0xC15A: Secure By Design and Secure by Default

DA
Dave Aitel
Fri, Jan 12, 2024 9:37 PM

So I have a ton of thoughts on the CISA Secure by Design and Secure by
Default push that is ongoing, as I am sure many of you do. And the first
thought is: This is not a bad way to go about business as a government
agency in general. I think it's easy to ignore how fast the USG has changed
its business practices, showing an agility that few large organizations can
match. In particular using Secure By Design as a case example.

  1. Massive outreach to garner feedback (including at defcon, but also
    via email, etc.)
  2. Multiple rounds of editing of proposals
  3. Actual people you could call and talk to about the proposal, with
    their faces and positions listed right in the papers and blogs and lawfare
    podcasts. If you were in DC today you could probably hit one of them up for
    drinks or lunch or whatever.
  4. Interaction across multiple stakeholder groups, including
    internationally
  5. The "right people" involved - and you can tell their backgrounds from
    what they are annoyed about during their podcasts and other presentations.
    (i.e. Bob Lord is very annoyed about XSS and obsessed with car safety,
    which I'll dig into later). But also Jack Cable, Lauren Zabierek and Grant
    Dasher are all worth listening to.
  6. Clear executive support

So that's all good stuff. I thought I would post it as its own note because
it's rare to spend a moment to look at the government process, and not see
literally sausage being made. :)

-dave

So I have a ton of thoughts on the CISA Secure by Design and Secure by Default push that is ongoing, as I am sure many of you do. And the first thought is: This is not a bad way to go about business as a government agency in general. I think it's easy to ignore how fast the USG has changed its business practices, showing an agility that few large organizations can match. In particular using Secure By Design as a case example. 1. Massive outreach to garner feedback (including at defcon, but also via email, etc.) 2. Multiple rounds of editing of proposals 3. Actual people you could call and talk to about the proposal, with their faces and positions listed right in the papers and blogs and lawfare podcasts. If you were in DC today you could probably hit one of them up for drinks or lunch or whatever. 4. Interaction across multiple stakeholder groups, including internationally 5. The "right people" involved - and you can tell their backgrounds from what they are annoyed about during their podcasts and other presentations. (i.e. Bob Lord is very annoyed about XSS and obsessed with car safety, which I'll dig into later). But also Jack Cable, Lauren Zabierek and Grant Dasher are all worth listening to. 6. Clear executive support So that's all good stuff. I thought I would post it as its own note because it's rare to spend a moment to look at the government process, and not see literally sausage being made. :) -dave
CH
Christian Heinrich
Fri, Jan 19, 2024 4:18 AM

Dave,

On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 08:13, Dave Aitel via Dailydave
dailydave@lists.aitelfoundation.org wrote:

This is not a bad way to go about business as a government agency in general. I think it's easy
to ignore how fast the USG has changed its business practices, showing an agility that few large
organizations can match.

Dave, On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 08:13, Dave Aitel via Dailydave <dailydave@lists.aitelfoundation.org> wrote: > This is not a bad way to go about business as a government agency in general. I think it's easy > to ignore how fast the USG has changed its business practices, showing an agility that few large > organizations can match. https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2024-01/OIG-24-09-Jan24.pdf reached a different conclusion. -- Regards, Christian Heinrich http://cmlh.id.au/contact
T
telsh
Fri, Jan 19, 2024 3:19 PM

Hey everybody,

On 19.01.24 05:18, Christian Heinrich via Dailydave wrote:

Dave,

On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 08:13, Dave Aitel via Dailydave
dailydave@lists.aitelfoundation.org wrote:

This is not a bad way to go about business as a government agency in general. I think it's easy
to ignore how fast the USG has changed its business practices, showing an agility that few large
organizations can match.

Please note the last sentence on page 3:
"The scope of our audit was efforts during fiscal years 2019 through 2022"

Not being a fanboy of CISA, I see that quite a lot of (positive) things
have happened in the last 2 years there.

And publishing a report for that timeframe in January 2024 puts the OIG
in a questionable light regarding agility and speed.

Just my 0.02 €...
telsh

Hey everybody, On 19.01.24 05:18, Christian Heinrich via Dailydave wrote: > Dave, > > On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 08:13, Dave Aitel via Dailydave > <dailydave@lists.aitelfoundation.org> wrote: >> This is not a bad way to go about business as a government agency in general. I think it's easy >> to ignore how fast the USG has changed its business practices, showing an agility that few large >> organizations can match. > > https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2024-01/OIG-24-09-Jan24.pdf > reached a different conclusion. > > Please note the last sentence on page 3: "The scope of our audit was efforts during fiscal years 2019 through 2022" Not being a fanboy of CISA, I see that quite a lot of (positive) things have happened in the last 2 years there. And publishing a report for that timeframe in January 2024 puts the OIG in a questionable light regarding agility and speed. Just my 0.02 €... telsh
CH
Christian Heinrich
Wed, Jan 24, 2024 5:35 AM

Telsh,

On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 at 07:26, telsh via Dailydave
dailydave@lists.aitelfoundation.org wrote:

Please note the last sentence on page 3:
"The scope of our audit was efforts during fiscal years 2019 through 2022"

Not being a fanboy of CISA, I see that quite a lot of (positive) things
have happened in the last 2 years there.

And publishing a report for that timeframe in January 2024 puts the OIG
in a questionable light regarding agility and speed.

The CISA responded to their draft deliverable on 29 November 2023
(Page 15) and have agreed to implement its recommendations by 31
October 2024, 30 May 2025 (Page 12) and 30 September 2025 (Page 13)

The page numbers above of
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2024-01/OIG-24-09-Jan24.pdf

--
Regards,
Christian Heinrich

http://cmlh.id.au/contact

Telsh, On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 at 07:26, telsh via Dailydave <dailydave@lists.aitelfoundation.org> wrote: > Please note the last sentence on page 3: > "The scope of our audit was efforts during fiscal years 2019 through 2022" > > Not being a fanboy of CISA, I see that quite a lot of (positive) things > have happened in the last 2 years there. > > And publishing a report for that timeframe in January 2024 puts the OIG > in a questionable light regarding agility and speed. The CISA responded to their draft deliverable on 29 November 2023 (Page 15) and have agreed to implement its recommendations by 31 October 2024, 30 May 2025 (Page 12) and 30 September 2025 (Page 13) The page numbers above of https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2024-01/OIG-24-09-Jan24.pdf -- Regards, Christian Heinrich http://cmlh.id.au/contact