A centralized application security team, similar to ours here at Adobe, can be the key to driving the security vision of the company. It helps implement the Secure Product Lifecycle (SPLC) and provide security expertise within the organization. To stay current and have impact within the organization, a security team also needs to be in the mode of continuous evolution and learning. At inception of such a team, impact is usually localized more simply to applications that the team reviews. As the team matures, the team can start to influence the security posture across the whole organization. I lead the team of security researchers at Adobe. Our team’s charter is to provide security expertise to all application teams in the company. At Adobe, we have seen our team mature over time. As we look back, we would like to share the various phases of evolution that we have gone through along the way.
Stage 1: Dig Deeper
In the first stage, the team is in the phase of forming and acquires the required security skills through hiring and organic learning. The individuals on the team bring varied security expertise, experience, and a desired skillset to the team. During this stage, the team looks for applicability of security knowledge to the applications that the engineering teams develop. The security team starts this by doing deep dives into the application architecture and understanding why the products are being created in the first place. Here the team understands the organization’s application portfolio, observes common design patterns, and then starts to build the bigger picture on how applications come together as a solution. Sharing learnings within the team is key to accelerating to the next stage.
By reviewing applications individually, the security team starts to understand the “elephants in the room” better and is also able to prioritize based on risk profile. A security team will primarily witness this stage during inception. But, it could witness it again if it undergoes major course changes, takes on new areas such as an acquisition, or must take on a new technical direction.
Stage 2: Research
In the second stage, the security team is already able to perform security reviews for most applications, or at least a thematically related group of them, with relative ease. The security team may then start to observe gaps in their security knowhow due to things such as changes in broader industry or company engineering practices or adoption of new technology stacks.
During this phase, the security team starts to invest time in researching any necessary security tradeoffs and relative security strength of newer technologies being explored or adopted by application engineering teams. This research and its practical application within the organization has the benefit of helping to establish security experts on a wider range of topics within the team.
This stage helps security teams stay ahead of the curve, grow security subject matter expertise, update any training materials, and helps them give more meaningful security advice to other engineering teams. For example, Adobe’s application security team was initially skilled in desktop security best practices. It evolved its skillset as the company launched products centered around the cloud and mobile platforms. This newly acquired skillset required further specializationwhen the company started exploring more “bleeding edge” cloud technologies such as containerization for building micro-services.
Stage 3: Security Impact
As security teams become efficient in reviewing solutions and can keep up with technological advances, they can then start looking at homogeneous security improvements across their entire organization. This has the potential of a much broader impact on the organization. Therefore, this requires the security team to be appropriately scalable to match possible increasing demands upon it.
If a security team member wants to make this broader impact, the first step is identification of a problem that can be applied to a larger set of applications. In other words, you must ask members of a security team to pick and own a particularly interesting security problem and try to solve it across a larger section of the company.
Within Adobe, we were able to identify a handful of key projects that fit the above criteria for our security team to tackle. Some examples include:
- Defining the Amazon Web Services (AWS) minimum security bar for the entire company
- Implementing appropriate transport layer security (TLS) configurations on Adobe domains
- Validating that product teams did not store secrets or credentials in their source code
- Forcing use of browser supported security flags (i.e. XSS-Protection, X-Frame-Options, etc.) to help protect web applications.
The scope of these solutions varied from just business critical applications to the entire company.
Some guidelines that we set within our own team to achieve this were as follows:
- The problem statement, like an elevator pitch, should be simple and easily understandable by all levels within the engineering teams – including senior management.
- The security researcher was free to define the scope and choose how the problem could be solved.
- The improvements made by engineering teams should be measurable in a repeatable way. This would allow for easier identification of any security regressions.
- Existing channels for reporting security backlog items to engineering teams must be utilized versus spinning up new processes.
- Though automation is generally viewed as a key to scalability for these types of solutions, the team also had flexibility to adopt any method deemed most appropriate. For example, a researcher could front-load code analysis and only provide precise security flaws uncovered to the application engineering team. Similarly, a researcher could establish required “minimum bars” for application engineering teams helping to set new company security standards. The onus is then placed on the application engineering teams to achieve compliance against the new or updated standards.
For projects that required running tests repeatedly, we leveraged our Security Automation Framework. This helped automate tasks such as validation. For others, clear standards were established for application security teams. Once a defined confidence goal is reached within the security team about compliance against those standards, automated validation could be introduced.
Pivoting Around an Application versus a Problem
When applications undergo a penetration test, threat modeling, or a tool-based scan, teams must first address critical issues before resolving lower priority issues. Such an effort probes an application from many directions attempting to extract all known security issues. In this case, the focus is on the application and its security issues are not known when the engagement starts. Once problems are found, the application team owns fixing it.
On the other hand, if you choose to tackle one of the broader security problems for the organization, you test against a range of applications, mitigate it as quickly as possible for those applications, and make a goal to eventually eradicate the issue entirely from the organization. Today, teams are often forced into reactively resolving such big problems as critical issues – often due to broader industry security vulnerabilities that affect multiple companies all at once. Heartbleed and other similar named vulnerabilities are good examples of this. The Adobe security team attempts to resolve as many known issues as possible proactively in an attempt to help lessen the organizational disruption when big industry-wide issues come along. This approach is our recipe for having a positive security impact across the organization.
It is worth noting that security teams will move in and out of the above stages and the stages will tend to repeat themselves over time. For example, a new acquisition or a new platform might require deeper dives to understand. Similarly, new technology trends will require investment in research. Going after specific, broad security problems complements the deep dives and helps improve the security posture for the entire company.
We have found it very useful to have members of the security team take ownership of these “really big” security trends we see and help improve results across the company around it. These efforts are ongoing and we will share more insights in future blog posts.
Sr. Manager, Secure Software Engineering