devopsy.kinsta.cloud

Category: IT Security

Why DevOps is Key to Software Supply Chain Security

DevOps is designed to increase business value and responsiveness through rapid, high-quality service delivery, made possible through fast-paced, iterative IT service delivery. The term DevSecOps emerged as a way to remind us that security was always intended to be part of the software delivery process. However, with the barrage of attacks on the software supply chain showing no signs of abating, the question now is whether even the tightest DevOps pipelines can maintain the pace-protection balance.

It’s important to note that the term “software supply chain” has been used primarily to refer to the tools and processes used to build and deploy software applications. Now, however, with the rise of infrastructure-as-code (IaC), the term also refers to tools and processes used to build and deploy IT infrastructure.

Meet Mandates, Reduce Risk

Software supply chain attacks such as SUNBURST, HTTP/2 Rapid Reset or the breaches associated with the MOVEit vulnerability have fed news cycles for the last few years, and that likely won’t change anytime soon. Attacks on the software supply chain increased 742% since 2020. What we are seeing as a result are new concerns about supply chain security and DevOps requirements. This has led to confusion and often a mish-mash of tooling that may exacerbate rather than mitigate supply chain security issues.

Arguably the most impactful salvo over the software supply chain security line was president Biden’s 2021 Executive Order 14028, which established new mandates, including the delivery of SBOMs, as minimum requirements for software used by the U.S. federal government. More recently, the FDA has mandated that “all medical devices running software must create and maintain” SBOMs. I expect to see government and industry requirements increase over time.

These are just a couple of relatively recent examples. There are many more—and no doubt many more to come.

So, if you’re moving at the speed of DevOps, how do you address these current and future mandates for software supply chain security, as well as the continually emerging vulnerabilities and attacks? I would venture to say that only by moving at the speed of DevOps—and within the parameters of the DevOps model—can organizations not only meet mandates but also effectively reduce risk for the business.

Indeed, it’s not a matter of whether DevOps is viable within the current security climate but what requirements need to be added to support and enhance current DevOps work.

New Guidelines, New Processes, New Tools and New Data

In response to these new threats and regulations, the software community has been working on developing and updating guidelines to help organizations improve the security of their supply chains—for example, SLSA, NCSC UK supply chain security guidance and NIST cybersecurity supply chain risk management. However, these new guidelines can be complicated and require new processes and new tools.

Before adding any new tooling or changing any processes, it’s critical to examine existing tools to determine whether and to what extent they satisfy supply chain security mandates. Organizations must also evaluate how well existing processes work to protect the business, then strategically add/subtract from there as needed.

No matter what solutions are leveraged, more and different tools generate reams of more and different data. What’s important — and to whom? How do I manage the data? When can I trust it? Where do I store it? What problems does the new data help me solve? Organizations will need a way to effectively sift this information and deliver the right data to the right teams at the right time. To preserve the ability to quickly and continuously innovate, it will be important to focus on shifting security left as well as integrating automation whenever and wherever possible.

As new security metadata becomes available, such as from SBOMs, new solutions for managing that metadata will be key. An open source initiative sponsored by Google, GUAC is designed to integrate software security information, including SBOMs, attestations and vulnerability data. Users can query the resulting GUAC graph to help answer key security concerns, including proactive, preventive and reactive concerns.

Continue to Shift Security Left

Another way that organizations can maintain their DevOps momentum while protecting the software supply chain is to continue to invest in shifting security left in the software supply chain. The software community has been talking about this for some time, but many organizations struggle to implement impactful changes. Security teams must work to understand how software is built and collaborate with development and DevOps teams to ensure that improvements are made to both application and infrastructure-as-code supply chains.

We need to go beyond shift-left vulnerability analysis to ensure that we are evaluating the quality of configuration-as-code (for both applications and infrastructure), that we are taking advantage of new recommendations, and that we are leveraging new attestation solutions designed to work with pipelines such as sigstore and Tekton Chains. After all, the sooner an issue is discovered, the more quickly it can be addressed and the less disruptive and costly it is to fix it.

No One-Size-Fits-All Solution

While all of these solutions mentioned here are helpful, there is no single product or framework that will enable organizations to maintain the security-innovation balance. Success, rather, will require a focus on agility, flexibility and effective communication and collaboration—the very hallmarks of the DevOps model.

Rather than being obviated by the demands of software supply chain security, DevOps provides the opportunity to integrate the kinds of protections that can prevent or mitigate supply chain vulnerabilities and breaches. DevOps also enables organizations to quickly and effectively respond to new threats and new requirements.

With that said, there’s no doubt that organizations will need to think differently about how they manage software security, including the strategic evaluation and integration of tools that will meet current and future regulatory mandates and, more importantly, protect the business over time. Organizations may also need to think about weighing security over speed, at least until all of the pieces of the software supply chain protection puzzle are in place—but also when future circumstances warrant a fresh look at how to best balance the DevOps pace-protection balance.

February 21, 2024
Cycode Brings Generative AI to App Security Posture Management

Cycode today added generative artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities to its application security posture management (ASPM) platform to make it simpler for DevSecOps teams to identify the root cause of vulnerabilities in complex distributed computing environments.

At the same time, Cycode is adding plugins for VS Code and JetBrains integrated development environments, a command line interface and pull request scanners to make it easier to identify security issues as early as possible during the software development life cycle (SDLC). Cycode also revealed today it now has more than 75 connectors to various security tools commonly used within DevSecOps workflows.

Amir Kazemi, director of product marketing for Cycode, said the company is using OpenAI’s generative AI platform to provide a natural language interface for invoking the Risk Intelligence Graph that is at the core of the Cycode ASPM platform. As part of that effort, Cycode is now also making available an Executive Dashboard that, based on all the dependencies uncovered, provides summaries of risks that make it easier to discern what is occurring across an application environment.

The platform, as a result, can now provide automated risk scoring for vulnerabilities based on actual severity and potential impact to the business, said Kazemi. The overall goal is to make it simpler to secure software supply chains by facilitating the proactive collaboration between application developers, DevOps engineers and cybersecurity professionals, he added.

It’s not clear what impact generative AI is going to have on how DevSecOps workflows are constructed, but making it easier to identify the root cause of security issues in application environments made up of monolithic applications, microservices and event-driven frameworks is now essential. Application security has simply become too chaotic to effectively manage without help from AI, noted Kazemi. In its current state, application security is simply unmanageable, he added.

The challenge is that just because a zero-day vulnerability has been discovered, it doesn’t always follow that application development teams know where every instance of it exists within their application environment. It’s not uncommon for DevSecOps teams to discover outdated versions of components that have known vulnerabilities to be running months after a patch in an updated version of that component has been made available.

DevSecOps teams are, of course, always trying to strike a balance between the level of threat a vulnerability represents and the possibility that the patch that should be applied might break an application. However, given the risk to application environments, it’s becoming less risky to patch an application than it is to hope that cybercriminals don’t exploit a known vulnerability.

While much DevSecOps progress has been made in recent years, it’s clear there is still much work to be done. Hopefully, generative AI will make it simpler for application development teams to address issues more rapidly than ever. In the meantime, however, DevSecOps teams should assume cybercriminals are looking to exploit the same AI capabilities to discover vulnerabilities they can exploit faster than ever.

February 21, 2024
ReversingLabs Applies AI to Better Secure Application Binaries

ReversingLabs this week launched a binary analysis tool that uses machine learning algorithms to identify risks before and after applications are deployed.

Erik Thoen, vice president of product management for ReversingLabs, said Spectra Assure makes use of the same core artificial intelligence (AI) technologies the company uses to discover malware within binaries to analyze the entire software package, including first-, second- and third-party components, to identify potential threats.

Thanks to the use of AI, Spectra Assure is able to scan applications that are gigabytes in size in minutes or hours, depending on their complexity, noted Thoen.

That approach is critical because attacks launched against applications are more often aimed at binaries that are deployed in production applications rather than the source code used to create them, he added.

In addition, Spectra Assure can be applied to both open source and proprietary software, said Thoen. In contrast, many legacy scanning tools are designed to only surface potential issues in open source software, he noted.

Spectra Assure is designed to be used by both producers of software and the organizations that deploy software, said Thoen. Organizations that develop software need to be able to identify any security potential issues that may have arisen during the build process, while organizations that consume software need to be assured that there are no issues that will later compromise their IT environments, said Thoen.

ReversingLabs is attempting to fill a gap that exists in many software supply chains between when a software build is completed and deployed, said Thoen. While developers may scan source code for vulnerabilities, it’s not uncommon for changes to be made during the build process that inadvertently create vulnerabilities, said Thoen.

It’s still not clear which teams within organizations are assuming responsibility for the software supply chain. In many cases, DevSecOps teams are securing the software supply chain, but in other instances, cybersecurity teams have been tasked to lock them down. Among organizations that consume software, responsibility for application security might be assumed by either the cybersecurity teams or a procurement office responsible for purchasing software.

Regardless of how software supply chain security is managed, the number of attacks against them has risen sharply. A recent ReversingLabs report found there has been a 1,300% Increase in malicious packages found in open source software platforms since 2020.

Ultimately, it’s only a matter of time before more stringent regulations force the software supply chain security issue. A recent executive order issued by the Biden administration requiring federal agencies to secure software supply chains is a harbinger of stricter controls that enterprise IT organizations must implement. DevSecOps teams, in the meantime, have an opportunity to revisit the workflows that were created in an era where developers tended to overly trust the integrity of software components downloaded from open repositories.

Of course, it may require a catastrophic event to truly galvanize organizations into action, but one way or another, application security is going to improve. The only issue remaining to determine is how expensive a proposition that will be given the potential fines that are likely to be one day levied.

February 16, 2024
Veracode Report Shines Spotlight on Massive Application Security Debt

An analysis of more than a million applications published today by Veracode, a provider of a software supply chain security platform, found 42% of applications contained flaws that remained unfixed for longer than a year.

Based on 1,553,022 dynamic analysis scans and 11,429,365 static analysis scans, the report noted that those applications with that level of security debt were found in 71% of the organizations maintaining these applications. Nealy half of organizations (46%) have persistent, high-severity flaws that constitute ‘critical’ security debt. Approximately 63% of applications have flaws in first-party code, while 70% contain flaws in third-party code imported via third-party libraries.

Remediation rates also vary by flaw type. Fixing third-party flaws takes 50% longer, with half the known flaws fixed after 11 months, compared to seven months for first-party flaws.

Collectively, the scan run by Veracode produced 96 million raw static findings, four million raw dynamic findings and 12.2 million raw software composition analysis findings.

Chris Eng, chief research officer for Veracode, said it’s clear too many organizations are kicking application security flaws down the road only to find they don’t have the time to address them properly. Meanwhile, cybercriminal syndicates and nation-states are becoming more adept at exploiting these flaws with each passing day, he added.

In general, there is a lot more focus on software supply chain security in the wake of an executive order issued by the Biden administration that requires federal agencies to identify and remediate security flaws. However, the pace at which enterprise IT organizations are following the lead of the Federal government varies widely. Only a relatively small percentage of the vulnerabilities that exist in applications running in production environments are being exploited, so many enterprise IT teams have yet to prioritize the issue.

However, as more cybercriminals acquire the skills required to discover and exploit those vulnerabilities, it’s only a matter of time before a major application security crisis ensues, noted Eng.

Theoretically, at least, artificial intelligence (AI) should one day soon make it easier to discover and remediate vulnerabilities, but it’s just as likely cybercriminals will use the same capabilities to achieve their own nefarious ends. In fact, it’s largely a race against time before existing application flaws are exploited using AI-based tools and techniques. Application development teams that fix flaws the fastest reduce critical security debt by 75%, from 22% of applications to just over 5%, the Veracode report noted.

Naturally, it’s less costly and simpler to fix security flaws before applications are deployed in a production environment, so the more organizations embrace DevSecOps best practices on the front end, the lower the overall security debt becomes, noted Eng.

It’s not clear whether organizations might decide to replace or consolidate applications to reduce their security debt, but given the overall lack of cybersecurity expertise among application developers, the current level of security debt is likely to continue to rise. The challenge, of course, is that as the security debt rises, the number of developers available to address, unfortunately, remains comparatively constant.

February 14, 2024
Squaring the Circle: How to Make Public APIs Private
APIs have become an integral part of enabling seamless data exchange and functionality between systems and businesses. In fact, APIs are trebling every year. Public APIs are, by their nature, designed to be open and discoverable. By definition, this also means that APIs are open to attacks from the networks. This is why APIs have become the number one attack vector.

APIs becoming the top attack vector makes sense. All our other business apps are hidden behind private networks–usually MPLS (AWS Direct Connect, Azure ExpressRoute, etc.), VPN or zero-trust network access (ZTNA). But APIs are exposed to the public Internet.

Day 2 API Security Solutions and Snowflakes

This network exposure is why there are so many ‘Day 2′ API security solutions – WAFs, API security platforms, IDS, etc. These solutions do a great job of blocking threats that have already been identified, yet there are successful API attacks each day. Why?

Each API is unique and evolves rapidly–constant changes in business logic, authentication, authorization and configurations. APIs are snowflakes. The result is that many API attacks are effectively zero-day attacks–novel attacks that exploit recent and unique changes to specific APIs.

A Difficult Race to Win

Network exposure and snowflake characteristics are why API-related vulnerabilities multiply each day.

The ‘snowflake’ issue means many attacks are unknown to the Day 2 solutions – they attack vulnerabilities that didn’t previously exist. So, after the novel attack, we race to apply a fix. Who are we racing against? Every attacker on the internet. The API is public–exposed to the networks–not like our other business apps, which are private behind an MPLS, VPN or zero-trust solution. Racing against attackers on the internet is difficult–and coming second may result in a service outage, data breach or customer compromise.

Why Not Avoid the Race?

So why not make the APIs private, avoid exposing them to the internet, put them behind MPLS, VPN or ZTNA, like we do for all our other business apps? API clients are too distributed and dynamic; there is no good way to manage agents or dedicated circuits across all those API clients. Those solutions were not made for APIs–it is like fitting a square peg in a round hole.

Zero-Trust API Networking Needs to be Built for APIs

To make our APIs private like the rest of our business apps, we must first meet the business need. API providers need to achieve the business velocity and agility they require. On the technical side, we need a secure networking solution which is built to manage the distribution of the API clients, and assume that there will always be snowflake-like vulnerabilities.

Let’s look at an open source solution for zero trust APIs which is purpose-built for those business, technical and operational requirements:

There are usually three reactions to the diagram above:
1. OK, tell me how it works. See below.
2. Looks complex. Nope. All software, spun up in minutes, centrally managed.
3. Seems like a proprietary solution for users accessing their applications. Yes! It uses principles similar to the user-to-app zero-trust world but secures APIs.
How Zero-Trust API Networking Works

Here are the four pillars of zero-trust API networking:
1. Eliminate public access. Your API clients will use private IPs or domains to reach your APIs. If your company name is Acme, then your clients might now use api7.acme.unreachable (you make up any domain you want). Envision an attacker trying to interrogate *.acme.unreachable to find snowflake vulnerabilities. Not possible because it is not a public domain—your API server is no longer reachable.
2. Identity, authentication, authorization, mutual TLS. Authorized API clients do need to access your APIs from the internet. Your zero-trust API overlay network is accessed from the internet only with X.509-certificate cryptographically authenticated identities, continuous authentication and least privileged access authorization via mTLS links. You move the policy enforcement point (PEP) from your DMZ to your API clients. Your API clients add a few lines of zero-trust networking code to enable this model. This code replaces VPNs, MPLS, etc. (there are non-code options too). For example, some of your API clients likely use Resty, a popular open source REST client library for Golang. Their existing Resty code adds a few lines of zero-trust API networking code:
3. Outbound-only. You eliminated the inbound access. Your server will instead open identified, authenticated and authorized sockets to your zero-trust API overlay network (you’ll close all your inbound ports and only enable outbound ports to specific overlay network router IPs or to your x.acme.unreachable domain).
4. Management. API networking security is not very valuable without simple management. The zero-trust API overlay cloud is software-only and cloud-native. You spin up your private API clouds in minutes, anywhere, without deploying hardware. If an API client is compromised, one click or automated action removes its access. Network usage for each client/API is in your web console or management dashboard.
The above is based on the open source OpenZiti zero-trust networking platform, but any zero-trust API platform should provide similar functionality. Specifically, it should enable:
- Speed. Securing APIs but slowing down business or complicating operations is not the trade-off most organizations want. Security and speed is the goal.
- Minimize the threat surface. Close all inbound ports in front of your API servers. Use private, unreachable addresses or domains to minimize your attack surface and stop racing against network-based attackers.
- Extensibility. Software-only, cloud-native architectures. Preferably open source based.
- Operations excellence. Centralized visibility, controls, policies and identities. Rich telemetry data. Performance-optimized overlay networks.
- Zero-trust security. Identity-based networking, continuous authentication, strong authorization, mutual TLS (mTLS), encrypted delivery, microsegmentation.
- Flexibility. API clients add a few lines of code to get zero-trust API networking. Other API clients use API-specific agents or DNS to access the overlay, if desired, while your API server/gateway is still private.
- Recovery. Assume breaches. Implement microsegmentation, prevent data exfiltration and provide simple controls to immediately remove threats.
Zero-Trust API Networking

While APIs will always be snowflakes, they no longer need to be our only business app that is exposed to the networks. By minimizing the attack surface, without compromising business velocity and API client experience, we can finally mitigate against our greatest API security risk. This also simplifies our day two API security, the solutions that inspect API queries after they enter our DMZ.

Rather than trying to filter the internet, day two solutions can focus on detecting authorized API clients that may have been compromised. Similarly, our operations teams are freed to focus on sessions from authorized API clients rather than wading through oceans of data from port scanning, DDoS attacks, unauthorized API queries and attempts to interrogate public APIs to find new snowflake vulnerabilities.
February 14, 2024
Legit Security Adds Sensors to Detect Usage of Gen AI Tools to Write Code

Legit Security today announced it has added the ability to detect when developers use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools to write code to its application security posture management (ASPM) platform.

The ASPM platform developed by Legit Security already has discovery capabilities for application secrets, for example, enabled by sensors that are now being extended to include generative AI tools.

Legit Security CTO Liav Caspi said the overall goal is to allow DevSecOps teams to identify who uses these tools to write which types of code. Each DevSecOps team can then decide how stringently to enforce policies to either ban or limit usage of those tools, he added.

There is no doubt that generative AI tools are increasing developer productivity, but the large language models (LLMs) that provide the ability to generate code were trained using examples of code of varying quality collected from across the web. Much of that code either contains known vulnerabilities or is simply inefficient, which can manifest itself in the output surfaced by a generative AI platform.

The Legit Security ASPM platform, in addition to identifying generative AI tools being used in real-time, can also be employed to scan the LLM itself to identify security risks such as prompt injection and insecure output handling. Unfortunately, most cybersecurity teams are unaware of the extent to which application code generated by a machine might be insecure, so it currently falls to leaders of DevSecOps teams to determine what is an acceptable use of these tools. It may be perfectly fine to rely on a generative AI tool to create a script that will be used for an internal-facing application. However, using the same tool to write business logic that will be exposed to the internet may not be especially prudent.

It’s not clear how much of the code finding its way into software builds is being generated by a machine versus a human. In the longer term, the goal is to be able to identify that code by, for example, detecting substantial changes in the way code is normally written by a human developer, said Caspi.

Of course, while an ASPM may detect usage of generative AI tools that are connected to a corporate environment, there are still plenty of opportunities for developers to use these tools offline to create code that can later be added to a build using a code check-in tool. After all, many developers have used various shadow IT tools to write code for decades. Regardless of who or what wrote that code, however, it should still be reviewed.

In the meantime, the overall size of the codebase that DevSecOps teams will need to manage and secure will only exponentially increase as developers become more productive. Hopefully, more AI capabilities will soon be embedded into DevOps platforms to further automate the management of software builds at a time when many DevOps teams were already finding themselves overwhelmed even prior to the rise of generative AI.

February 13, 2024
Survey: Cyberattacks Aimed at Software Supply Chains are Pervasive

A survey published today finds 91% of respondents work for organizations that have experienced a software supply chain incident in the past 12 months.

The survey polled 368 IT, cybersecurity and application developer professionals responsible for application security in North America and was conducted by the research firm Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) on behalf of Data Theorem, a provider of an application security platform. The survey found zero-day exploits of vulnerabilities within third-party code (41%) were the most common attack vector, followed closely by misconfigured cloud services (40%), vulnerabilities in open-source software and container images (40%), stolen secrets/token/passwords (37%) and breaches of application programming interfaces (APIs) (35%).

The biggest areas of impact of those breaches are identified as cryptojacking (43%), inability to meet service level agreements (41%), malware infestation (39%), unauthorized access (39%), stolen developer credentials (37%), data loss (37%) and the levying of fines (37%).

Despite these issues, however, nearly three-quarters (74%) of respondents claimed their organization has “robust” software supply chain security capabilities even though a similar percentage said they are making significant investments in software supply chain security, with an additional 25% making moderate investments. More than three-quarters (77%) said they have increased their effort to secure third-party software components and container images in the wake of an attack. The top two areas of focus are new detection rules/analytics (33%) and the adoption of multifactor authentication (MFA) (33%).

Top investment priorities over the next 12 to 18 months include scanning open source code components and third-party libraries for vulnerabilities (44%), followed by discovering and inspecting APIs in source code (39%), using composition analysis tools to create software bill of materials (SBOMs) (38%) and applying runtime API security controls (33%).

The most widely used tools today are automated open source package risk management (34%), static application security testing (SAST) tools (34%), vulnerability scanning of cloud services (32%), automated security as code policy enforcement (31%) and dynamic application security testing (DAST) tools (31%).

Data Theorem COO Doug Dooley said while the survey makes it clear progress is being made, there is still a lack of urgency. It may require additional high-profile breaches to create a large enough public outcry to pass the legislation that is going to be required to address software supply chain security issues more vigorously. In fact, 83% of respondents noted industry regulations are a key driver to ensure they create accurate SBOMs.

In general, the survey finds nearly two-thirds of respondents (65%) have more than 50 Git repositories, with 40% reporting that more than half of their code is composed of third-party software. Half of respondents (50%) said they expected that to rise to more than half in the next 12 months. Well over half (58%) noted more than 30% of their code would be of open source software.

Only 43% report they are completely confident that their developers are only using secure open source software. On the plus side, 90% are prioritizing efforts to shift security left to developers.

Overall, 86% said it’s critical or important to know the composition/inventory of application code in use, where code is stored, and who has access to code components connected to their code. A total of 88% also noted it’s critical or important to have accurate inventory of their third-party APIs and cloud services.

The one thing that is certain in the months ahead is that cybercriminals will put software supply chain security to the test. The challenge and the opportunity now, regardless of what regulations are ultimately passed, is to thwart those attacks before the damage inflicted ultimately forces lawmakers to act in ways that make software development a lot more difficult than it already is.

February 12, 2024
GitGuardian Allies With CyberArk to Better Protect App Secrets

GitGuardian this week revealed it has allied with CyberArk to streamline secrets detection and management by making it easier to share insights.

Ziad Ghalleb, product marketing manager for GitGuardian, said the two companies have integrated their respective platforms using open source software that integrates GitGuardian Secrets Detection and CyberArk Conjur Cloud, a software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform for managing and rotating secrets as needed.

In addition, CyberArk Conjur Cloud is now integrated with HasMySecretLeaked, a tool for discovering if a specific secret has been exposed on GitHub. That capability enables DevSecOps teams to periodically cross-reference secrets and credentials against a private database of secrets known to have been publicly exposed.

GitGuardian claims to have uncovered more than 20 million publicly exposed secrets on the GitHub repository. While GitGuardian provides tools to discover exposed secrets, organizations rely on the CyberArk platform to manage secrets and remediate issues that arise when they are left exposed.

The immediate challenge is to find ways to integrate secrets detection within the context of larger ecosystems, said Ghalleb. In the longer term, GitGuardian is working toward embedding its tool into integrated development environments (IDEs) to surface exposed secrets as developers build software, said Ghalleb.

Naturally, there is a lot more focus on secret detection, and secrets management is getting more attention as more organizations review their software supply chain processes in the wake of a series of high-profile security breaches. For many organizations, however, it’s still early days as far as adopting DevSecOps best practices to secure those software supply chains, but it’s clear more responsibility for application security is shifting left toward developers and the DevOps teams that support them.

Unfortunately, too many developers still hard-code secrets in plain text into applications to create shortcuts as software is developed. Many forget to remove those secrets before an application is deployed in a production environment. Once an application is deployed in a production environment, it may be months before anyone discovers an issue—if it’s discovered at all.

In the meantime, cybercriminals are becoming more adept at using scanning tools to discover secrets and then exploiting them to compromise applications after they have been deployed.

Hopefully, DevOps teams will implement DevSecOps best practices to address those issues before any fines are levied. But the challenge, as always, is ensuring application security without adversely impacting the rate at which software is currently being built.

It’s only a matter of time before more stringent regulations require organizations to revisit the security of software supply chains. Countries around the world are drafting legislation that would hold organizations much more accountable for the security of the applications they build and deploy. As more fines are eventually levied, the tolerance for leaving secrets exposed in applications is only going to decline.

Secrets discovery and management is, of course, only one aspect of application security, but the more these issues are addressed before applications are deployed the less stressful cybersecurity becomes.

February 9, 2024
OX Security Optimizes DevSecOps to Improve Application Security

OX Security this week updated its application security posture management (ASPM) platform to enable DevSecOps teams to instantly identify applications running in production environments that are running code that could be potentially exploited.

The ASPM platform from OX Security leverages large language models (LLMs) to identify vulnerabilities. The latest version adds an ability to confine the number of alerts generated to instances of code that can actually be exploited.

OX Security CEO Neatsun Ziv said that approach reduces the number of alerts that would otherwise be generated by 99% to enable DevSecOps teams to focus their limited resources on the 1% of alerts that represent an actual risk to the business. OX Security achieves that goal in part because its scanners are integrated with source control, continuous integration/continuous delivery (CI/CD) platforms, registries and cloud computing environments.

The overall goal is to reduce the amount of manual effort currently required to consistently maintain DevSecOps best practices.
The primary reason many vulnerabilities are never addressed is that DevSecOps teams are simply overwhelmed by alerts. Most of the alerts generated by a cybersecurity team are not immediately relevant because either the vulnerability is not present in the application running in a production environment or the application doesn’t connect to the internet.

The OX Security platform makes it possible to identify application security issues that need to be prioritized because it has been confirmed a vulnerability exists that can be exploited, said Ziv.

No matter how precise the alert process becomes, a DevSecOps team will still need to manage it, added Ziv. However, as the alerts generated become more relevant, it should become easier to bridge the historic divide between application developers and cybersecurity teams. Too many developers routinely ignore vulnerabilities identified by cybersecurity teams simply because previous efforts to identify the actual severity they represent have ultimately been a waste of their time.

The challenge just about any organization encounters when trying to better secure their software supply chains is, not surprisingly, getting application developers to buy into the DevSecOps process. Most developers are going to actively resist any approach to remediating vulnerabilities that takes time away from building new applications. Most of them only allocate about 10% of their time or less to remediating vulnerabilities. As such, it’s incumbent on a DevSecOps team to find ways to address application security issues in ways that don’t adversely impact developer productivity.

Organizations could mandate that vulnerabilities be remediated. In fact, there is a growing body of regulations that will require organizations to do just that unless they can prove the vulnerability in question cannot be exploited. The only way to effectively make that case will be to rely more on automation to document that the code running in a production environment is actually secure.

In the meantime, developers should expect to see their code scrutinized more than ever. Of course, the better part of valor is to ensure that as many vulnerabilities as possible are never introduced.

February 1, 2024
Cycode Discloses GitHub Actions Vulnerability in Google Bazel Project

Cycode today revealed it discovered a command injection vulnerability in the way the GitHub Actions continuous integration/continuous delivery (CI/CD) platform was used to update the open source Bazel project that many organizations employ to build and test software.

The vulnerability, now remediated, could have been used to create a backdoor through which malicious code could have been inserted into a codebase that is managed by Google.

Cycode researchers shared their discovery with Google, which has since updated the way it employs GitHub Actions to manage the Bazel codebase. Specifically, Google updated the base permissions to embrace least privilege principles to resolve the vulnerability discovered by Cycode.

The vulnerability was discovered using RAVEN, an open source tool for scanning CI/CD platforms for vulnerabilities that Cycode makes available.

Elad Pticha, senior security researcher for Cycode, said the vulnerability is the latest example of an instance of an open repository for building software that has been shown to be potentially vulnerable to an attack on a software supply chain that could theoretically impact any number of downstream applications and projects, including Kubernetes, Angular and platforms and services provided by Uber and LinkedIn.

A Custom Actions capability that enables application development teams to create their own workflows presents any cybercriminal attempting to compromise of software supply chain with a tempting target, noted Pticha. A few changes to lines of code in a workflow can translate into thousands or even millions of lines of code, many of which an organization may never detect. Out of 3.4 million workflows examined by Cycode, nearly all (99%) make use of one or more Custom Action.

Cycode has previously identified dozens of vulnerabilities in open source projects by mainly focusing on vulnerabilities within workflows. This latest research shows those vulnerabilities extend to indirect dependencies, such as Custom Actions, noted Pticha.

Each DevOps team should review its own workflows for similar vulnerabilities at a time when more cybercriminals than ever are intent on compromising software supply chains. While many organizations have embraced DevSecOps workflows to improve application security, there is a natural tendency to overlook vulnerabilities that might exist in the workflows used to build and deploy software. The challenge is that DevSecOps workflows are still immature. A recent survey of 500 U.S. CISOs, AppSec directors and DevSecOps team members conducted by Cycode found 78% admitted application security attack surfaces are unmanageable, with 90% acknowledging relationships between their security and development teams need to improve.

It’s not apparent if the vulnerability discovered by Cycode was actually ever exploited, but as most cybersecurity professionals know, if it can be imagined, someone has tried it. As such, any organization that uses Bazel might be well-advised to conduct a code review.

In the meantime, it’s already apparent that regulations pertaining to securing software supply chains are only going to become more stringent in the months ahead. In the wake of the executive order from the Biden administration requiring federal agencies to lock down their software supply chains, it’s now only a matter of time before similar requirements are baked into legislation and various other regulations are implemented. The challenge and the opportunity now is to get ahead of this issue before a mandate with a hard deadline that can’t be ignored winds up disrupting the entire software development life cycle.

February 1, 2024