Recent Acquisitions In The Security Industry And What It Means For Software Security Professionals

The recent news of the acquisitions of McAfee by Intel and of Fortify by HP can be interpreted as a future trend for the security industry: build security into hardware and engineering processes instead of bolting security on products. Intel’s acquisition of McAfee for example, can be interpreted as move by Intel to integrate application security with hardware (e.g. microchips) that Intel currently develops. Similarly, the acquisition of Fortify Software by HP can be interpreted as a move by HP to integrate software security within HP suite of tools for software testing. Moreover, the news of McAfee acquisition by Intel, can also be interpreted as that the age of companies as pure providers of Antivirus tools has come to an end. This was also predicted by John Kula in his book, Hacking Wall St attacks and countermeasures: ”By the end of 2010, conventional pattern matching anti-virus systems will be completely dead. Their effectiveness will have fallen below 50%.”
To understand how signature Anti-Virus (AV) detection and eradication tools have come to age, we need to look at the evolution of security threats in the last two decades and how this affected the effectiveness of AV tools in mitigating the current threats such as cybercrime threats. This is mostly due to the fact that the security threats that consumers and businesses have to protect from today are very different from the ones that they had to protect from ten years ago. In the 90’s the main targets for viruses were users’ PC, typical attack vectors included opening unknown email attachments to infect their PCs and spread to the company servers. In 2001 we witnessed the appearance of the first malicious rootkit for the Windows NT: such rootkit had the capability to sneak under the radar of the anti-virus software and evade detection. In 2003 denial of service attacks took advantage of the spreading of worms for infrastructure wide exploitation of buffer overflows such as the SQL slammer worm that caused denial of service to several ATMs at banks such as Bank of America and Washington Mutual. As new signatures were developed to detect and eradicate viruses and worms, the effectiveness of Anti-Virus tools stood on the capacity to identify viruses and worms by the unique signature of the attacks as well as in the capability to eradicate viruses and worms after the infection by patching the infected system. But in 2005, we witnessed email phishing attacks to spread Trojans programs embedded in apparent harmless files eluding anti-virus software and firewalls with the purpose of data exfiltration such as to steal passwords and sensitive data. In 2007, we had the evidence of botnet controlled trojans used as crimeware tool to rob online bank customers, spreading either through targeted phishing attacks or through drive by download infections. More recently, in 2009, Trusteer a security company providing anti-malware solutions published an advisory entitled “Measuring the in-the-wild effectiveness of Antivirus against Zeus” according to which the most popular banker malware Zeus, is successfully bypassing up-to-date antivirus software : “The effectiveness of an up to date anti virus against Zeus is thus not 100%, not 90%, not even 50% – it’s just 23% “.
It is therefore clear in my opinion, that the defenses for malware infection, being this with either viruses, trojans or worms have to be expanded to include other layers of the technology stack that are now the target for rootkits and malware attacks. These expanded layers might include for example, besides the O.S and the application also hardware, kernel and firmware that are currently below the radar of AV detection tools.
Expanding security protection to the hardware layer is beneficial not only as detection control such as for malware intrusion detection but also as security risk preventive controls such as data protection. In the case of cybercrime, malware rootkits such as ZeuS for example that seek to compromise the communication channel between the PC and the banking sites, the malware attacks the client to either hook into the kernel to do Man In The Middle (MiTM) attacks or into the browser APIs to do Man in The Browser (MiTB) attacks. In both cases of these attacks, there is a lot of security to gain at the application layer by protecting the data at the hardware layer. One way to defeat MiTM attacks for example is to secure the communication channel through 2-way mutual authentication and PKI using client identities that are protected by the so called “ID vaults” embedded in hardware chips and secured at firmware layer. Examples of this “ID vaults”are the Broadcom USH Unified Security Hub, that is included in several PCs today and is leveraged by data protection tools such as Verdasys’s Digital Guardian data protection solution. You might also consider the benefit of developing application with hardware defenses such as by enforcing firmware controls by digital signing your application at the firmware layer. For the ones of you that attended the talk from Barnaby Jack about jackpotting ATMs at BlackHat this year, signing the application at the firmware layer was one of the mitigations being recommended against rootkit infections.

The other big opportunity for security companies is the integration of security of software with hardware such as in the case of applications for mobile phones. As software is built for the specific mobile O.S. (e.g. Android or iPhone O.S.) can also be build out of the box by leveraging security controls deep in the technology stack that include kernel API, firmware and hardware. In the case of being capable to detect attack vectors, having intrusion detection events that can be triggered at the different layers of the technology stack can leverage defenses at the application layer such as blocking the application to run or transferring data to the server. These are just few examples of security synergies accross layers of the technology stack.

In summary, I think Intel acquisition of McAfee could give Intel the opportunity to design hardware chips that tightly integrate security detection and prevention controls with firmware and software and provide additional layers of security to applications.

The other industry M&A news was the acquisition of Fortify’s software security company by HP: this follows a trend of big software companies such as IBM and HP to acquire security tools companies such as Watchfire and Fortify. Previously, HP grew their security assessment suite of tools through the acquisition of SpyDynamics WebInspect to integrate it in HP’s software quality assurance suite of tools, QA inspect. Since IBM previously acquired application scanning tool WatchFire’s Appscan and static analysis tool provider Ounce Labs, Fortify’s static analysis tool acquisition by HP fits the scenario of HP competing head to head with IBM in the software security space. For sake of competition, the acquisition of Fortify by HP make a lot of sense, but the HP acquisition of Fortify also fits the trend in the industry of run software security either as a service or as an assessment integrated as part of the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) process.

For example, application and source code vulnerability scanning assessments, referred as dynamic and static testing can be performed a Software Security as a Service (SSaaS) for software development stakeholders such as application architects, developers and testers. These services can also include automation security tools that can be rolled out as part of the overall software development and testing suite of tools such as Integrated Development Environments (IDE) and Q/A testing tools. Obviously, security tool integration with IDE and Q/A testing tools is just one part of the software security equation, as besides tools you also need to roll out secure coding training and secure coding standards. The holistic need of software security that includes people process and technology, is often misunderstood by who has to manage software security initiatives for organizations as software security tools or services alone are mis-interpreted as sufficient to produce secure software.

To produce secure software with a level of software security assurance that is both risk mitigation and cost effective, organizations need to roll out, besides static and dynamic analysis tools and services also software security training for developers and software security engineering processes/methodologies such as SAMM, BSIMM, MS-SDL-Agile, Securosis SSDL, OWASP CLASP.

Obviously, the increased adoption of static and dynamic analysis tools by the enterprise follows the application and software security tool adoption trend. If you refer from a survey from errata security –Integrating Security Info the SDLC, it is shown for example that static analysis is the most popular activity (57%) followed by manual secure code reviews (51%), manual testing (47%). The trend of adoption of application and software security tools usually follows the enterprise awareness of the application security problem as a software security problem.  At the beginning of the rolling out an application security initiative, companies start from the far right of the SDLC by rolling out application scanning tools and ethical hacking web assessments and then move toward the left of the SDLC with source code analysis. Eventually the awareness of the software security problem moves to the design stage by trying to identify security design flaws earlier in the SDLC with the Application Threat Modeling (ATM). Right now, according to the errata security survey, only 37% of organizations have adopted ATM as part of the SDLC. I believe the trend will lead to that direction of adopting ATM because of the efficiencies and the larger security coverage that ATM will provide. Probably this low ATM adoption can be explained by not enough security awareness yet onto the benefits of ATM as well as the maturity levels reached to seek adoption of ATM within the SLDC.
Software security training for developers is also a trend, 86% of the participants of the survey sent one or more members of the software development team to security training. But again according to the Errata security survey, software security is not yet part of the top list of information security management concerns as only about 1/6 of participants (16%) sends his project managers and InfoSec and AppSec directors to software security process management training.
As the static and dynamic security testing adoption grows in the industry there will be also a need of software security services such as software security training and the development of engineering processes and standards. This trend follows the integration of the organization SDLCs as well as InfoSec/AppSec and Risk management processes with formal software assurance methodologies and activities such as vulnerability assessments, secure coding reviews and secure design review/ application threat modeling.
These trends in the M&A of software security industry will also create new career opportunities. In the case of information security managers for example, there will be a need to hire managers with the right experience and skills in managing software security processes for organizations. In the case of software engineers and security consultants, it will create a need of software engineers and consultants abreast of software security formal methods, static and dynamic analysis tools as well as security assessments such as secure code reviews and application architecture risk analysis and design or application threat modeling. In the case of electrical, software or computer system engineers, the knowledge of hardware and software security could also be leveraged to become an expert in hardware-software security integration such as in the case of the design of hardware embedded application security products/solutions.
In conclusion, as software security practitioner, in your current professional role of information security manager, software security architect, software security consultant, software security trainer/instructor you might look at these industry trends to set your career goals and cultivate the necessary skills and experience that could lead you in new career opportunities being created as results of these security industry trends.
find the cost of your paper

Best Cover Up for Acne-Prone Skin

There are two crucial properties of foundations that are the best cover up for acne prone skin. It has to cover the pimples without looking like a piece of cake and make sure it doesn’t clog the pores, so breakouts don’t continue.

How to Select the Best Coverup for Acne Prone Skin 

1.     Try Not to Make the Acne Increase

Try looking for noncomedogenic cosmetics. This means they do not clog your pores. Make sure you do not use foundations that have denatured SD alcohol. These types are called isopropyl alcohol. They destroy the protective surface of your skin, and it also makes oily skin worse than it already is.

2.     Check the Ingredients

Try getting a foundation that is liquid with a concentration of salicylic acid that is not high. This helps in the removal of too much oil and the removal of dead skin cells, working like a pore cleaner and to keep the pores clear.

3.     Try Getting a Powder

A lot of dermatologists normally advise you get a powdered product over a liquid one for skin prone to acne. It is less likely to clog your skin, because the particles from the pigment are larger than those that are made of liquid. If you like ones that are made of liquid, then don’t use the ones with dewy finishes. Get something that is free of oil and not matte.

There are a lot of foundations that could be used as a cover-up and could help manage breakouts. Here is a list of options for the best cover up for acne prone skin.

5 Best Cover Ups for Acne Prone Skin

1.     Bare Minerals’ Blemish Rescue Skin-Clearing Loose Powder Foundation

It is a powdered foundation from Bare Minerals, which offers salicylic acid, kaolin clay, acne-fighting zinc, and other ingredients like oat protein, which helps to calm irritation. It has been tested by different dermatologists and is a non-drying noncomedogenic.

2.     Maybelline’s Fit Me Matte + Poreless Liquid Foundation Makeup

This helps in giving a skin-like coverage and buildable cover-up at an affordable price. It is an oil-free formula that is noncomedogenic and helps in covering imperfections and using a pore blurring finish and a soft matte. It also is available in a shade range that is diverse, so everyone could get what would work for them.

3.     MAC Studio’s Fix Fluid Foundation SPF 15

Using a concealer that is too dark or too light most times increases the acne instead of reducing it. You should use a type of cover-up that is right for your skin. This is also created to make your skin look natural.

4.     Jane Iredale’s Enlighten Concealer

Jane Iredale’s Enlighten Concealer is a cruelty-free concealer formulated for dark under-eye circles, coloration or bruising, as well as acne or scarring. It contains anti-irritant and antioxidant properties thanks to its key ingredients of algae extract, moringa seed oil, white Lilly extract, and more.

5.     100% Pure’s 2nd Skin Concealer

2nd Skin Concealer by 100% Pure is a creamy, lightweight concealer wand that’s convenient for travel. Stick it in your purse or gym bag for daily corrective touch-ups. It’s made from fruit and hydrating olive extract.

The post Best Cover Up for Acne-Prone Skin appeared first on Fiction Vixen.

Questions & Answers 3012

1) Could you explain what you mean when you say criticism is a sin?
2) Why did Jesus not allow certain people to tell others about the healing they received from Him?
3) Can you explain where you can find allusions to Jesus in the book of Ecclesiastes?
4) Dr. McGee explains what he means when he says that believers are Catholic priests.
5) Can someone live without sin?
6) After death and before the resurrection, do we have intermediate bodies?
7) When we forgive do we also have to forget?
8) What is Shekinah Glory?
9) In John 10 Jesus quotes Psalm 82 which calls men gods. Does “gods” in this passage refer to teacher, judge, or prophet?
10) Was it Gods will for David to have many wives and concubines?
11) If someone strays from God does that mean that they were not saved?