Zero Trust Definitions
Because there has been so much word salad thrown about these days around Zero Trust, we look to John Kindervag to provide the proper definitions behind his Zero Trust creation, so as we move toward a strategy, we have a better chance of success if we know what we are talking about and agree to a term set that tries to define the concepts into actionable behavior.
Zero Trust: Zero Trust is a strategic initiative that helps prevent successful data breaches by eliminating digital trust from your organization. Rooted in the principle of “never trust, always verify,” Zero Trust is designed as a strategy that will resonate with the highest levels of any organization, yet can be tactically deployed using off-the-shelf technology. Zero Trust strategy is decoupled from technology, so while technologies will improve and change over time, the strategy remains the same.
Zero Trust Environment: A Zero Trust environment designates the location of your Zero Trust architecture, consisting of a single protect surface containing a single DAAS element. Zero Trust environments are places where Zero Trust controls and policies are deployed. These environments include traditional on-premise networks such as data centers, public clouds, private clouds, on endpoints or across an SD-WAN.
Zero Trust Architecture: Your Zero Trust architecture is the compilation of the tools and technologies used to deploy and build your Zero Trust environment. This technology is fully dependent upon the Protect Surface you are protecting, as Zero Trust is designed from the inside out, starting at the Protect Surface and moving outwards from there.
Typically, the Protect Surface will be protected by a Layer 7 segmentation gateway that creates a micro-perimeter that enforces controls with the Kipling Method¹ policy. Layer 7 refers to the top layer in the 7-layer OSI Model of the Internet. It is also known as the “application layer.” It’s the top layer of the data processing that occurs just below the surface or behind the scenes of the software applications with which users interact directly – the HTTP requests and responses used to load webpages, for example, are layer 7 events. Every Zero Trust architecture is tailor-made for an individual Protect Surface.
¹Kipling Method policy defined below
Four design principles of Zero Trust
- Define Business Outcomes: Ask the question “What is the Business trying to achieve?” This aligns Zero Trust with the Grand Strategic outcomes of the organization and makes cybersecurity a business enabler instead of the business inhibitor it is often seen as today.
- Design From The Inside Out: Start with the DAAS Elements and the Protect Surfaces that need protection and design outward from there.
- Determine Who Or What Needs Access: Determine who needs access to a resource to get their job done. Known as Least Privilege, it is very common to give too many users too much access to sensitive data for no business reason.
- Inspect and Log All Traffic: All traffic going to and from a Protect Surface must be inspected and logged for malicious content and unauthorized activity, up through Layer 7.
DAAS is an acronym that stands for Data, Applications, Assets and Services, which define the sensitive resources that should go into individual Protect Surfaces. DAAS elements include:
- Data – This is sensitive data that can get an organization in trouble if it is exfiltrated or misused. Examples of Sensitive data include payment card information (PCI), protected health information (PHI), personally identifiable information (PII) and intellectual property (IP)
- Applications – Typically these are applications that use sensitive data or control critical assets.
- Assets – Assets could include IT (information technology), OT (operational technology) or IIoT (Internet of Things) devices such as point-of-sale terminals, SCADA controls, manufacturing systems and networked medical devices.
- Services – These are sensitive services that are very fragile to which your business depends. The most common services that should be protected in a Zero Trust manner include DNS, DHCP, Active Directory® and NTP.
Protect Surface: The Protect Surface is the inversion of the Attack Surface which is massive and includes the entire internet. Using a Zero Trust Strategy, the overall attack surfaces can be reduced orders of magnitude to something very small and easily known.
Each Protect Surface contains a single DAAS element. Each Zero Trust environment will have multiple Protect Surfaces.
Segmentation Gateway: A Segmentation Gateway (SG) is a Layer 7 gateway designed to segment networks based on users, applications and data. Segmentation Gateways are the primary technology used to enforce Layer 7 policy in Zero Trust environments.
Segmentation Gateways can be Physical (PSG) when used in traditional on-premise networks or Virtual (VSG) when used in public or private clouds. Next-Generation Firewalls traditionally function as Segmentation Gateways when they are deployed in Zero Trust environments.
Microperimeter: When a Segmentation Gateway connects to a Protect Surface and a Layer 7 Kipling Method Policy is deployed, then a Microperimeter is placed around the Protect Surface.
The Microperimeter ensures only known approved and validated traffic has access to the Protect Surface, based upon policy. One architectural principle of Zero Trust is to move your SG as close as possible to the Protect Surface for the most effective preventative controls enforced by the Microperimeter.
Microsegmentation: Microsegmentation is the act of creating a small segment in a network so that attackers have difficulty moving around and accessing internal resources.
Many networks are “flat,” meaning that there are no internal segments, so if an attacker gets a foothold in the network, they can move around unnoticed to attack resources and steal data.
A Microperimeter is a type of microsegment. The Microperimeter defines a layer 7 boundary for protections of a DAAS element. Some organizations may choose to use Layer 3 Microsegmentation technology inside of a Microperimeter.
Asserted Identity: Identity is always an assertion of the abstraction of a user on a network. The identity system “asserts” that a device is generating packets under the control of the asserted identity. The asserted identity is the validated and authenticated “who” statement that is part of the Kipling Method Policy assertion: “Who” should have access to a resource?
Least-Privileged Access: Least-Privileged Access asks the question “Does a user need to have access to a specific resource to get their job done?” We give too much access to most users based on the broken trust model.
By mandating a least-privilege, or need-to-know, policy, the ability of a user to perform malicious actions on a resource is severely limited. This mitigates both stolen credential and insider attacks.
Granular Access Control: Granular Access Control is the outcome of an explicitly defined Zero Trust Kipling Method policy statement. Multiple access control criteria provide a fine-grained policy for access to a Protect Surface, making it substantially more difficult to perform a successful attack against that Protect Surface.
Trust Levels: The existing cybersecurity paradigm is based upon a broken Trust model where all systems external to the corporate networks are considered “Untrusted” and those inside the corporate networks are known as “Trusted.”
It is this flaw that undergirds Zero Trust.
Trust is a human emotion injected into digital systems for no technical reason. It is not measurable. Trust is binary. All successful cyberattacks exploit Trust in some manner, making Trust a dangerous vulnerability that must be mitigated.
In the Zero Trust arena, all packets are Untrusted and are treated exactly the same as every other packet flowing across the system. The Trust level is defined as zero, hence the term Zero Trust.
Data Toxicity: Data Toxicity is the doctrine that defines sensitive data as “toxic” to your organization if it has been stolen or exfiltrated from your networks or systems and is in control of malicious actors.
This exfiltration leads to a negative impact on the business. The data has become toxic as its theft leads to lawsuits or regulatory action against the organization.
Every organization has both non-toxic and toxic data.
An easy way to recognize toxic data types is to remember the 4Ps of toxic data: PCI (credit card data), PII (personally identifiable information), PHI (patient health information) and IP (intellectual property). Most toxic data falls into these simple categories.
The 5 Steps to Implementing Zero Trust:
- Define the Protect Surface: Identify the DAAS elements: data, applications, assets and services, that you want to protect. In Zero Trust, by defining a Protect Surface, we can move controls as close as possible to that Protect Surface to define a Microperimeter and granularly control what traffic moves in and out of the Microperimeter. There is a very limited number of users or resources that actually need access to sensitive data or assets in an environment. By creating policy statements that are limited, precise and understandable, we can limit the ability of our adversary to execute a successful cyberattack.
- Map the Transaction Flows: Zero Trust is a system and in order to secure the system, understanding how the network works is imperative to a successful Zero Trust deployment.
The mapping of the transaction flows to and from the Protect Surface shows how various DAAS components interact with other resources on your network and, therefore, where to place the proper controls.
The way traffic moves across the network, specific to the data in the Protect Surface, determines the design.
- Build a Zero Trust Architecture: Part of the magic of the five-step model is that the first two steps will illuminate the best way to design the Zero Trust architecture. The architectural elements cannot be predetermined. Each Zero Trust environment is tailor-made for each Protect Surface.
A good rule of thumb in design is to place the controls as close as possible to the Protect Surface.
- Create a Zero Trust Policy: Once the network is architected, you will need to create Zero Trust policies using the Kipling Method to whitelist which resources should have access to others. Kipling, well-known to novelists, put forth the concept of “who, what, when, where, why and how” in his poem “Six Serving Men.” Using this method, we are able to define the following:
- Who should be accessing a resource?
- What application is being used to access a resource inside the Protect Surface?
- When is the resource being accessed?
- Where is the packet destination?
- Why is this packet trying to access this resource within the Protect Surface?
- How is the packet accessing the Protect Surface via a specific application?
With this level of granular policy enforcement, you can be sure that only known allowed traffic or legitimate application communication is permitted.
- Monitor and Maintain the Environment: One of the design principles of Zero Trust is to inspect and log all traffic, all the way through Layer 7.
The telemetry provided by this process will not just help prevent data breaches and other significant cybersecurity events but will provide valuable security improvement insights.
This means that each Protect Surface can become more robust and better protected over time. Telemetry from the cloud, network and endpoint controls can be analyzed using advances in behavioral analytics, machine learning and artificial intelligence to stop attacks in real time and improve security posture over the long term.
Kipling Method Policy (KMP)
Zero Trust policy is known as The Kipling Method, named after the writer Rudyard Kipling who gave the world the idea of Who, What, When, Where, Why and How in a poem in 1902.
Since the idea of WWWWHD is well known worldwide, it crosses languages and cultures and allows easily created, easily understood and easily auditable Zero Trust policy statements for various technology. A KMP determines what traffic can transit the Microperimeter at any point in time, preventing unauthorized access to your Protect Surface, while preventing the exfiltration of sensitive data into the hands of malicious actors.
True Zero Trust requires Layer 7 technology to be fully effective. The Kipling Method describes a Layer 7 Zero Trust granular policy.
Using the Kipling Method, you can create Zero Trust policy effortlessly by answering the following questions:
- Who should be allowed to access a resource? The validated “asserted identity” will be defined in the Who statement. This replaces the source IP Address in a traditional firewall rule.
- What application is the asserted identity allowed to use to access the resource? In almost all cases, protect surfaces are accessed via an application. The application traffic should be validated at Layer 7 to keep attackers from impersonating the application at the port and protocol level and using the rule maliciously.
The ‘What’ statement replaces port and protocol designations found in traditional firewall rules.
- When defines a timeframe. When is the asserted identity allowed to access the resource? It is common for rules to be instantiated 24/7 but many rules should be time-limited and turned off when authorized users are not typically using the rule.
Attackers take advantage of these always-on rules and attack when approved users are away from the system, making the attacks more difficult to discover.
- Where is the resource located? The location of the Protect Surface could be anywhere data is stored or assets are deployed. The Where statement replaces the destination IP Address in a traditional firewall rule.
- Why is the user (Who statement) allowed to access the resource? In most instances, the reason for putting data or an asset into a Protect Surface is because of its sensitivity. The sensitivity may be defined by a compliance mandate or by a business driver.
There are often ways of tagging a packet to identify those sensitive data or systems. This tagging creates metadata that various controls can use to inform or automate policy statements. This defines the ‘Why’ statement in the policy.
- How is the tuple that defines the criteria used to allow the asserted ‘Who’ statement to access a resource. It answers the question “How should the traffic be processed as it accesses a resource?”
These criteria often apply additional controls or inspection on the packet as it accesses the resource. Controls that once were separate products deployed individually are now delivered as a service. These advanced services can be applied to individual rules as needed.
These advanced controls include IPS, DLP, Sandboxing, Decryption and other features that are available on individual control.
The Zero Trust Maturity Model
Zero Trust provides a collection of concepts and ideas designed to minimize uncertainty in enforcing accurate, least privilege per-request access decisions in information systems and services in the face of a network viewed as compromised. The goal is to prevent unauthorized access to data and services and make access control enforcement as granular as possible.
Zero Trust presents a shift from a location-centric model to a more data-centric approach for fine-grained security controls between users, systems, data and assets that change over time; for these reasons. This provides the visibility needed to support the development, implementation, enforcement and evolution of security policies. More fundamentally, Zero Trust may require a change in an organization’s philosophy and culture around cybersecurity.
CISA’s Zero Trust Maturity Model is one of many roadmaps to reference as organizations transition towards a Zero Trust architecture. The goal of the Maturity Model is to assist in the development of the Zero Trust strategies and implementation plans and present ways in which various services can support Zero Trust solutions.
As organizations transition towards optimal Zero Trust implementations, their solutions increase in reliance upon automated processes and systems, more fully integrate across pillars and become more dynamic in their policy enforcement decisions. Each pillar can progress at its own pace and may be farther along than others until cross-pillar coordination is required.
Additionally, the interoperability and dependencies within the cross-pillar coordination must ensure compatibility. This allows for a gradual evolution to Zero Trust, distributing costs over time rather than entirely upfront. To facilitate migration, the Zero Trust Maturity Model gradient can be described using three stages, with increasing levels of protection, detail and complexity for adoption, as outlined below.
Traditional – manual configurations and assignment of attributes, static security policies, pillar level solutions with coarse dependencies on external systems, least-function established at provisioning, proprietary and inflexible pillars of policy enforcement, manual incident response and mitigation deployment.
Advanced – some cross-pillar coordination, centralized visibility, centralized identity control, policy enforcement based on cross-pillar inputs and outputs, some incident response to predefined mitigations, increased detail in dependencies with external systems, some least-privilege changes based on posture assessments.
Optimal – fully automated assigning of attributes to assets and resources, dynamic policies based on automated/observed triggers, assets have self-enumerating dependencies for dynamic least privilege access (within thresholds), alignment with open standards for cross-pillar interoperability, centralized visibility with historian functionality for point-in-time recollection of state.
These maturity stages, and the more specific details associated with each pillar, can allow folks to plan, assess, and maintain the investments needs to progress toward a fully functional ZTA.
Each pillar should define the high-level information that characterizes each level so that all participants in the transition to zero trust understands how their present progress compares to the overall objective. Each pillar also includes general details regarding Visibility and Analytics, Automation and Orchestration, and Governance for that pillar.
For more information about Zero Trust, and the Zero Trust Council within the CyberTheory Institute, please go to https://cybertheory.io/cybertheory-institute/ or contact Steve King at 505-795-8855 or email@example.com .
By Steve King and John Kindervag