<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Roger Halbheer on Security &#187; Ecosystem</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/tag/ecosystem/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.halbheer.ch/security</link>
	<description>Information Security Discussion by Microsoft&#039;s Worldwide Chief Security Advisor.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 18:03:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>10 Years of Trustworthy Computing at Microsoft</title>
		<link>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2012/01/12/10-years-of-trustworthy-computing-at-microsoft/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2012/01/12/10-years-of-trustworthy-computing-at-microsoft/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Roger Halbheer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Processes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cybercrime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cybersecurity Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development Lifecycle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ecosystem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Incident Response]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Incident Sharing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Incidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trustworthy Computing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vulnerabilities]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halbheer.ch/security/?p=2598</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p> <p>Before joining Microsoft a little bit more than 10 years ago, I ran a team at PricewarehoureCoopers on e-Business Risk Management – classical security consulting in the Internet bubble time. When I announced that I will leave PwC and join Microsoft, I got interesting reactions (and remember, this was 2001). Mainly they were along <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2012/01/12/10-years-of-trustworthy-computing-at-microsoft/">10 Years of Trustworthy Computing at Microsoft</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://aka.ms/twcnext"><img style="margin: 0px 10px; display: inline; float: left" border="0" alt="TwC Next" src="http://blogs.technet.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-00-50-43-twcnext/1488.TwC_2D00_Tile_5F00_148x148_2D00_wShadow.png" width="148" height="148" /></a>
<p>Before joining Microsoft a little bit more than 10 years ago, I ran a team at PricewarehoureCoopers on e-Business Risk Management – classical security consulting in the Internet bubble time. When I announced that I will leave PwC and join Microsoft, I got interesting reactions (and remember, this was 2001). Mainly they were along two lines:</p>
<ul>
<li>Oh, you are joining a desktop company? Why? </li>
<li>A security guy? Joining Microsoft? hmm… </li>
</ul>
<p>So, these reactions came from the time immediately before we launched Windows XP (you are not on XP today, are you? If you are, read <a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2011/12/22/10-reasons-to-migrate-off-windows-xp/" target="_blank">this article</a>). Microsoft was not perceived as an enterprise player and was not seen as secure – they were wrong back then in the first case but right in the second one I guess. I joined being part of the consulting organization but soon met the country manager and I was having a chat with him about the perception on Microsoft’s security in the market. We (say: he <img style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none" class="wlEmoticon wlEmoticon-smile" alt="Smile" src="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/wlEmoticon-smile.png" />) then decided that we need to work on that and that I shall draw a job description – the job then was called Chief Security Officer and Chief Security Advisor later on. And then Nimda hit! And then Blaster hit! And then Slammer hit! I had the “privilege” back then to run the incident response team in Switzerland and had the privilege to have customers screaming at me, tell me that we fucked up (that was a quote). </p>
<p>Interestingly in the meantime the famous <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/Features/2012/jan12/GatesMemo.mspx" target="_blank">Bill Gates’ Memo</a> hit the streets, saying:</p>
<blockquote><p>There are many changes Microsoft needs to make as a company to ensure and keep our customers’ trust at every level – from the way we develop software, to our support efforts, to our operational and business practices. As software has become ever more complex, interdependent and interconnected, our reputation as a company has in turn become more vulnerable. Flaws in a single Microsoft product, service or policy not only affect the quality of our platform and services overall, but also our customers’ view of us as a company.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and even more important:</p>
<blockquote><p>In the past, we’ve made our software and services more compelling for users by adding new features and functionality, and by making our platform richly extensible. We’ve done a terrific job at that, but all those great features won’t matter unless customers trust our software. So now, when we face a choice between adding features and resolving security issues, we need to choose security. Our products should emphasize security right out of the box, and we must constantly refine and improve that security as threats evolve. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This memo led to the creation of Trustworthy Computing with Scot Charney running the organization since it’s beginning and Scott then created the Chief Security Advisor community, the community I was in since the beginning and have the honor to run today globally. </p>
<p>Coming back to the beginning: I remember the first keynote I did for Microsoft was on Trustworthy Computing immediately after this announcement. People approached me in the breaks and asked me whether I really believe what I just said: that Microsoft is going to change. And I confirmed that. I have never seen (not before nor after) a company stopping development for almost four months to address issues and then change the way the company operates – that radically. I would never ever put my name and my credibility at risk if I would not have believed back then and I am still convinced that we did and still do an outstanding job and that we are leading the industry today. Interestingly I do not get these questions anymore…</p>
<p>So, what happened over these 10 years of Trustworthy Computing? What were significant achievements? Well, there are numerous and I have to apologize to the teams I am not mentioning here upfront…</p>
<ul>
<li>Immediately after SQL Slammer in 2003 we span up a process called <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/security/msrc/whatwedo/responding.aspx">Software Security Incident Response Process</a> (SSIRP), a process which is still in place today and we constantly adapt it to new threats and especially new challenges. This was a huge effort as we needed to be able to ramp up an incident organization all across the globe 24*7 – and we still are today. </li>
<li>Probably the biggest and most fundamental change was the way we develop software. We introduced the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/security/sdl/default.aspx">Security Development Lifecycle</a> (SDL) and constantly keep it updated. Not only did we change the development process internally, we make this information available to the industry for free. Others shall be able to learn from our learning from the past. What concerns me is the slow adoption of such methodologies from a vendor side as well as from a customer side. Who really asks for a process? Typically customers ask for product certification but not for a sound process – something we as an industry need to continue on changing. </li>
<li>Different teams were spun up to address security re-actively like the Microsoft Security Response Center and the Malware Protection Center. </li>
<li>Since 2006 we publish our <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/sir" target="_blank">Security Intelligence Report</a> – the most comprehensive report in the market. </li>
<li>Our <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/dcu/" target="_blank">Digital Crimes Unit</a> is fighting cybercrime from a legal as well as from a technology perspective. We are working closely with the Council of Europe and other organizations improving the legal situation. We are taking down botnets like <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2010/09/08/r-i-p-waledac-undoing-the-damage-of-a-botnet.aspx" target="_blank">Waledac</a>, <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/17/taking-down-botnets-microsoft-and-the-rustock-botnet.aspx" target="_blank">Rustock</a> and <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2011/09/27/microsoft-neutralizes-kelihos-botnet-names-defendant-in-case.aspx" target="_blank">Kelhios</a> in close collaboration with the authorities.&#160; We are providing technology to fight sexual exploitation of children like <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2009/dec09/12-15PhotoDNAPR.mspx" target="_blank">PhotoDNA</a>. </li>
</ul>
<p>A lot of things happened over the course of the years and there is still a lot to do. These are just some highlights (besides the creation of the Chief Security Advisor community). </p>
<p>If you want to see a condensed version of the “life” of Trustworthy Computing”, here you go:    <br /><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/gallery/imageviewer.mspx?3AMBwaEoKCAtQ%2bsNlzHVTXml3CAzGFCzjJXqTjDzvT134nbww9YZda8RzXCvADDYwAqVTt%2fh0ZP%2fzA2w%2fqABecg%2ftNsl3fbo5j5Yn2FF%2b6TnnJ67AaewjqseaPeFm8Twpac4pFl64kHoXdBuVIlJlrStNYXNCFq7Uq1hnBn%2bD%2fEqi0rTj%2bfTFt5BadhKGnKfYA4jQNkimkBijs%2fTWfJ7cgAc412D0AG21ND1YwseIRwN4mI7nt2YKaUVH1ij64jgzP7GZMh%2fYSWDUxYuhUjMWnQtE67etqOIFdqnWG6o0HNGhsNFFylHku1M%2bHFDfrq39QMgnwOgaH0OtSYTWsDYuTFMbBYM4N1RB0ndC%2brB1zg%3d" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/images/features/2012/01-12twc10years_lg.jpg" width="619" height="480" /></a></p>
<p>And the official story on the news center: <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2012/jan12/01-12TwC.mspx" target="_blank">At 10-Year Milestone, Microsoft’s Trustworthy Computing Initiative More Important than Ever</a></p>
<p>Sometimes I am asked how many people work at Microsoft on security. And the answer is &quot;everybody” (well, almost <img style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none" class="wlEmoticon wlEmoticon-smile" alt="Smile" src="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/wlEmoticon-smile.png" />). It is not something we separate and put into a team labeled security. It is part of all our lives to one extent or another and this is the way it should be.</p>
<p>If I would have a wish for 2012, it would be that the industry would stand together much closer to address the issues of today and the future. I do not see that security is something the industry should compete on – rather collaborate to fight the criminals &#8211; together with the governments and the governments together with us. I was already fairly vocal about this in the <a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2011/11/23/council-of-europe-octopus-conference-some-thoughts-2/" target="_blank">Octopus Conference</a> and will continue to ask for it. To help with this dialogue, we published a model called <a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2011/10/27/cybersecuritymore-than-a-good-headline/" target="_blank">Cybersecurity Agenda for Governments</a> and will soon publish a book on it as well. </p>
<p>In parallel, the teams internally will continue their great work to bring Trustworthy Computing to the next level. All of this is needed, when we think that there will be a third billion devices added to the Internet in the next five years!</p>
<p>Roger</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2012/01/12/10-years-of-trustworthy-computing-at-microsoft/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Responsibility of ISPs for the ecosystem?</title>
		<link>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/10/06/responsibility-of-isps-for-the-ecosystem/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/10/06/responsibility-of-isps-for-the-ecosystem/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:11:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Roger Halbheer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Collaboration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cybercrime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ecosystem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halbheer.info/security/2010/10/06/responsibility-of-isps-for-the-ecosystem</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you like Scott Chaney's suggestion he made at ISSE this week called Collective Defense - Applying Public Health Models to the Internet he raised very good points about the different roles the participants in the Internet Health Ecosystem have to play. Into that, the following article fits in fairly nicely: Comcast to notify subscribers with infected PCs <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/10/06/responsibility-of-isps-for-the-ecosystem/">Responsibility of ISPs for the ecosystem?</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you like Scott Chaney&#8217;s suggestion he made at ISSE this week called <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/endtoendtrust/vision/internethealth.aspx" target="_blank">Collective Defense &#8211; Applying Public Health Models to the Internet</a> he raised very good points about the different roles the participants in the Internet Health Ecosystem have to play. Into that, the following article fits in fairly nicely: Comcast to notify subscribers with infected PCs.</p>
<p>What is your view? How far do ISPs have to go? How far shall they go? Shall they allow access to the Internet fi they know that your PCs is infected by a bot? If you are spreading malware? </p>
<p>Roger</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/10/06/responsibility-of-isps-for-the-ecosystem/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Vulnerability Disclosure to Compete?</title>
		<link>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/06/11/vulnerability-disclosure-to-compete/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/06/11/vulnerability-disclosure-to-compete/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:36:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Roger Halbheer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cybercrime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Incidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ecosystem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hacking]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halbheer.info/security/?p=1547</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>As you know (I stress that fairly often ), I am Swiss. The reason why I am stressing this today is that I want to give you an example on security from the Swiss market: The banks here on place compete with each other – obviously. However, I have never seen the banks competing on <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/06/11/vulnerability-disclosure-to-compete/">Vulnerability Disclosure to Compete?</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As you know (I stress that fairly often <img src='http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> ), I am Swiss. The reason why I am stressing this today is that I want to give you an example on security from the Swiss market: The banks here on place compete with each other – obviously. However, I have never seen the banks competing on security. They never use for example new authentication schemes in eBanking to compete. There is nothing like “our eBank is more secure than our competitor&#8217;s” or “have you seen, our competitor was just successfully phished”. The reason for that is fairly simple: The whole banking system will lose as trust will erode in the ecosystem as such if they start to blame each other and this is not to the advantage of all the banks.</p>
<p>Why do I tell you this? Well, as you know, we at Microsoft are promoting responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities since years. We do not buy vulnerabilities and if we find vulnerabilities in third party products, we let the vendor know and help them to fix the issue. This is to protect the ecosystem, to protect our customers as public, irresponsible disclosure puts all our joint customers at risk.</p>
<p>By the way, on a side-note I want to make sure you have seen the advisory we release yesterday on a <em>Vulnerability in Windows Help and Support Center Could Allow Remote Code Execution</em> as it might be important for you to understand the workarounds. The history of this vulnerability can be found here: Windows Help Vulnerability Disclosure. I just want to quote the blog post: <em>This issue was reported to us on June 5<sup>th</sup>, 2010 by a Google security researcher and then made public less than four days later, on June 9<sup>th</sup>, 2010.  Public disclosure of the details of this vulnerability and how to exploit it, without giving us time to resolve the issue for our potentially affected customers, makes broad attacks more likely and puts customers at risk</em></p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Roger</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/06/11/vulnerability-disclosure-to-compete/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Open Source and Hackers</title>
		<link>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/06/09/open-source-and-hackers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/06/09/open-source-and-hackers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Roger Halbheer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Critical Infrastructure Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cybercrime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Processes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development Lifecycle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ecosystem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OpenSource]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halbheer.info/security/?p=1543</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The debate is probably as old as the Open Source software development model: Which one is more secure: Open Source or shared source as we at Microsoft run it? I know that we could now enter a religious debate about that, which I do not want to as I do not really believe in the <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/06/09/open-source-and-hackers/">Open Source and Hackers</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The debate is probably as old as the Open Source software development model: Which one is more secure: Open Source or shared source as we at Microsoft run it? I know that we could now enter a religious debate about that, which I do not want to as I do not really believe in the value of such debate.</p>
<p>However, it is always interesting to see who is looking how at this debate. Does it help security if everyone can see the code or does it help the attackers? We have a program which we call <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/gsp.mspx" target="_blank">Government Security Program</a>, giving governments under certain circumstances (e.g. protection of intellectual property) access to our source. Sometimes we have the debate with government officials whether having access to the code could allow an attacking government to get an advantage in the area or cyberwar or cyber espionage. Looking at that debate, OpenSource would even be worse as it means access for everybody.</p>
<p>Now, I just read this article: <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/25480/?a=f" target="_blank">Open-Source Could Mean an Open Door for Hackers</a>. It is about a paper looking at data from Intrusion Detection Systems and their finding is that <em>flaws in open-source software tend to be attacked more quickly and more often than vulnerabilities in closed-source software. </em>An interesting statement in the light that we know that there are more vulns in OpenSource software than in shared source and fairly often it is because of the lack of processes enforced to engineer security into the product from the beginning.</p>
<p>Another thing which is important to me is <em>&#8220;As defenders get out their patches, the attackers have more incentive to move on to a different exploit,&#8221; Ransbotham </em>[the author of the paper] <em>says. </em>In other words, having a strong incident response (besides the engineering process) is at least as important.</p>
<p>This should be something the industry adopts. We made our engineering process called <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/security/sdl/default.aspx" target="_blank">Security Development Lifecycle</a> public and I think our incident response is wide known as well as being a best practice. So, something people should finally come to adopt</p>
<p>Roger</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/06/09/open-source-and-hackers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>We Need Solid and Strong Transparent Processes for the Cloud</title>
		<link>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/06/08/1541/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/06/08/1541/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:17:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Roger Halbheer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Associations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Processes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cloud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ecosystem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Engineering]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halbheer.info/security/?p=1541</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>This morning I was reading an article called Google seeks to assure customers on cloud security practices on ComputerWeekly. I had to read this – obviously . It references a paper written by the Google Security Officer called Security Whitepaper: Google Apps Messaging and Collaboration Products. So, I read through it and to me it <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/06/08/1541/">We Need Solid and Strong Transparent Processes for the Cloud</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This morning I was reading an article called <a href="http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/06/07/241467/Google-seeks-to-assure-customers-on-cloud-security-practices.htm" target="_blank">Google seeks to assure customers on cloud security practices</a> on ComputerWeekly. I had to read this – obviously <img src='http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> . It references a paper written by the Google Security Officer called Security Whitepaper: Google Apps Messaging and Collaboration Products. So, I read through it and to me it reflects – unfortunately – the state a lot of Cloud providers are in. Google (and not only Google to be fair), shows how good their physical security to their datacenter is, how they apply access control, monitoring, patch management etc. To me, kind of the standard security practices which I expect them to follow. It is just interesting that to my knowledge Google does not hold an ISO 27001 certification yet – but this is more a side-note.</p>
<p>What really stroke me, is that they do not at all talk about their engineering practices. They always talk about <em>Secure Programming</em> or <em>Implementation Level Security</em> – this is not the whole story as we at Microsoft learned the hard way. It is not about the code as such and if I would have to choose between looking at the code and looking at the engineering practices, I would choose the later. A good product is “just” the outcome of a good process, something we learned in engineering at the university when I was there. So, looking into the code is just the smaller part of the story.</p>
<p>Bearing that in mind, I actually searched for the engineering practices they have and actually found them: <em>Google’s Engineering organization does not require Product Development teams to follow a specific software development process; rather, teams choose and implement processes that fit the project’s needs. As such, a variety of software development processes are in use at Google, from Agile Software Development methodologies to more traditional, phased processes. </em>If I learned one thing during my whole security career then it is that you need fairly strong processes to ensure security – being it on the network or in the design of applications.</p>
<p>That’s the reason we have our <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/security/sdl/default.aspx" target="_blank">Security Development Lifecycle</a> in place. Do not get me wrong, this will not lead to perfect security as there is no such thing like perfect security. However, I am definitely convinced that looking at product security makes less sense than looking into the process the product was engineered. Knowing that it is a requirement for governments, Common Criteria targets at the result and not at the process.</p>
<p>Therefore, statements like: <em>Designed in-house from the ground up, Google’s production servers are based on a stripped and hardened version of Linux that has been customized to include only the components necessary to run Google applications, such as those services required to administer the system and serve user traffic. The system is designed for Google to be able to maintain control over the entire hardware and software stack and to help provide a secure application environment. </em>would not really make me feel any better in the light of what I wrote above.</p>
<p>We as an industry should definitely put more emphasis into the development lifecycle rather than code security and the product as such &#8211; I am clear that secure programming as such as well as tools to do static code analysis are important as well and not to be forgotten.</p>
<p>Rather than re-invent the wheel, I would ask Google (and others) to join <a href="http://www.safecode.org/" target="_blank">SafeCode</a> which exactly targets the process/engineering approach.</p>
<p>Roger</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/06/08/1541/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Customer Stories: Why it is not THAT easy to move to the Cloud</title>
		<link>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/05/19/customer-stories-why-it-is-not-that-easy-to-move-to-the-cloud/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/05/19/customer-stories-why-it-is-not-that-easy-to-move-to-the-cloud/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 09:30:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Roger Halbheer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cloud Computing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Processes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cloud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ecosystem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halbheer.info/security/2010/05/19/customer-stories-why-it-is-not-that-easy-to-move-to-the-cloud</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Ait ss you know from my postings on Cloud and security and the paper on the Cloud Security Considerations we wrote, I am convinced that there are five areas you should look at, when you try to migrate to the Cloud:</p> Compliance and Risk Management Identity and Access Management Service Integrity Endpoint Integrity Information Protection <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/05/19/customer-stories-why-it-is-not-that-easy-to-move-to-the-cloud/">Customer Stories: Why it is not THAT easy to move to the Cloud</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ait ss you know from my postings on Cloud and security and the paper on the <a href="http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9708479" target="_blank">Cloud Security Considerations</a> we wrote, I am convinced that there are five areas you should look at, when you try to migrate to the Cloud:</p>
<ol>
<li>Compliance and Risk Management </li>
<li>Identity and Access Management </li>
<li>Service Integrity </li>
<li>Endpoint Integrity </li>
<li>Information Protection </li>
</ol>
<p>The details on these five points are in the paper above. However, I was missing customer stories on that. I had a lot of discussions with customers and they all agreed on the model but I had not too many customers which were ready to talk about these challenges publically. </p>
<p>Recently we published some customer stories, which are worth looking at – even though they are “just” Microsoft case studies.</p>
<p>Let’s start with <a href="http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2010/05/17/454897.aspx" target="_blank">Why Phaeton Automotive Chose Exchange 2010</a>: There were a few statements, which stroke me (those are customer quotes, not ours). The customer said that <em>We&#8217;d been using Google Apps to manage employee messaging and collaboration needs but wanted better security and privacy. Google Apps was inadequate in meeting business needs.</em> I do not want to challenge Google’s security. What I want to show here is that obviously the customer moved to the cloud “just trusting” that the provider will solve their security challenges – see Consideration #1 above. Even #2 was violated: <em>It didn&#8217;t allow single sign-on service, user migration and couldn&#8217;t help us centrally manage multiple domains.</em></p>
<p>When we move on to <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=4000006660" target="_blank">Rexel: Electrical Distributor Picks Proven Microsoft Messaging Technology over Google Apps</a>, we see law consideration #3 kicking in: <em>With Exchange Online, we knew that we were not taking major risks. Google has less experience in the corporate world, and I don’t think it makes sense to take risks that you can avoid</em>. </p>
<p>Last but not east Serena: <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/msonline/archive/2010/05/18/customer-story-why-serena-software-is-going-with-bpos.aspx">Customer Story: Why Serena Software is Going with BPOS</a>. It is again about the the service delivery and service integrity: <em>They deliver trustworthy, enterprise-class solutions – with the performance, security, privacy, reliability and support we require. We know that Microsoft is a leader in the providing these kinds of solutions, and in our discussions with them, it became clear that they are 100% committed to Serena’s success and delivering solutions that drive the future of collaboration</em></p>
<p>So, it seems that these considerations are really important. We did not look at #5 – Information Protection which is the absolute base for any cloud implementation. You have to understand what you want to move to which implementation of the cloud and which cloud provider.</p>
<p>Roger</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/05/19/customer-stories-why-it-is-not-that-easy-to-move-to-the-cloud/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Microsoft Security Intelligence Report &#8211; What it means for EMEA</title>
		<link>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/05/05/microsoft-security-intelligence-report-what-it-means-for-emea/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/05/05/microsoft-security-intelligence-report-what-it-means-for-emea/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 15:53:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Roger Halbheer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cybercrime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Incidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Botnet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Collaboration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ecosystem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hacking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Malware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halbheer.info/security/2010/05/05/microsoft-security-intelligence-report-what-it-means-for-emea</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>“Unfortunately” I have been on vacation when we released the Security Intelligence Report last week. Nevertheless I would like to take the opportunity and look at it more from a EMEA perspective.</p> <p>One of the interesting data points we always publish is the Malware Infection Rate. Remember, there is a huge amount of data we <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/05/05/microsoft-security-intelligence-report-what-it-means-for-emea/">Microsoft Security Intelligence Report &#8211; What it means for EMEA</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“Unfortunately” I have been on vacation when we released the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/sir" target="_blank">Security Intelligence Report</a> last week. Nevertheless I would like to take the opportunity and look at it more from a EMEA perspective.</p>
<p>One of the interesting data points we always publish is the Malware Infection Rate. Remember, there is a huge amount of data we can collect from different like the Malicious Software Removal Tool, Microsoft Security Essentials, Defender, etc. given you agreed to share your data with us. </p>
<p>If we look at the heat map in EMEA, this is the picture you will see:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/image.png" target="_blank"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: block; float: none; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: auto" title="image" border="0" alt="image" src="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/image_thumb.png" width="204" height="287" /></a> </p>
<p>So, there are different countries which are red (highly infected) and green (not very infected). Now, obviously we do not have the same amount of data for all the countries. If we take the countries with more than 100’000 average executions per month of the Malicious Software Removal Tool, we see this ranking for the best and the worst countries worldwide (the bold countries have an execution rate with more then a million average executions per month):</p>
<p><a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/MalwareInfectionRate.png" target="_blank"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: block; float: none; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: auto" title="Malware Infection Rate" border="0" alt="Malware Infection Rate" src="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/MalwareInfectionRate_thumb.png" width="500" height="529" /></a> Let’s take the EMEA countries in this list and see how they developed over the last three reports. The best countries first:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/image1.png" target="_blank"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: block; float: none; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: auto" title="image" border="0" alt="image" src="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/image_thumb1.png" width="504" height="316" /></a> It is actually good to see that with the exception of Senegal all the EMEA countries in the top list could reduce their infection rate. Often this is based on a good collaboration between the public and the private sector. </p>
<p>But what about the other end of the ranking? Let’s see:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/image2.png" target="_blank"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: block; float: none; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: auto" title="image" border="0" alt="image" src="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/image_thumb2.png" width="504" height="300" /></a> Here the picture is not as clear. Some countries like Serbia and Montenegro, Turkey etc. have a very bad 1H09 but then came back to their “normal” level. Unfortunately we cannot see a clear trend here but there are some countries, which are slowly improving (e.g. Russia). There is definitely coordinated activity needed in these countries. Turkey for example is working on pulling people together to address the issue.</p>
<p>If we turn it around and look at it from an Operating System perspective, we definitely see that newer Operating Systems are better than older (which was to be expected):</p>
<p><a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/image3.png" target="_blank"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: block; float: none; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: auto" title="image" border="0" alt="image" src="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/image_thumb3.png" width="504" height="281" /></a> From the malware we can turn to the vulnerabilities. Since quite a while we are talking about having the problem moving up the stack, which is reflected in the picture on the industry-wide vulnerabilities:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/image4.png" target="_blank"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: block; float: none; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: auto" title="image" border="0" alt="image" src="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/image_thumb4.png" width="504" height="269" /></a> This means as well, that you definitely should cover all your applications when you think about patch management and you have to do this for all your vendors:     <br /><a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/image5.png" target="_blank"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: block; float: none; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: auto" title="image" border="0" alt="image" src="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/image_thumb5.png" width="504" height="276" /></a> When it comes to patching, we see a fairly good coverage with Windows Update, Microsoft Update and WSUS. Especially if you are looking at the relative growth compared to the Windows installed base:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/image6.png" target="_blank"><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: block; float: none; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: auto" title="image" border="0" alt="image" src="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/image_thumb6.png" width="504" height="247" /></a> </p>
<p>So, you see: There is a lot of great information in the Security Intelligence Report – go and look at it.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Even though I did not go into the details here but <strong>Rogue Security Software</strong> is still a huge a problem out there and there is a chapter again on this theme as well! </p>
<p>Finally, if I could have three take-away, this would be it:</p>
<ul>
<li>Get a coordinated approach to fight malware between the public and private sector </li>
<li>Move to the latest version of software, wherever you can </li>
<li>Cover all the products you have with your Patch Management processes </li>
</ul>
<p>Roger</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/05/05/microsoft-security-intelligence-report-what-it-means-for-emea/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Today&#8217;s End-User Education Fails!</title>
		<link>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/03/27/why-todays-end-user-education-fails/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/03/27/why-todays-end-user-education-fails/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Roger Halbheer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[People]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ecosystem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halbheer.info/security/2010/03/27/why-todays-end-user-education-fails</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I was reading a paper recently, where I initially thought it is a joke (it looked scientifically, therefore I was not too scared). But as our research department did it, it is serious and really, really good – at least it definitely made me think. It is called So Long, And No Thanks for the <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/03/27/why-todays-end-user-education-fails/">Why Today&#8217;s End-User Education Fails!</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was reading a paper recently, where I initially thought it is a joke (it looked scientifically, therefore I was not too scared). But as our research department did it, it is serious and really, really good – at least it definitely made me think. It is called <a href="http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/cormac/papers/2009/SoLongAndNoThanks.pdf" target="_blank">So Long, And No Thanks for the Externalities: The Rational Rejection of Security Advice by Users</a> – you should read it!</p>
<p>Basically it focuses on the cost/benefit of advice to end-user from an end-user perspective. there are a few quotes from the paper (to tease you): </p>
<ul>
<li><em>We argue that users&#8217; rejection of the security advice they receive is entirely rational from an economic perspective.</em></li>
<li><em>A study of pass-word habits in 2007 [26] found that users still choose the weakest they can get away with, much as they did three decades earlier [45].</em></li>
<li><em>For example, it makes little sense to invest e ort in password strength requirements if phishing and keylogging are the main threats. It does not pay to learn URL reading rules to recognize phishing sites when the direct losses borne by users average less than a dollar a year. It&#8217;s hard to blame users for not being interested in SSL and certificates when (as far as we can determine) 100% of all certificate errors seen by users are false positives.</em></li>
</ul>
<p>If you think it through – they are right. Then, they draw a few conclusions:</p>
<ul>
<li><em>Users Understand Risks better than We do</em></li>
<li><em>Worst Case Harm and Actual Harm are not the Same</em></li>
<li><em>User Effort is not Free</em></li>
<li><em>Designing Security Advice is not an Unconstrained Optimization</em></li>
<li><em>The Economic Harm of Security Advice</em></li>
</ul>
<p>and then, please, read their final chapter on What Can We Do? – otherwise you will stay frustrated <img src='http://www.halbheer.ch/security/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Roger</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/03/27/why-todays-end-user-education-fails/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Results of Operation b49 (Botnet Takedown)</title>
		<link>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/03/20/results-of-operation-b49-botnet-takedown/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/03/20/results-of-operation-b49-botnet-takedown/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:05:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Roger Halbheer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cybercrime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Partner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Botnet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Collaboration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ecosystem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Malware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halbheer.info/security/2010/03/20/results-of-operation-b49-botnet-takedown</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>On February 24th we announced the work we did on taking down Waledac – read Tim Cranton’s blog post called Cracking Down on Botnets.</p> <p>Now it is time to look back and try to understand what we learned so far. sudosecure traces the Waledac infections and give a good view of new infections by the <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/03/20/results-of-operation-b49-botnet-takedown/">Results of Operation b49 (Botnet Takedown)</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On February 24th we announced the work we did on taking down Waledac – read Tim Cranton’s blog post called <a href="http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2010/02/24/cracking-down-on-botnets.aspx" target="_blank">Cracking Down on Botnets</a>.</p>
<p>Now it is time to look back and try to understand what we learned so far. sudosecure traces the Waledac infections and give a good view of new infections by the bot:</p>
<p><img style="border-right-width: 0px; display: block; float: none; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: auto" border="0" alt="New IPs Discovered Per Day Last 30 Days (Domains)|New IPs Today: 0|Active IPs  Today: 0" src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=lc&amp;chco=0000FF&amp;chd=t:68.3,70.2,73.9,65,56.8,68.7,63.7,52.2,90,70.6,52.9,76.5,69.2,58.6,48,44.6,43.2,71.2,68.3,44.3,76.1,84.7,64.5,78.2,47.4,15.3,9.5,18.3,2.2,0.1&amp;chxt=x,y&amp;chxr=0,1/29,2/9|1,1,1251&amp;chxl=0:|1/29|1/30|1/31|2/1|2/2|2/3|2/4|2/5|2/6|2/7|2/8|2/9|2/10|2/11|2/12|2/13|2/14|2/15|2/16|2/17|2/18|2/19|2/20|2/21|2/22|2/23|2/24|2/25|2/26|2/27|1:|0|130|250|380|500|630|760|880|1010|1130|1260&amp;chxp=0,1/29,1/30,1/31,2/1,2/2,2/3,2/4,2/5,2/6,2/7,2/8,2/9,2/10,2/11,2/12,2/13,2/14,2/15,2/16,2/17,2/18,2/19,2/20,2/21,2/22,2/23,2/24,2/25,2/26,2/27|1,0,130,250,380,500,630,760,880,1010,1130,1260&amp;chtt=New+IPs+Discovered+Per+Day+Last+30+Days+(Domains)|New+IPs+Today:+0|Active+IPs++Today:+0&amp;chs=900x250" width="500" height="139" /></p>
<p>But I guess to better understand, what really happened and what the impact was, you should read the post by the Microsoft Malware Protection Center Wh<a href="http://blogs.technet.com/mmpc/archive/2010/03/15/what-we-know-and-learned-from-the-waledac-takedown.aspx" target="_blank">at we know (and learned) from the Waledac takedown</a></p>
<p>Really good reading</p>
<p>Roger</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/03/20/results-of-operation-b49-botnet-takedown/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Security Development Lifecycle &#8211; Website!</title>
		<link>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/03/08/security-development-lifecycle-website/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/03/08/security-development-lifecycle-website/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:30:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Roger Halbheer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Processes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development Lifecycle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ecosystem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Threat Modeling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halbheer.info/security/2010/03/08/security-development-lifecycle-website</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I often talk about how we learned to engineer security into the products and the results prove that we are on the right track. One of the challenges we always have is how to help the ecosystem to improve as well. One of the ways is to communicate through our website. Not, that this is <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/03/08/security-development-lifecycle-website/">Security Development Lifecycle &#8211; Website!</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I often talk about how we learned to engineer security into the products and the results prove that we are on the right track. One of the challenges we always have is how to help the ecosystem to improve as well. One of the ways is to communicate through our website. Not, that this is really new news – it is actually a few weeks old but still… We renewed our <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/security/sdl/default.aspx" target="_blank">Security Development Lifecycle site</a>. </p>
<p>If you are developing software internally you should definitely look at the site and think how to implement SDL in your organization. If you want help, there is the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/security/sdl/getstarted/pronetwork.aspx" target="_blank">SDL Pro Network</a> here to help you to implement SDL. Or <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/security/sdl/getstarted/tools.aspx" target="_blank">leverage the tools</a> we make available. Or much more…</p>
<p>If you are “just” buying software, look at the lifecycle and start to ask your vendors a few questions like:</p>
<ul>
<li>How do you engineer security into the products? (I am not talking about the classical software engineering processes – I am talking about security…) </li>
<li>How do you do Threat Modeling (to me a key piece of the engineering process) </li>
<li>… </li>
</ul>
<p>Roger   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halbheer.ch/security/2010/03/08/security-development-lifecycle-website/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

