I am very excited to welcome Gary Messiana, newly appointed CEO of The Fabric co-creation Mesh7 (previously Kavach), a cloud-native application security mesh company funded by Juniper, Splunk, and March Capital Partners.

Gary brings an extensive track record of executive leadership, operational excellence and success with strong client-centric philosophy in application software, security and hosted infrastructure. He joins Mesh7 as CEO following the successful sale of Nominum Incorporated, a DNS based security company, where he served as CEO starting in 2011. Prior to Nominum, Gary was an EIR (entrepreneur-in-residence) at Bessemer Venture Partners where he focused on the software and infrastructure as a service sector. Gary also served as CEO of Netli, a content and application delivery network provider servicing both the carrier and enterprise markets. Netli was successfully sold in 2007 to Akamai. Prior to joining Netli, Gary served a CEO at Diligent Software Systems, a provider of strategic sourcing software that he sold to B2E Markets in 2003.

We look forward to working with Gary and Mesh7 team that consists of domain experts in application security, cloud technologies, and distributed systems.

Welcome to The Fabric family, Gary.

According to Risk based security research, 2019 is on track to being the “worst year on record” for breach activity.

Despite a whole host of security tools and control systems, breaches continue to occur, they are more frequent and the blast radius is wider. And more often than not they follow a pattern of either being insider threat, compromised user accounts or exploitation of zero day vulnerabilities. Traditional enterprise perimeter based security model is focused on preventing perimeter breach, and once the perimeter is breached, there is not a lot being done to prevent lateral movement of an attacker. The recent CapitalOne and Uber breaches have shown how attackers with compromised user accounts moved laterally to download data of millions of users from the enterprise’s S3 buckets.

Micro segmentation is Micro Perimeter

Enterprises are increasingly embracing Zero Trust security postures to combat threats that cannot be easily identified or vectors hitherto unknown. This security model is strongly rooted in the principle “Never Trust, Always Verify”, hence, Zero Trust.  For most enterprises, Zero Trust is built on the concept of Microsegmentation. Microsegmentation essentially allowed enterprises to segment workloads into groups,  and group membership is determined by a variety of factors such as application type, function type, department, location…. and groups are secured through group based policies. Eventually this evolved to labels or tagged based group membership and inferring the security policies based on group membership. Thus was born intent based policies.

Traditional Data Center vs Micro Segmented Data Center: Source VMWare

Micro Segmentation was a key enabler of zero trust security architectures, allowing security teams to whitelist workloads that can access services. While this allowed some degree of isolation and permissioned access, microsegmentation would not have addressed the Capital One breach. A true zero trust architecture should evolve to go beyond network level controls.

Traditional security postures built on L3/L4 Firewalls, WAFs, IDS and IPS systems are geared towards a perimeter based security approach. With microsegmentation the perimeter has moved closer to the workload. And in the event of a breach, microsegmentation allowed security teams to contain lateral movement of breaches at a network level and contain the fallout. But,

 Is network layer segmentation enough? Did network micro segmentation falter at preventing lateral movement of threats in recent well publicised breaches?

This harks back to the evolution of next-generation firewalls (NGFW), when perimeter firewalls evolved from Layer3/LayerL4 rule based firewalls to deep packet inspection (DPI) based firewalls. This need was necessitated by the fact that all applications eventually moved to HTTP or HTTPS and gaining deeper insights allowed for fine grained per-application policy and control. Similar needs led to the evolution of Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) to shed light on shadow IT and to gain insight into applications used by enterprise users. Now enterprises no longer permit or deny all outgoing port 80/443 traffic but can closely monitor usage of enterprise sanctioned applications.

A whitelist approach for a cloud era

We are seeing a similar shift within the datacenter (VPC) where L3/L4 micro segmentation would not suffice to prevent a breach like the one Capital One experienced. It is key to understand the roles of each workload in the data center and its relationship to the overall functioning of the application. Whitelisting application access beyond the application’s network behavior allows security operations to detect behavior that is abnormal and scrutinize this interaction closely. We can take a cue from the way NGFW and CASBs evolved and extend this from a network layer (whitelisted microsegments) to application layer (whitelisted applications).

There are some unique challenges to create this whitelist, and trends such as multi-cloud, hybrid cloud, microservices have a significant impact on the ability to create and continuously manage this whitelist blueprint.

Shared responsibility SHIFTS responsibility

With the continued growth in cloud migration, security of cloud applications is even more in focus. Cloud providers are advocating a shared responsibility model where the security responsibilities are shared between cloud providers and enterprises deploying cloud applications. Shared cloud security model is sometimes aptly described as security-of-the-cloud vs security-in-the-cloud.  Here are two very similar models of shared cloud security from Microsoft Azure and Amazon AWS.

Microsoft Azure and AWS shared responsibility models: Source Microsoft & Amazon

These models very clear layout what part of the security posture the cloud provider is responsible for. Here the onus is on the enterprise to implement a zero trust paradigm and to ensure access to assets deployed in public cloud are appropriately controlled. The cloud infrastructure allows to create an old fashioned micro segmentation but it is up to the enterprise to create a true application aware whitelist infrastructure. Multi cloud and hybrid cloud further complicates implementation of an effective security architecture.

Microservices complicates security policies

In his book, Agile Software Development, Principles, Patterns, and Practices, Robert C Martin introduced the single responsibility principle, and in a way microservices architecture embodies that principle. In this paradigm, large monolithic applications are broken down into micro applications  that are developed by smaller teams. Each microservice or set of microservices follow their own cadence of development and release.

Monolithic vs Microservices Architectures: Source Altassian

A plethora of ways to build, deploy and manage the microservices further exacerbates the issue of microsegmentation.  In one fell swoop the issue of network segmentation and network whitelisting became an issue of micro application whitelisting and challenges include but are not limited to:

  1. Service and components are smaller in form and function but the number of such components increases significantly.
  2. Auto scaling, self healing and service discovery make infrastructure dynamic and unpredictable
  3. Development and release at the pace of Agile means that SecDevOps need to adapt to that pace.
  4. Many orchestration platforms (kubernetes, Openshift, Nomad, Mesos, Docker Swarm…) and many different ways to service discovery

Auto discovery and zero touch configuration

Given the complexity and dynamic nature of today’s cloud environments, it is impractical to manually coordinate and create security configuration. The only plausible way is to auto-discover, learn and auto-create this configuration. The system needs to discover the application interactions, discover APIs, discover infrastructure accessed by applications, discover data accessed by applications and auto-create a blueprint.

Taking a blackbox approach to application security takes us down a path of guessing the application requirements and could potentially lead to imprecise controls. Understanding the process of applications development, how their services are used, how they interact in the ecosystem, the privilege levels they need to access infrastructure, what data they need, when they need it and at what privilege levels will help create an effective security strategy. And more importantly it will enable SecOps to react to security events with speed and precision.

Picture this. A hacker uses a VPN to breach into a cloud server (virtual machine hosted within a tier-1 public cloud provider) of a large financial enterprise, through a misconfigured firewall, then executes a small set of commands (injection attack), which gets her the credentials. She then uses the credentials to send authenticated requests to the cloud’s storage environment, and extracts hundreds of millions of credit card applications and account information (data exfiltration attack), carrying all kinds of sensitive data such as PII (personally identifiable information) and PI (personal information).

Sounds all too familiar and real ? That’s because it is a real breach. Interestingly this is a breach of an Enterprise that is well known to take data security very seriously.

What’s most alarming about the story, is that the hacker went undetected (despite all the monitoring and detection tools in place), and she had to brag about her adventures on GitHub/Slack for people to take notice, and only after a tip off did folks realize that the breach had occurred and took remediation actions.

Now, the purpose of highlighting this application breach is not to malign any particular Enterprise, but to learn from it. All too often we make the mistake of assuming that our environment is safe and not vulnerable to hacks and breaches, whereas it actually is quite exposed and hacker-friendly. In fact, over the past few years, we have seen numerous application breaches of credit reporting agencies, local search services, hotel chains, gaming companies, postal services, etc. and interestingly many of them were highly un-sophisticated data breaches. These obviously, negatively impact not only the businesses because of regulatory fines ($700 million in one case) and cost of damage control, but also the end customers, who have to deal with the aftermath of losing their sensitive data to the wrong hands.

Current State of Application (and API) Security

 So why has application security become of such paramount importance now more than ever before, and why are we seeing a spate of application data breaches in the recent past ?

When you look at Enterprise Data, the crown jewel that everyone is trying to protect, there are various touch points or ‘data access doors’, if you will, to it from various sources. Starting with employees who directly access data using their removable media, to end-point and IOT devices, to cloud and SaaS workloads to legacy web apps — and now with the increasing use of modern and distributed applications — everywhere data is being accessed, handled, and most importantly transferred across heterogenous and distributed environments. And while there are multiple security solutions to protect the other so-called ‘data access doors’, when it comes to modern applications and specifically when it comes to application data-in-motion (APIs being a small subset of that), there aren’t comprehensive security solutions that can monitor the environment and protect against bad actors (As a side note, of late, we are seeing the emergence of a few perimeter-based API security solutions). And with applications evolving rapidly from monolithic to distributed, the number of APIs or application data-in-motion interactions have just increased exponentially, thereby making the issue of security even worse and imminent.


Given all this, therefore, it should come as no surprise that security experts believe that “API is the next big cyber-attack vector” or if said more generically, ‘application data-in-motion is the next big cyber-attack vector’.

Learnings, Best Practices and Recommendations

Let’s face reality. No environment is completely safe and foolproof. So the least we can do is learn from other’s mistakes and better prepare ourselves to protect our environment against these kinds of breaches. Here are, in my opinion, the top 5 learnings from these recent data breaches, and best practices and recommendations to keep in mind.

1. Manual configuration is prone to human errors. Even the best of the best make errors, if they have to configure devices manually. Case in point is the above example data breach, where the hacker leveraged a misconfiguration to penetrate the environment.

Best Practice / Recommendations:

It’s always recommended to do away with manual configuration, wherever possible. Often times, there are solutions that require policy configurations to be manual, which creates a huge overhead and risk, especially when the number of components is unmanageably large — which is true for cloud-native workloads and environments. So it is advisable to look for solutions that do not require admins to configure policies manually, and instead, the system recommends what configurations and policies to put in place.

2. Perimeter breaches are inevitable. Whether it is through a misconfigured firewall, or an issue in the API server, or a vulnerability in the infrastructure (e.g. Kubernetes CVE-2018-1002105), perimeter (aka north-south) breaches are bound to happen, and when that does, how well you have protected your internal environment determines whether your data is breached or not.

Best Practice / Recommendation:

Investing in security solutions that focus on the east-west and insider attacks in addition to north-south is, therefore, a must. Ensure that your security solutions offer distributed security and policies, and that each workload granularly secures itself in a zero-trust manner. Often times though, ‘zero-trust’ is confused with just encryption (Mutual TLS). What we need to remember is that ‘Encrypted’ does not mean ‘Secured’. Although encryption raises the bar, hackers will use the encrypted path as the transport to breach applications and data. So, it is strongly recommended to invest in security solutions which are not only distributed but also deep within the data-layer (as opposed to just network- or URL-layer).

3. Modern distributed applications (and APIs) offer a path of least resistance for hackers. As a result, not only are applications and API breaches on the rise, but many of the attacks are also quite simple and unsophisticated.

Best Practice / Recommendation:

Whether it is your public APIs to partners, or your distributed east-west APIs or even your egress APIs to third party vendors, it is strongly recommended to have a comprehensive API security (or more generically data-in-motion security) strategy in place.

4. Post-authentication hacks using stolen credentials are quite common. “A scan of billions of files from 13% of all GitHub public repositories over a period of six months has revealed that over 100,000 repos have leaked API tokens and cryptographic keys, with thousands of new repositories leaking new secrets on a daily basis.” Clearly, focus on identity management alone is not enough in a world where such errors are made by novices and experts alike, thereby providing hackers a vehicle to piggyback on authorized sessions and perform data breaches. In the above example breach, the hacker used stolen credentials to get all the sensitive information from the cloud storage.

Best Practice / Recommendation:

While there is a lot of focus on identity and access management, several application attacks such as parameter tampering, etc. occur post-authentication using stolen credentials. It is, therefore, strongly recommended to invest in security solutions that address post-authentication and authorization breaches, especially those that can detect user account takeover using stolen credentials.

5. Real-time Visibility and Detection is key. According to IBM, on average, it takes about 197 days (i.e. 6+ months) to identify a breach. This will only get worse with modern applications which are distributed over clouds and environments. If you look at the above example breach, despite all the monitoring tools in place it’s possible that the hacker would have gone undetected while stealing hundreds of millions of sensitive data, had she not bragged about it on online/social media, four months after she actually perpetrated the breach.

Best Practice / Recommendation:

While there should be an emphasis on protecting, it is extremely important to first detect those potential threats and breaches in real-time. “You can’t protect what you can’t see”, goes the age-old saying in security. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to invest in visibility, discovery and detection tools that first discover your distributed environment (especially the interaction of assets that are in use) and then detects data leaks, attacks, and breaches on those asset interactions in real-time.

Cloud and application technologies have evolved from monolithic to multi-tiered to microservices to serverless functions. At the same time, workloads have gotten smaller in size and become ephemeral, while the number of workloads and the number of interactions between them have grown exponentially larger. As a result, data as we know it, has started residing increasingly in between workloads (i.e. in motion) rather than inside them (i.e. at rest or in use). At the same time, attacks have become deeper in the data layer. Distributed, deep-data-layer, data-in-motion security is, therefore, the need of the hour for these applications.