© 2011 Cloud Security Alliance, Inc. All rights...


2 Vast Landscape of Cloud Standards

Development Organizations (SDOs)


Promote common level of understanding

– Consumers Providers

– Security Requirements

– Attestation of Assurance

Promote independent, agile research development – incubator for

standards development efforts

Address cloud security and assurance risks and guidance through

collective expertise

Awareness campaigns and educational programs

– Cloud computing use cases

– Cloud security solutions

4

Mission Statement (Non-Profit)


Organization & Operations

5


Title Proposed: International Standardization Council

Formed at CSA Congress, Nov 2011 (Orlando)

Aloysius Cheang, CSA Singapore appointed at Head of

Standards Secretariat (Council Lead)

Council Charter, Appointment of Co-Chairs (In Progress)

Allows for CSA Members to actively engage in SDO process

(contributions, comments, etc.)

6

Standards Workgroup


7 International Standardization Council –

Global Membership

Laura Kuiper (Cisco)

Becky Swain (EKKO Consulting)

Marlin Pohlman (EMC)

Crispen Maung (Salesforce.com)

Heather Ouellette (Salesforce.com)

Cameron Smith (Zscaler)

Aloysius Cheang

(CSA Secretariat)

Laura Posey (Microsoft)

Andreas Fuchsberger (Microsoft)

Bernd Jäger (Colt Telecom)

Jason Creasy (ISF)

Said Tabet (EMC)

Xavier Guerin (France Telecom – Orange)


The Guidance Version 3.0 (Nov 2011)

– Seeks to establish a stable, secure baseline for cloud operations.

– Provides a practical, actionable road map to managers wanting to

adopt the cloud paradigm safely and securely.

– 14 Domains – rewritten to emphasize security, stability, and privacy,

ensuring corporate privacy in a multi-tenant environment.

Download @ …/research/initiatives/security-guidance/

Prior Releases:

– Version 1.2 (Dec 2009)

• Incorporated into CCSK learning criteria

– Version 1.0 (April 2009)

• CSA founding publication

9 Security Guidance for Critical Areas of

Focus in Cloud Computing


10 Security Guidance for Critical Areas of

Focus in Cloud Computing Section I.

Cloud Architecture

Section II.

Governing in the Cloud

Section III.

Operating in the Cloud

Domain 1 Cloud Computing Architectural Framework

Domain 2 Governance and Enterprise Risk Management

Domain 3 Legal Issues: Contracts and Electronic Discovery

Domain 4 Compliance and Audit Management

Domain 5 Information Management and Data Security

Domain 6 Interoperability and Portability

Domain 7 Traditional Security, Business Continuity, and Disaster Recovery

Domain 8 Data Center Operations

Domain 9 Incident Response

Domain 10 Application Security

Domain 11 Encryption and Key Management

Domain 12 Identity, Entitlement, and Access Management

Domain 13 Virtualization

Domain 14 Security as a Service


The CSA GRC Stack

A suite of four integrated and reinforcing CSA initiatives (the

“stack packages”)

– The Stack Packs

• Cloud Controls Matrix

• Consensus Assessments Initiative

• Cloud Audit

• CloudTrust Protocol

Designed to support cloud consumers and cloud providers

Prepared to capture value from the cloud as well as support

compliance and control within the cloud

11


12

Delivering Stack Pack Description

Continuous monitoring … with a purpose

• Common technique and nomenclature to request and receive evidence and affirmation of current cloud service operating circumstances from cloud providers

Claims, offers, and the basis for auditing service

delivery

• Common interface and namespace to automate the Audit, Assertion, Assessment, and Assurance (A6) of cloud environments

Pre-audit checklists and questionnaires to inventory controls

• Industry-accepted ways to document what security controls exist

The recommended foundations for controls

• Fundamental security principles in specifying the overall security needs of a cloud consumers and assessing the overall security risk of a cloud provider

The CSA GRC Stack (Start from the bottom, then work your way up…)


The GRC Stack Solving the Value Equation in the Cloud

13

Delivering evidence-based confidence…

with compliance-supporting data & artifacts.

Security Requirements

and Capabilities

Security Transparency and Visibility

Compliance and

Trust

GRC Stack


CSA GRC Value Equation

Contributions for Consumers and

Providers

14

What control requirements should I

have as a cloud consumer or cloud

provider?

How do I ask about the control

requirements that are satisfied

(consumer) or express my claim of

control response (provider)?

How do I announce and automate my

claims of audit support for all of the

various compliance mandates and

control obligations?

How do I know that the controls I

need are working for me now

(consumer)? How do I provide actual

security and transparency of service

to all of my cloud users (provider)?

• Individually useful

• Collectively powerful

• Productive way to reclaim

end-to-end information risk

management capability

Static

claims &

assurances

Dynamic

(continuous)

monitoring and

transparency

• Public Registry of Cloud Provider self assessments

• Leverages GRC Stack Projects – Consensus Assessments Initiative Questionnaire

– Provider may substitute documented Cloud Controls Matrix compliance

• Voluntary industry action promoting transparency

• Free market competition to provide quality assessments

• Available October 2011

Security, Trust, and Assurance

Registry (CSA STAR)

15


Security, Trust, and Assurance

Registry (CSA STAR)

16

Encourage transparency of security practices within cloud providers

Documents the security controls provided by various cloud computing

offerings

Free and open to all cloud providers

Option to use data/report based on CCM or the CAIQ

Expose control claims

Compete to improve GRC capabilities

GRC

Stack


CSA certification criteria and seal program for cloud

providers

Initial focus on secure & interoperable identity in the

cloud, and its alignment with data encryption

Assemble with existing standards

Reference models & Proof of concept

Outline responsibilities for Identity Providers,

Enterprises, Cloud Providers, Consumers

Download @ …/trustedcloud.html

17

Trusted Cloud Initiative (TCI)


TCI Mission

“To create a Trusted Cloud reference architecture for cloud use cases that leverage

cloud delivery models (SaaS, PaaS, IaaS) in the context of operational models

(Public, Private, Hybrid) to deliver a secure and trusted cloud service.”

18


Holistic approach

around controls…

19

https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/research/projects/cloud-controls-matrix-ccm/









… and Architecture best

practices

20










Reference model structure 21


National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) – Promotes the

effective and secure use of the technology within the U.S. Federal Government,

and, therefore, leading a number of efforts to develop cloud standards and

guidelines in close consultation and collaboration with standards bodies, the

private sector, and other stakeholders.

– Standards Acceleration to Jumpstart the adoption of Cloud Computing

(SAJACC)

– Strategy to build a US Government (USG) Cloud Computing Technology

Roadmap.

Publications – SP 800-144: DRAFT Guidelines on Security and Privacy in Public Cloud Computing (Jan 28, 2011)

– SP 800-145: A NIST Definition of Cloud Computing (Sept 2011)

– SP 800-146: DRAFT Cloud Computing Synopsis and Recommendations (May 12, 2011)

– SP 500-291: NIST Cloud Computing Standards Roadmap (August 10, 2011)

– SP 500-292: NIST Cloud Computing Reference Architecture (September 08, 2011)

23

NIST


24

NIST Collaboration


25

NIST SAJACC Process


26

NIST Use Case


27

NIST Definition of Cloud

The NIST definition of cloud

computing (SP 800-145)

• 5 essential characteristics

• 3 service models

• 4 deployment models

Already widely adopted by

Cloud Computing industry,

including ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC38

and recognized in CSA

Guidance.


28

NIST Cloud Computing Reference Model SP 500-292 (September 08, 2011)


29 The CSA GRC Stack Architecture Reference Model Readiness

Tra

nsp

are

ncy


30

NIST Cloud Computing Reference Model SP 500-292 (September 08, 2011)


“Proposed Security Assessment & Authorization for U.S.

Government Cloud Computing" DRAFT (FedRamp) – Based on

NIST SP 800-37R1 and SP800-53 as a proposed Assessment

and Authorization (A&A) for U.S. Government Cloud Computing.

– Chapter 1: Cloud Computing Security Requirement Baseline (SP 800-53)

– Chapter 2: Continuous Monitoring

– Chapter 3: Potential Assessment & Authorization Approach (SP 800-37R1)

CSA provided feedback on FedRamp DRAFT

CSA CCM v1.2 incorporates mapping of SP 800-53 R3 and

FedRamp DRAFT

CSA CCM v1.3 to include mapping of SP 800-53 R4 and

FedRamp FINAL

31

NIST FedRamp


The Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP)

– Suite of specifications that standardize format/nomenclature by which software flaw and security

configuration information is communicated, both to machines and humans

– Multi-purpose framework of specifications that support automated configuration, vulnerability and

patch checking, technical control compliance activities, and security measurement

– Promote interoperability of security products, and fostering the use of standard expressions of

security content

– Mandated by FedRAMP Continuous Monitoring

5 Specification Categories – Languages standard vocabularies/conventions for expressing security policy, technical check mechanisms, and assessment

results Extensible Configuration Checklist Description Format (XCCDF), Open Vulnerability and Assessment Language

(OVAL®), and Open Checklist Interactive Language (OCIL™)

– Reporting Formats provide necessary constructs to express collected information in standardized formats Asset

Reporting Format (ARF) and Asset Identification

– Enumerations define standard nomenclature and official dictionary expressed using that nomenclature Common Platform

Enumeration (CPE™), Common Configuration Enumeration (CCE™), and Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE®)

– Measurement and scoring systems evaluation of specific characteristics of a security weakness (i.e., software

vulnerabilities and security configuration issues) and, based on those characteristics, generating a score that reflects their

relative severity Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS), Common Configuration Scoring System (CCSS)

– Integrity preserve the integrity of SCAP content and results Trust Model for Security Automation Data (TMSAD)

32 NIST SCAP (Pronounced “S-Cap”)

& XCCDF


The Extensible Configuration Checklist Description Format (XCCDF)

– Specification language for writing security checklists, benchmarks, and related kinds of

documents

– XCCDF document represents a structured collection of security configuration rules for

some set of target systems

– Designed to support information interchange, document generation, organizational and

situational tailoring, automated compliance testing, and compliance scoring

– Defines a data model and format for storing results of benchmark compliance testing

– The intent to provide a uniform foundation for expression of security checklists,

benchmarks, and other configuration guidance, and thereby foster more widespread

application of good security practices.


& XCCDF


Source: NIST SP 800-117


& XCCDF


Publications – SP 800-117: FINAL Guide to Adopting and Using the Security Content Automation

Protocol (SCAP) Version 1 (July 27, 2010)

– SP 800-126 Rev 2: DRAFT The Technical Specification for the Security Content

Automation Protocol (SCAP) (July 12, 2011)

– IR 7511: DRAFT Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP) Version 1.0 Validation

Program Test Requirements (Feb 2009)

– SP 800-51 Rev 1: FINAL Guide to Using Vulnerability Naming Schemes (Feb 24, 2011)

– IR 7275 Rev 4: Specification for the Extensible Configuration Checklist Description

Format (XCCDF) Version 1.2 (Sept 2011)

• Incorporated into the NIST SCAP Validation Program, which supports the United States Government

Configuration Baseline (USGCB), an OMB‐mandated security configuration for all Federal desktops

• Increasing interest to make international standard – ISO/IEC JTC 1, ITU-T SG17

• Other SBOs involved – IETF, DMTF


& XCCDF


CloudTrust Protocol Pathways Mapping the Elements of Transparency in

Deployment

Admin and Ops

Specs Transparency Requests Extensions

Assertions Evidence Affirmations

Configuration

definition: 20

Security capabilities

and operations: 17

Configuration and

vulnerabilities:

3,4,5,6,7

Anchoring: 8, 9, 10

(geographic,

platform, process)

Session

start: 1

Session

end: 2

Alerts: 18

Users: 19

Anchors: 21

Quotas: 22

Alert

conditions: 23

Violation: 11

Audit: 12

Access: 13

Incident log: 14

Config./control: 15

Stats: 16

Consumer/

provider

negotiated: 24

CloudAudit.org SCAP SCAP Sign/sealing

23 1

36


CloudTrust Protocol (CTP) Sample 37


• Syntax

Based on XML

Traditional RESTful

web service over

HTTP

CloudTrust Protocol V2.0

Legend:

New in V2.0

SCAP / XCCDF query &

response structure

38


MISSION: Enhance the capability of the cloud community to

prepare for and respond to vulnerabilities, threats, and

incidents in order to preserve trust in cloud computing.

Community of organizations sharing threat identification, liaising

with security organizations, providing incident response

assistance and consultation, and collaborating on research,

including education, training and awareness:

– Cloud service providers

– Telecommunications service providers

– Country CERT/CCs and ISACs

39

CSA CloudSIRT


European Network and Information Security Agency

(ENISA) – EU’s response to these cyber security issues of

the European Union and described as the 'pace-setter' for

Information Security in Europe, and a centre of expertise,

working for the EU Institutions and Member States.

– “Cloud computing: benefits, risks and recommendations for information

technology” by ENISA uses a risk assessment approach to analyze the

security issues raised by cloud services and incorporated into CSA CCSK

training criteria.

– “Security and Resilience in Governmental Clouds” , which provides a

decision-making model that can be used by governments considering using

cloud computing to determine which architectural solution that best suits the

security requirements of their organization.

40

ENISA


ISO/IEC JTC 1 is Joint Technical Committee 1 of the International

Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) with a mandate to develop, maintain,

promote and facilitate IT standards required by global markets meeting

business and user requirements concerning: – the design and development of IT systems and tools

– the performance and quality of IT products and systems

– the security of IT systems and information

– the portability of application programs

– the interoperability of IT products and systems

– the unified tools and environments

– the harmonized IT vocabulary, and

– the user-friendly and ergonomically-designed user interfaces

Work is conducted by subcommittees (SC) dealing with a particular field

and SCs may be comprised of several working groups (WGs).

41

ISO/IEC JTC 1

http://www.iec.ch/index.htm


42 ISO/IEC JTC 1 Development

Process



International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Joint Technical Committee

1/Subcommittee 27 (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 27) – Information Technology Security

Techniques (2700x series of ISMS standards)

– Study period on Cloud Computing Security and Privacy to investigate the

requirements for cloud computing and a feasible program of standards work to

meet requirements, involving 3 WGs: • WG 1 (Information Security Management) leading the coordinating efforts on this study period in conjunction

with the following working groups:

• WG 4 – Security Control and Services

• WG 5 – Identity Management, Privacy Technology and Biometrics

– Topics for consideration – information security management, risk

management, application and network security, cybersecurity, business

continuity, privacy and identity management with contributions from CSA

(CAIQ, CCM, Guidance, TCI Architecture), ITU-T, SC 38 and others.

43

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27



44

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27



45

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27



WG1: ISO/IEC 27017 – Output from Cloud Security & Privacy (CSP) Joint WG

1/4/5 Study Period

– 2nd WD – Guidelines on information security controls for the use of cloud computing services based

on ISO/IEC 27002 (Project Co-Editors: Satoru Yamasaki, JP & Marlin Pohlman, US/CSA)

WG 4: ISO/IEC 27036-X – Information technology – Security techniques –

Information security for supplier relationships…

– 2nd WD Part 1 – Overview and Concepts (Project Co-Editor: Becky Swain, US/CSA)

– 2nd WD Part 2 – Common Requirements (Project Co-Editor: Benoit Poletti, Luxemburg)

– 2nd WD Part 3 – Guidelines for ICT Supply Chain Security (Project Co-Editor: Nadya Bartol, US)

– Part 4 – Guidelines for Outsourcing (TBD)

– Part 5 – Cloud Computing (TBD)

– Part 6 – TBD

WG 5: NWIP – Output from CSP Joint WG 1/4/5 Study Period

– Information technology – Security techniques – Code of practice for data protection controls for

public cloud computing services (Project Co-Editor: Chris Mitchell, UK)

46

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27 Nairobi, Kenya Resolutions (Oct 2011)

CSA NWIP Planned for

WG 4 CSP Study Period


Control Matrix >> Guidance >>

ISO/IEC 27017 & 37036-5

47


International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Joint Technical Committee

1/Subcommittee 28 (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 28) – Distributed Application Platform &

Services (DAPS) comprised of 2 WGs focused on SOA and Web Services, and a

study group on Cloud computing.

Established a Cloud Computing Study Group (SGCC) in order to provide

candidates of standardization issues on Cloud Computing to JTC 1 and to

develop NPs (New Work Item Proposals) on Cloud Computing to be studied in

JTC 1.

Working Group on Cloud (WG3), 1st Delegation Meeting Feb 2012

– NWIP: Distributed Application Platforms and Services – Cloud Computing – Vocabulary

– NWIP: Distributed Application Platforms and Services – Cloud Computing – Reference Architecture

48

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 38



ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) – 1 of 3

sectors (divisions or units) of the International Telecommunication Union

(ITU) that coordinates standards for telecommunications.

– Mission is to ensure the efficient and timely production of standards covering all fields of

telecommunications on a worldwide basis, as well as defining tariff and accounting

principles for international telecommunication services, and as part of the ITU (UN

specialized agency), its standards carry formal international weight.

– In addition to the ITU-T Recommendations, which have non-mandatory status until they

are adopted in national laws, ITU-T is also the custodian of a binding international

treaty, the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs).

– The technical work, the development of Recommendations, of ITU-T is managed by

Study Groups (SGs).

49

ITU-T

http://www.itu.int/net/home/index.aspx


ITU-T Focus Group on Cloud Computing (FG Cloud) – Established further to

ITU-T TSAG (parent group) agreement at its meeting in Geneva, 8-11 February

2010 followed by ITU-T study groups (SG17, 13) and membership consultation.

– Contribute with the telecommunication aspects in order to support services/applications

of “cloud computing” making use of telecommunication networks.

– Collaborate with worldwide cloud computing communities (e.g., research institutes,

forums, academia) including other SDOs and consortia.

– Workgroups:

• WG1: Cloud computing benefits & requirements

• WG2: Gap Analysis and Roadmap on Cloud Computing Standards development in ITU-T

– Focus Group Output from Seoul, Korea 26-30 September 2011 (Cloud-O-0072), Marlin

Pohlman (CSA) co-authored with Koji Nakao (Vice-Chair, ITU-T SG 17)

– CSA Contributions CAIQ, CCM, Guidance, TCI Architecture

50

ITU-T FG Cloud



ITU-T Study Group 17 (SG17) – Designated Lead Study Group for

"Telecommunication Security" which include developing and maintaining security

outreach material; coordination of security-related work; and identification of

needs and assignment and prioritization of work to encourage timely

development of telecommunication security Recommendations.

For Cloud Computing, SG17 has been working on cloud computing security

since April 2010, and the following three work items were recognized and are

currently in progress.

– Security guideline for cloud computing in telecommunication area (X.ccsec)

– Security requirements and framework of cloud based telecommunication service

environment (X.srfcts), Marlin Pohlman (CSA) co-authored with Koji Nakao (Vice-Chair,

ITU-T SG 17)

– Security functional requirements for Software as a Service (SaaS) application

environment (X.sfcse)

ITU-T SG17 collaborates closely with ISO/IEC SC 27 and SC 38

51

ITU-T SG17



52

SDO Liaison Collaboration International


53 SDO Liaison Collaboration Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) for information

communication and technology (ICT)


54 SDO Liaison Collaboration Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) for information

communication and technology (ICT)


Comments/Contributions for ISO/IEC 27036-X:

– Information security for external suppliers: A common

baseline (Dec 2010)

– Common baseline information security arrangements

Standard of Good Practice on roadmap for CSA CCM

mapping

CSA Representative: Jason Creasy

– CSA GRC Stack Steering Committee

– Standards WG

55

ISF


Comments/Contributions for ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC27 CSP

Joint WG 1/4/5 Study Period:

– Cloud Computing: Business Benefits With Security,

Governance and Assurance Perspectives

– IT Control Objectives for Cloud Computing

– Cloud Computing Management Audit/Assurance Program

CSA CCM includes mapping to COBIT 5.0

CSA Representative: Ron Hale

– CSA GRC Stack Steering Committee

56

ISACA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Isaca-logo.png


http://www.linkedin.com/in/rebeccadswain


Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM)

Leadership Team

Becky Swain – EKKO Consulting

Philip Agcaoili – Cox Communications

Marlin Pohlman – EMC, RSA

Kip Boyle – CSA

V1.0 (Apr 2010), v1.1 (Dec 2010, v1.2 (Aug 2011),

V1.3 (2012), V2.0 (2012)

Controls baselined and mapped to:

COBIT BITS Shared Assessments

HIPAA/HITECH Act Jericho Forum

ISO/IEC 27001-2005 NERC CIP

NISTSP800-53

FedRAMP

PCI DSSv2.0

58


What is the CCM?

First ever baseline control framework specifically designed

for managing risk in the Cloud Supply Chain:

– Addressing the inter and intra-organizational challenges of persistent

information security by clearly delineating control ownership.

– Providing an anchor point and common language for balanced

measurement of security and compliance postures.

– Providing the holistic adherence to the vast and ever evolving

landscape of global data privacy regulations and security standards.

Serves as the basis for new industry standards and

certifications.

59


Optimal & Holistic

Compliance

60


CCM v1.1 Industry

Participation

This grass roots movement continues to grow with over 100

volunteer industry experts in the recent release of v1.2!

61


CCM – 11 Domains 62


CCM – 98 Controls 63


CCM – 98 Controls (cont.) 64


Consensus Assessments

Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ)

67

Leaders

• Laura Posey – Microsoft

• Jason Witty – Bank of America

• Marlin Pohlman – EMC, RSA

• Earle Humphreys – ITEEx


Consensus Assessments

Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ)

68


Consensus Assessment

Initiative

A cloud supply chain risk management and due diligence questionnaire

~ 200 yes/no questions that map directly to the CCM, and thus, in turn, to many

industry standards.

can be used by both CSPs for self-assessment or by potential customers for the

following purposes

– to identify the presence of security controls and practices for cloud offerings

– procurement negotiation

– contract inclusion

– to quantify SLAs

For potential customers, the CAIQ is intended to be part of an initial assessment

followed by further clarifying questions of the provider as it is applicable to their

particular needs.

v1.1 available as of Sept 2011; v1.2 underway to map to CCM v1.2

69


CAIQ Guiding Principles

The following are the principles that the working group utilized as guidance when

developing the CAIQ:

The questionnaire is organized using CSA 13 governing & operating domains divided into

“control areas” within CSA’s Control Matrix structure

Questions are to assist both cloud providers in general principles of cloud security and

clients in vetting cloud providers on the security of their offering and company security

profile

CAIQ not intended to duplicate or replace existing industry security assessments but to

contain questions unique or critical to the cloud computing model in each control area

Each question should be able to be answered yes or no

If a question can’t be answered yes or no then it was separated into two or more questions

to allow yes or no answers.

Questions are intended to foster further detailed questions to provider by client specific to

client’s cloud security needs. This was done to limit number of questions to make the

assessment feasible and since each client may have unique follow-on questions or may

not be concerned with all “follow-on questions

70


The CAIQ Questionnaire 71


CAIQ Questionnaire

Control Group, Control Group ID (CGID) and Control

Identifier (CID) all map the CAIQ question being asked

directly to the CCM control that is being addressed.

Relevant compliance and standards are mapped line by line

to the CAIQ, which, in turn, also map to the CCM. The CAIQ

v1.1 maps to the following compliance areas – HIPPA, ISO

27001, COBIT, SP800_53, FedRAMP, PCI_DSS, BITS and

GAPP. V1.2 will additionally include mappings to Jericho

Forum and NERC CIP.

Each question can be answered by a provider with a yes or

no answer.

72


Sample Questions to Vendors 73

Compliance -

Independent Audits

CO-02 CO-02a - Do you allow tenants to view your SAS70 Type II/SSAE 16 SOC2/ISAE3402 or

similar third party audit reports?

CO-02b - Do you conduct network penetration tests of your cloud service infrastructure

regularly as prescribed by industry best practices and guidance?

CO-02c - Do you conduct application penetration tests of your cloud service infrastructure

regularly as prescribed by industry best practices and guidance?

CO-02d - Do you conduct internal audits regularly as prescribed by industry best

practices and guidance?

CO-02e - Do you conduct external audits regularly as prescribed by industry best

practices and guidance?

CO-02f - Are the results of the network penetration tests available to tenants at their

request?

CO-02g - Are the results of internal and external audits available to tenants at their

request?

Data Governance -

Classification

DG-02 DG-02a - Do you provide a capability to identify virtual machines via policy tags/metadata

(ex. Tags can be used to limit guest operating systems from

booting/instanciating/transporting data in the wrong country, etc.?)

DG-02b - Do you provide a capability to identify hardware via policy

tags/metadata/hardware tags (ex. TXT/TPM, VN-Tag, etc.)?

DG-02c - Do you have a capability to use system geographic location as an

authentication factor?

DG-02d - Can you provide the physical location/geography of storage of a tenant’s data

upon request?

DG-02e - Do you allow tenants to define acceptable geographical locations for data

routing or resource instantiation?


CloudAudit (formerly A6)

Provides an open, extensible and secure interface for automation

of Audit, Assertion, Assessment, and Assurance (A6) of cloud

computing environments

A structure for organizing assertions and supporting documentation

for specific controls across different compliance frameworks in a

way that simplifies discovery by humans and tools.

– Define a namespace that can support diverse frameworks.

– Expressed in namespace – CSA CCM, ISO/IEC 27001, COBIT, HIPAA,

NIST SP 800-53, PCI DSS.

– Defines the mechanisms for requesting and responding to queries

relating to specific controls.

– Integrates with portals and AAA systems.

74


Sample Implementation – CSA Compliance Pack

75



76



77


CloudAudit – How it Works 78


CloudAudit – Manifest.xml Example

79

CloudTrust Protocol (CTP) to deliver

Transparency-as-a-Service (TaaS)

80


The CTP Today (V2.0) 81


As visibility is lost …

• Where is the data?

• Who can see the data?

• Who has seen the data?

• Is data untampered?

• Where is processing performed?

• How is processing configured?

• Does backup happen? How? Where?

Why a CloudTrust Protocol? Information Assurance is Cloud-Complicated … “Clouds are

cloudy”

Amazon

Google

Requirements

Services

… Security, compliance, and value are lost as well

Microsof

t

82


Transparency Restores Information Assurance Working with a “glass cloud” delivers the elastic benefits of the cloud

Amazon

Google

Requirements

Services

Microsof

t

As visibility is gained …

• Configurations are known and verified

• Data exposure and use is collected and reported

• Access permissions are discovered and validated

• Processing and data locations are exposed

• Compliance evidence can be gathered and analyzed

• Processing risks and readiness become known

… Security, compliance, and value are captured as well

83

© 2011 Cloud Security Alliance, Inc. All rights...

Documents

Transcript of © 2011 Cloud Security Alliance, Inc. All rights...