security-related Events
security (incident reports, IDS/IPS
logs, etc.).
• Request the CSP’s security incident
management process be applied to the
enterprise’s assets and ensure that it
is aligned with the enterprise’s own
security policy.
C. Media Data media must be disposed in a secure S1.I • Request the CSP’s process and • Appendix B. Detailed Guidance:
management way to avoid data leakage and disclosure. techniques in place for data media Processes Enabler
Data wipeout procedures must ensure disposal and evaluate whether they meet –B .3 Build, Acquire and Implement (BAI)
that data cannot be reproduced when data the requirements of the enterprise. . BAI08 Manage Knowledge.
Figure 9—Cloud Threats and Mitigating Actions Mapped to COBIT 5 for Information Security (cont.)
Risk Mapping to
Threat Description Factors Mitigation COBIT 5 for Information Security
Information Security Governance Threats (cont.)
D. Secure software When using SaaS services, the enterprise S3.E • Request the CSP’s details about the • Appendix B. Detailed Guidance:
SDLC must be sure that the applications will software SDLC in place and ensure Processes Enabler
meet its security requirements. This will that the security measures introduced – B.3 Build, Acquire and Implement (BAI)
reduce the risk of disclosure. into the design are compliant with the . BAI03 Manage Solutions Identification
requirements of the enterprise. and Build.
• Request the CSP to provide proof • Appendix E. Detailed Guidance:
of independent security reviews or Information Enabler
certification reports (e.g., AICPA SSAE 16 – E.6 Information Security Requirements
SOC 2 report or ISO certification). • Appendix F. Detailed Guidance:
Services, Infrastructure and Applications
Enabler
– F.3 Secure Development
Security Considerations for Cloud Computing
E. Common Community clouds share resources among D2.C • Ensure that a global security policy • Appendix E. Detailed Guidance:
security policy different entities that belong to the same specifying minimum requirements Information Enabler:
for community group (or community) and thereby possess is applied to all entities sharing a – E.6 Information Security Requirements
clouds a certain level of mutual “trust.” This community cloud. • Appendix A. Detailed Guidance:
trust must be regulated by a common • Request that the CSP provide proof Principles, Policies and Framework
security policy. Otherwise, an attack on the of independent security reviews or Enabler
“weakest link” of the group could place all certification reports (e.g., AICPA SSAE 16 – E.2 Information Security Strategy
the group’s entities in danger. SOC 2 report or ISO certification).
back in-house. It can also result in serious the possibility of complete disruption of –B.4 Deliver, Service and Support
business disruption or failure should the the CSP. . DSS04 Manage Continuity.
CSP go bankrupt, face legal action, or be • Appendix G. Detailed Guidance: People,
the potential target for an acquisition (with Skills and Competencies Enabler
the likelihood of sudden changes in CSP – G.3 Information Risk Management
policies and any agreements in place).
Another possibility is the “run on the banks”
scenario, in which there is a crisis of
confidence in the CSP’s financial position,
resulting in a mass exit and withdrawal on
first-come, first-served basis. If there are
limits to the amount of content that can
be withdrawn in a given timeframe, then
the enterprise might not be able to retrieve
all its data in the time specified. Another
possibility may occur if the enterprise
decides, for any reason, to end the
Figure 9—Cloud Threats and Mitigating Actions Mapped to COBIT 5 for Information Security (cont.)
Risk Mapping to
Threat Description Factors Mitigation COBIT 5 for Information Security
Information Security Governance Threats (cont.)
G. Solid enterprise Enterprises turn to CSPs in search of S3.I • Ensure that internal governance controls • Appendix B. Detailed Guidance:
governance solutions that can be implemented easily are in place within the enterprise Processes Enabler
and at a low cost. This ease can be to involve the necessary control – B.1 Evaluate, Direct and Monitor (EDM)
tempting, especially when the enterprise organizations (legal, compliance, finance, . EDM01 Ensure Governance
is facing urgent deadlines that require etc.) during the decision process of Framework Setting and Maintenance.
an urgent solution (like the expiration of migrating to cloud services. – B.5 Monitor, Evaluate and Assess (MEA)
application licenses, or the need of more . MEA02 Monitor, Evaluate and Assess
computing capacity). This can become the System of Internal Control.
an issue because organizations may
contract cloud applications without proper
procurement and approval oversight,
thus bypassing compliance with internal
Security Considerations for Cloud Computing
policies.
H. Support for audit Security audits and forensic investigations S1.F • Request of the CSP the right to audit as • Appendix B. Detailed Guidance:
and forensic are vital to the enterprise to evaluate the S1.L part of the contract or SLA. If this is not Processes Enabler
investigations security measures of the CSP (preventive possible, request security audit reports – B.2 Align, Plan and Organise (APO)
and corrective), and in some cases the CSP by trusted third parties. . APO10 Manage Suppliers.
itself (e.g., to authenticate the CSP). This • Request that the CSP provide appropriate – B.5 Monitor, Evaluate and Assess
raises several issues because performing and timely support (logs, traces, hard (MEA)
these actions requires having extensive disk images) for forensic analysis as . MEA02 Monitor, Evaluate and Assess
access to the CSP’s infrastructure and part of the contract or SLA. If this is not the System of Internal Control.
monitoring capabilities, which are often possible, request of the CSP to authorize
shared with other CSP’s customers. The trusted third parties to perform forensic
enterprise should have the permission analysis when necessary.
Abbreviations
Abbreviation Full Term
BCM Business continuity management
CAPEX Capital expenditures—used to acquire or upgrade physical assets such as
buildings, infrastructure and equipment
CIO Chief information officer
CISO Chief information security officer
CSP Cloud service provider
DDoS Distributed denial of service
DRP Disaster recovery plan
IaaS Infrastructure as a Service
IAM Identity and access management
IDS/IPS Intrusion detection system/intrusion prevention system
ISM Information security manager
ISO International Organization for Standardization
OPEX Operating expenditures—ongoing cost for running a product, business or
organization
OS Operating system
PaaS Platform as a Service
QoS Quality of service
RPO Recovery point objective
RTO Recovery time objective
SaaS Software as a Service
SDLC Systems development life cycle
SIEM Security incident and event manager
SLA Service level agreement
SOA Service oriented architecture
TCO Total cost of ownership
VM Virtual machine
References
ISACA, COBIT 5, USA, 2012