Governance of Zero Trust in manufacturing

Read Time:4 Minute, 24 Second

Manufacturers are some of the most ambitious firms on the planet when it comes to harnessing the power of edge technology to modernize their businesses. As they make plans in 2023 to     enhance business outcomes through the use of technologies such as 5G and IoT, manufacturers should also increasingly be called to innovate in the spheres of governance and cyber risk management.

OT-IT convergence drives manufacturing modernization

The convergence of operational technology (OT) on the factory floor with information technology (IT) is nearly synonymous with manufacturing modernization. OT-IT convergence enables new digital processes, remote connections, and smarter operations. It’s a business outcome-oriented transformation that executive stakeholders have future success pinned upon.

Recent studies from AT&T show that manufacturers are investing in initiatives  such as smart warehousing, transportation optimization and video-based quality inspection at such a rate that the industry is advancing ahead of energy, finance, and healthcare verticals when it comes to edge adoption today.

But to reap the business benefits from these investments, manufacturers need to recognize and attend to the cyber risk realities that are part and parcel with this inevitable convergence.

Cybercriminals are increasingly targeting industrial control system (ICS) technologies that are the bedrock of the OT ecosystems. Attackers have learned to take advantage of ICS hyperconnectivity and convergence with the IT realm to great effect. Last year’s warning from the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) attests to this, as do high-profile attacks last year against tire manufacturers, wind turbine producers, steel companies, car manufacturers, and more.

Reducing risk through Zero Trust

One of the most promising ways that manufacturers can begin to reduce the risk of these kinds of attacks is through the controls afforded by a Zero Trust architecture. From a technical perspective, Zero Trust unifies endpoint security technology, user, or system authentication, and network security enforcement to prevent unrestrained access to OT or IT networks—and reduce the risk of unchecked lateral movement by attackers. With Zero Trust, access is granted conditionally based on the risk level of users (or machines, or applications). It’s a simple, elegant concept that requires careful execution to carry out.

Thus, when looking at building a zero-trust strategy, ZTNA 2.0 solutions have a role to play in helping apply more effective controls at the application level that are responsive to account takeover attempts. ZTNA 2.0 combines fine-grained, least- privileged access with continuous trust verification and deep, ongoing security inspection to protect all users, devices, apps, and data everywhere – all from a simple unified product.

Most importantly, too, is that Zero Trust requires business stakeholder input and collaboration to get right. Just as business stakeholders in manufacturing drive the push to the edge and the push for all nature of digital transformation and OT-IT convergence, they’ve got to be intimately involved with Zero Trust initiatives to spur success.

“Technology can come and go, but what manufacturers are really after are business outcomes,” says Theresa Lanowitz,  head of cybersecurity evangelism for AT&T. “That’s where we need to focus when it comes to Zero Trust—at its core it needs to be driven by the business, which really sets the North Star for Zero Trust governance.”

Zero Trust should be owned by business stakeholders

At the end of the day, Zero Trust projects should be owned by the business, agrees Dharminder Debisarun, worldwide industry security architect for manufacturing, Internet of Things and transport at Palo Alto Networks, who says that when his group is approached by manufacturers interested in building out Zero Trust infrastructure, the team always turns conversations back to the business basics.

“People bring us in and say ‘We want to do Zero Trust, how can you help?'” Debisarun says, explaining that they’re usually starting with very technical deployment questions about elements like Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) and remote access management. “We usually take a step back then and ask, ‘Why do you want to do Zero Trust? What’s the business goal for it?'”

Similarly, Debisarun says they try to involve business stakeholders into collaborative risk discussions before getting into the meat of architectural design. That step back will hopefully get a manufacturer focused on doing risk assessments and other business alignment activities that will shape the way risk is managed—based on business goals, rather than narrow technical specifications. It will also get the entire team thinking about how the value of OT and IT assets are determined and establish the roadmap for where and how Zero Trust security technologies are deployed over time.

Business stakeholders have the most prescient and intimate knowledge of the emerging business conditions, regulatory demands, partnership agreements, and supply chain considerations that are going to impact risk calculations. This is why business ownership is the cornerstone and foundation for Zero Trust governance.

When manufacturers direct the security team with an eye toward  business outcomes, these technical executors are less likely to take a tools-only approach to technology acquisition to engage in reactionary spending based on the latest breach headlines. Incremental improvements will be built up around security controls that manage risk to the most critical operational processes first, and also around the processes and systems most put at risk by new innovations and business models.

Read More

What is Traffic Light Protocol? Here’s how it supports CISOs in sharing threat data

Read Time:32 Second

Traffic Light Protocol (TLP) was created to facilitate greater sharing of potentially sensitive threat information within an organization or business and to enable more effective collaboration among security defenders, system administrators, security managers, and researchers.

TLP grew out of efforts by various public-sector security incident response teams of various nations that began sharing security alerts. The protocol was developed so that recipients of threat data could assess its sensitivity and determine how to share it with others, without giving any aid to the bad actors, revealing personal data, or running afoul of data privacy regulations.

To read this article in full, please click here

Read More

python-cryptography-37.0.2-8.fc38

Read Time:30 Second

FEDORA-2023-749dd47c79

Packages in this update:

python-cryptography-37.0.2-8.fc38

Update description:

Security fix for CVE-2023-23931

cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives and recipes to Python developers. In affected versions Cipher.update_into would accept Python objects which implement the buffer protocol, but provide only immutable buffers. This would allow immutable objects (such as bytes) to be mutated, thus violating fundamental rules of Python and resulting in corrupted output. This now correctly raises an exception. This issue has been present since update_into was originally introduced in cryptography 1.8.

Read More

python-cryptography-37.0.2-5.fc37

Read Time:30 Second

FEDORA-2023-fa5d0b461d

Packages in this update:

python-cryptography-37.0.2-5.fc37

Update description:

Security fix for CVE-2023-23931

cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives and recipes to Python developers. In affected versions Cipher.update_into would accept Python objects which implement the buffer protocol, but provide only immutable buffers. This would allow immutable objects (such as bytes) to be mutated, thus violating fundamental rules of Python and resulting in corrupted output. This now correctly raises an exception. This issue has been present since update_into was originally introduced in cryptography 1.8.

Read More

python-cryptography-36.0.0-4.fc36

Read Time:30 Second

FEDORA-2023-672f668f51

Packages in this update:

python-cryptography-36.0.0-4.fc36

Update description:

Security fix for CVE-2023-23931

cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives and recipes to Python developers. In affected versions Cipher.update_into would accept Python objects which implement the buffer protocol, but provide only immutable buffers. This would allow immutable objects (such as bytes) to be mutated, thus violating fundamental rules of Python and resulting in corrupted output. This now correctly raises an exception. This issue has been present since update_into was originally introduced in cryptography 1.8.

Read More

python-cryptography-37.0.2-8.fc39

Read Time:38 Second

FEDORA-2023-51706f88e3

Packages in this update:

python-cryptography-37.0.2-8.fc39

Update description:

Automatic update for python-cryptography-37.0.2-8.fc39.

Changelog

* Wed Feb 22 2023 Christian Heimes <cheimes@redhat.com> – 37.0.2-8
– Fix CVE-2023-23931: Don’t allow update_into to mutate immutable objects, resolves rhbz#2171820
– Fix FTBFS due to failing test_load_invalid_ec_key_from_pem and test_decrypt_invalid_decrypt, resolves rhbz#2171661
* Fri Jan 20 2023 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@fedoraproject.org> – 37.0.2-7
– Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_38_Mass_Rebuild
* Fri Dec 9 2022 Christian Heimes <cheimes@redhat.com> – 37.0.2-6
– Enable SHA1 signatures in test suite (ELN-only)

Read More