|
Multi-Level Security Strategies for the Federal Government Security Impact Analysis
Copyright © 2005 All rights reserved Editorial Director John Persinos Research Associate David Evancha
|
|
This document was developed with IBM funding. Although the document may utilize publicly available material from various vendors, including IBM, it does not necessarily reflect the positions of such vendors on the issues addressed in this document.
Part 4: Security Impact Analysis MLS Characteristics and Compliance "The government has raised the bar, and we are answering the challenge to develop effective technology that is needed to address the information sharing problem. The biggest nut to crack revolves around the level of assurance needed to guarantee that an individual’s access to the system from a lower level is consistent with a mandatory access control (MAC) policy. We want to be assured they will see only what they are supposed to. For this we need policy-based, rule-based access and rock-solid data management which guarantees that when I connect into that database server, I can only see what I’m supposed to see." – Eric Beyer, Lockheed Martin An MLS environment operates according to a set of rules and assurances that limit data access to authorized users and create an audit trail to maintain accountability. The chief control functions are as follows: Mandatory access control (MAC) – With mandatory access control, access is restricted based on the sensitivity of the information and the authorization of the user. These controls cannot be bypassed or altered by anyone other than an authorized security administrator. Security labels (tags) are used to define the sensitivity of each file or data object. The label denotes the level or classification of the information (such as top secret, secret, sensitive, etc.), and indicates to which category within that level (such as Project A or Project B) the information belongs. Security administrators also assign security labels to users, who can only access or enter data that is labeled at the same or at a lower level. Discretionary access control (DAC) – In addition to mandatory controls, MLS systems allow for some degree of discretionary access control. This is accomplished through the use of access control lists that identify the users that can access a given resource and their level of authority (e.g. read, update, delete) with regard to that resource. Both the resource owner and the security administrator can determine who can access the resource and with what authority. Auditing – Audit records associate security-related events (such as file access) with the user that caused the event. The audit record uses the security label to show when the data was accessed, the level of authority that was required and the actions that were taken. Identification and authentication – Each MLS system user is assigned an identity that corresponds to that user’s security label. Typically, user identities are verified through the Logon and Logoff commands and are used to maintain the audit trail. Hardcopy labeling – In an MLS environment, the system prints a security notation indicating the security level on each page of hardcopy output. It also creates corresponding electronic labels for the data file. Name-hiding – The names of files, data sets and directories are only displayed to users with access authority. Users without a "need-to-know" will not see the file or object listed or displayed. Write-down prevention – To prevent users from declassifying data, an MLS system prohibits users from writing new data at a lower level of classification than their own label designation. In other words, a user with a top-secret classification can only create new data with a top-secret label. The user cannot ‘write down’ the data by labeling it secret or sensitive, in order to grant access to users with less than a top-secret designation. MLS at a Glance
Row-level security – Relational database users can be restricted to a specific set of rows by assigning each row a security label. Users with lower designations can still perform queries against the database, but the query results will not include any data from rows classified above that users’ security designation. This permits databases to be shared by users with various levels of security clearance without limiting the database to less sensitive data or compromising any highly sensitive data that it may contain. Federated queries – Users can issue queries across multiple databases and then store the combined results in an MLS database, which assigns them the appropriate security designation. Other users with varying levels of security classifications can query the MLS database and access data cleared for their level of clearance. Bit-map checks – All resources and devices within an MLS environment receive a security label. Bit-map checks are performed against requests to use the device. For example, if a print request by an authorized user is made to print a top secret document on a particular printer, a bit map check will compare the device’s clearance level with the document’s. If they match, permission will be granted; if not, it will be denied. …Confusion about MLS Reigns Despite the considerable efforts that have gone into creating an MLS standard and deploying its functional capabilities to support today’s distributed/collaborative infrastructures, a tremendous amount of confusion still exists about its impact on current organizations. Our survey indicates that many federal security administrators are still unfamiliar with MLS. Less than a third of federal agencies report that their current security initiatives are MLS compliant (see Figure 7).
Figure 7 – Source: Larstan Business Reports/Government Security News However, the survey results also show that MLS compliance will grow rapidly over the next eighteen months. As this happens, security administrators throughout the federal government are likely to become more familiar with the issues surrounding agency collaboration and multi-level security (see Figure 8). Figure 8 – Source: Larstan Business Reports/Government Security News Already, among those respondents whose agencies are currently engaged in infrastructure upgrades, fifty percent of the respondents report that MLS is an integral aspect of their modernization efforts (see Figure 9)
Figure 9 – Source: Larstan Business Reports/Government Security News …Conclusion Despite the 20 year history of MLS, both the empirical and anecdotal evidence suggest that pace of MLS-compliant systems deployment will pick up speed. It is fair to predict that a faster rate of MLS adoption will begin in 2004, and that the deployment of MLS will not only coincide with, but enable, the implementation of collaborative infrastructures that require the secure exchange of the most sensitive information in the nation in a distributed computing environment. As agencies modernize their systems, re-engineer their business processes, and consolidate their technology assets, it will be important to select infrastructure platforms that can support MLS requirements, as well as provide a unified foundation from which classified information can be disseminated and stored. The mainframe platform promises to play an increasingly important role in supporting the migration to an MLS-compliant infrastructure, as agencies look for cost-effective and secure ways to integrate systems appropriately across organizational boundaries while managing the complexity of their enterprise systems. However, it is also clear that much needs to be done to take the mystery out of MLS. The fact that a full 46% of respondents in the national security community are unsure of what their MLS plans are indicates a gap between a high level awareness of what MLS is, and the specific knowledge required to rapidly and effectively deploy this security standard in their organizations. Because MLS plays an integral role in how the national security community shares classified information securely across organizational boundaries, establishing a clear strategic, operational and technical road map to MLS compliance will be a high priority for IT and security professionals in these agencies.
|