A year ago, a Kelley Bray and I gave a talk at B-Sides Chicago on “A Squishy Model of Cyber Security”. Recently, there have been some posts on the SIRA mailing list discussing different perspectives on the importance of users and training and security and all that vs other controls like patching or malicious code detection and it made me decide to convert that talk into a blog post.
This is my first post of two on the topic. The second will be more “me” and will specifically outline the difference in looking at cyber security as a strategic vs tactical problem and how the implications of the “user” conversation. (Caveat: A lot really depends on how you define “users”, so I’m careful to here.) Enjoy and thanks to everyone who’s contributed to the shape of my brain.
Click the pictures to make them big enough to read.
What is a network?
Let’s pretend it’s newly birthed whole, untouched.
Well, that’s almost a network. We still need users.
Who are Users? They’re everyone who can affect your network.
Don’t agree? All basic attributes are the same…
The only things that change are implementation details: roles, motivations, environment
This is a more complete picture
These users – in their roles – affect equipment.
That causes the computers to be in a given state.
Even with environmental constraints, like hardware, baseline configs, security configs, etc…
human actions occur before network built
To be secure, we can influence the decisions made, or put in place technical controls
Both options affect the same logical chains of actions, just in different places.
But do we even need to describe technical controls?
Because honestly, computers are just proxies for the will and desire of users.
Which sets of users is responsible for computer action just depends on where in time you’re looking.
Putting in technical controls requires influencing decisions made by users
Therefore it’s pretty clear that user activities can be used independent of technology to describe security.
Specifically, if time is collapsed, authorized user roles and their associated attributes are the network:
Which leades us to interesting implications:
You can structure activities into common role activities in a way that will help you manage and manipulate the human squishy stuff.
The specific attributes are out of scope here, but take home the idea that at a non-tech specific level, they’re finite, discrete.
This means humans can be addressed as potential state attributes directly.
And so no matter what you do, if you do not influence user behavior, you will never be secure.
What are the implications? See next blog post!