Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
228 lines (173 loc) · 23.2 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

228 lines (173 loc) · 23.2 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for ossec/ossec-hids

Mitigation Strategy: Regularly Audit and Harden OSSEC Configuration

  • Description: 1. Establish a schedule for regular audits of OSSEC configuration files (e.g., monthly or quarterly). 2. Create a checklist based on security best practices and OSSEC hardening guides (refer to OSSEC documentation and security benchmarks). 3. Review ossec.conf on the OSSEC server, agent configuration files (agent.conf or similar), and custom rule sets. 4. Verify settings related to: * Authentication mechanisms and strength within OSSEC. * Authorization controls and user permissions within OSSEC. * Enabled modules and their configurations within OSSEC. * Logging levels and output destinations configured in OSSEC. * Rule sets and their effectiveness within OSSEC. * Integration with other security tools via OSSEC configuration. 5. Disable any unnecessary modules, features, or services within OSSEC that are not actively used. 6. Strengthen security-related parameters within OSSEC configuration, such as password policies (if applicable to any OSSEC components with authentication), access control lists, and encryption settings related to OSSEC communication. 7. Document the audit process, findings, and any configuration changes made to OSSEC. 8. Use version control (e.g., Git) to track changes to OSSEC configuration files, allowing for easy rollback and history tracking.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Threat: Misconfiguration leading to weak OSSEC security posture. Severity: High.
      • Threat: Unauthorized access to OSSEC functionalities due to default or weak settings. Severity: Medium.
      • Threat: Exploitable vulnerabilities due to insecure OSSEC configurations or outdated settings. Severity: High.
      • Threat: Bypassing OSSEC security controls due to misconfigured rules or modules. Severity: Medium to High (depending on the bypass).

    • Impact:

      • Misconfiguration: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). Proactive audits prevent configuration drift and maintain a strong OSSEC security baseline.
      • Unauthorized Access: Risk reduced (Medium impact). Hardening OSSEC access controls limits potential unauthorized access points within OSSEC.
      • Exploitable Vulnerabilities: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). Regular reviews help identify and rectify insecure OSSEC configurations that could be exploited.
      • Bypassing Security Controls: Risk reduced (Medium to High impact). Ensures OSSEC rules and modules are correctly configured to detect and prevent threats effectively.

    • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. OSSEC configuration files are stored in a version control system (git repository/infrastructure/ossec-config). Basic initial configuration was performed during setup.

    • Missing Implementation: Formal schedule for regular OSSEC configuration audits is not defined. A comprehensive OSSEC configuration checklist based on security best practices is not yet created. Automated OSSEC configuration hardening scripts are not in place. Documentation of the OSSEC audit process is missing.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure Access to OSSEC Configuration Files

  • Description: 1. Identify the location of all OSSEC configuration files on the server and agent systems. This includes ossec.conf, agent configuration files, rule files, decoder files, and any custom scripts or configurations specific to OSSEC. 2. Implement strict file system permissions on these files. * For Linux/Unix-based systems, use chmod and chown to restrict read and write access. * Ensure only the OSSEC user (e.g., ossec) and authorized administrators (e.g., members of a dedicated ossecadmin group) have read and write access to OSSEC configuration files. * Prevent world-readable or world-writable permissions on OSSEC configuration files. 3. Utilize Access Control Lists (ACLs) if finer-grained access control is required beyond basic file permissions for OSSEC configuration files. 4. Regularly review and audit file permissions on OSSEC configuration files to ensure they remain correctly configured and haven't been inadvertently changed. 5. If using a configuration management system, ensure it enforces these file permissions automatically during deployments and updates of OSSEC configurations.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Threat: Unauthorized modification of OSSEC configuration. Severity: High.
      • Threat: Information disclosure through unauthorized reading of OSSEC configuration files (potentially containing sensitive information). Severity: Medium.
      • Threat: Integrity compromise of OSSEC system due to malicious configuration changes. Severity: High.

    • Impact:

      • Unauthorized Modification: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). Prevents unauthorized users from altering OSSEC configurations to weaken security or disable monitoring.
      • Information Disclosure: Risk reduced (Medium impact). Protects potentially sensitive information within OSSEC configuration files from unauthorized viewing.
      • Integrity Compromise: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). Maintains the integrity of the OSSEC system by preventing malicious OSSEC configuration changes.

    • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Basic file permissions are set on OSSEC configuration files during initial installation using standard OSSEC installation scripts.

    • Missing Implementation: Formal documentation of file permission requirements for OSSEC configuration files is missing. Regular audits of file permissions on OSSEC configuration files are not scheduled. ACLs are not currently utilized for more granular control of OSSEC configuration file access. Integration with configuration management to enforce permissions on OSSEC configuration files is not fully automated.

Mitigation Strategy: Implement Principle of Least Privilege for OSSEC Users

  • Description: 1. Define different roles for users interacting with OSSEC (e.g., security analysts, security engineers, read-only users, administrators) if OSSEC provides user management features. 2. For each role, determine the minimum necessary permissions required to perform their tasks within OSSEC. 3. Create dedicated user accounts for each individual or role within OSSEC, if applicable, avoiding the use of shared or default accounts. 4. Assign specific permissions to each user account based on their defined role within OSSEC. * For example, security analysts might need read-only access to OSSEC alerts and logs, while security engineers require administrative access for OSSEC configuration and maintenance. 5. If OSSEC Web UI or API is used, configure user roles and permissions within those interfaces to reflect the principle of least privilege. 6. Regularly review OSSEC user accounts and their assigned permissions to ensure they remain appropriate and necessary. 7. Remove or disable OSSEC accounts that are no longer needed or associated with individuals who have left the organization.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Threat: Privilege escalation by compromised or malicious OSSEC users. Severity: High.
      • Threat: Accidental misconfiguration or damage to OSSEC due to excessive user permissions. Severity: Medium.
      • Threat: Unauthorized access to sensitive OSSEC data or functionalities. Severity: Medium to High (depending on the data/functionality).

    • Impact:

      • Privilege Escalation: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). Limits the potential damage from compromised OSSEC accounts by restricting their capabilities within OSSEC.
      • Accidental Misconfiguration: Risk reduced (Medium impact). Minimizes the chance of accidental errors in OSSEC by limiting administrative privileges to authorized personnel.
      • Unauthorized Access: Risk reduced (Medium to High impact). Controls access to sensitive OSSEC features and data based on user roles within OSSEC.

    • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Separate user accounts are used for system administration and application access. However, specific OSSEC user roles and permissions are not formally defined and implemented within OSSEC itself (especially if using Web UI or API).

    • Missing Implementation: Formal definition of OSSEC user roles and associated permissions within OSSEC. Implementation of role-based access control within OSSEC (if applicable through Web UI or API). Regular review process for OSSEC user accounts and permissions.

Mitigation Strategy: Secure OSSEC Web UI (if enabled)

  • Description: 1. Determine if the OSSEC Web UI is necessary for operational needs. If not, consider disabling it to reduce the attack surface of the OSSEC Web UI. 2. If the Web UI is required, ensure it is running the latest stable version to patch known vulnerabilities in the OSSEC Web UI. Regularly check for updates and apply them promptly. 3. Enforce strong password policies for all OSSEC Web UI user accounts. Require complex passwords and regular password changes. 4. Implement Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for OSSEC Web UI logins to add an extra layer of security beyond passwords. 5. Restrict access to the OSSEC Web UI to authorized networks or IP address ranges using firewall rules or web server access controls. 6. Use HTTPS (TLS/SSL) to encrypt all communication between the user's browser and the OSSEC Web UI server. Ensure proper TLS configuration with strong ciphers and protocols. 7. Regularly review OSSEC Web UI access logs for suspicious activity and unauthorized login attempts. 8. Consider using a Web Application Firewall (WAF) in front of the OSSEC Web UI to protect against common web attacks.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Threat: Unauthorized access to OSSEC Web UI. Severity: High.
      • Threat: Web application vulnerabilities in the OSSEC Web UI (e.g., XSS, SQL Injection). Severity: High.
      • Threat: Brute-force attacks against OSSEC Web UI login. Severity: Medium to High.
      • Threat: Man-in-the-middle attacks intercepting OSSEC Web UI traffic. Severity: High.

    • Impact:

      • Unauthorized Access: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). Strong authentication and access controls prevent unauthorized logins to the OSSEC Web UI.
      • Web Application Vulnerabilities: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). Keeping the OSSEC Web UI updated and potentially using a WAF mitigates web-based attacks against the Web UI.
      • Brute-force Attacks: Risk reduced (Medium to High impact). Strong passwords, MFA, and rate limiting (if available) make brute-force attacks against the OSSEC Web UI more difficult.
      • Man-in-the-middle Attacks: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). HTTPS encryption protects OSSEC Web UI traffic from eavesdropping and tampering.

    • Currently Implemented: Not implemented. The OSSEC Web UI is currently not deployed or used in the project.

    • Missing Implementation: All aspects of securing the OSSEC Web UI are missing as it's not currently in use. If the Web UI is planned for future deployment, all the described security measures should be implemented.

Mitigation Strategy: Ensure Secure Communication Channels (Agent-Server)

  • Description: 1. Verify the communication protocol used between OSSEC agents and the server. OSSEC typically uses UDP or TCP. 2. If using TCP, ensure TLS/SSL encryption is enabled for agent-server communication within OSSEC configuration. Refer to OSSEC documentation for configuring TLS/SSL. 3. If direct TLS/SSL is not feasible or desired within OSSEC, consider using a VPN or other secure tunnel to encrypt the network traffic between agents and the server, especially if communication traverses untrusted networks. 4. Regularly review and update the encryption protocols and ciphers used for TLS/SSL in OSSEC configuration to ensure they are strong and not vulnerable to known attacks. 5. If using UDP, understand the inherent lack of encryption and consider the network environment. UDP is generally less secure for sensitive data over untrusted networks for OSSEC agent-server communication. Evaluate if switching to TCP with TLS or using a VPN is necessary. 6. Ensure proper firewall rules are in place to restrict agent-server communication to only the necessary ports and protocols, and only between authorized agents and the server. This is partially OSSEC related as it's about securing OSSEC communication.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Threat: Eavesdropping on OSSEC agent-server communication. Severity: High.
      • Threat: Man-in-the-middle attacks intercepting and potentially modifying OSSEC agent-server traffic. Severity: High.
      • Threat: Data breaches due to unencrypted transmission of sensitive OSSEC security data. Severity: High.

    • Impact:

      • Eavesdropping: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). Encryption prevents unauthorized parties from reading OSSEC agent-server communication.
      • Man-in-the-middle Attacks: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). Encryption and authentication mechanisms protect against OSSEC traffic interception and modification.
      • Data Breaches: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). Ensures sensitive OSSEC security data transmitted between agents and the server is protected from exposure.

    • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Agent-server communication is currently using default OSSEC configuration, which may or may not include TLS/SSL depending on the specific OSSEC version and setup. Network firewalls are in place to restrict communication to necessary ports.

    • Missing Implementation: Explicit verification and configuration of TLS/SSL encryption for OSSEC agent-server communication is needed. Documentation of the chosen communication protocol and encryption method for OSSEC is missing. Regular review of encryption settings and protocols for OSSEC is not scheduled.

Mitigation Strategy: Agent Authentication and Authorization

  • Description: 1. Utilize OSSEC's agent key mechanism for authenticating agents to the server. Ensure agent keys are properly generated and securely distributed to agents as per OSSEC best practices. 2. Avoid using default or weak agent keys provided by OSSEC or easily guessable. Generate strong, unique keys for each agent. 3. Implement a secure process for distributing agent keys to agents, avoiding insecure channels like email or unencrypted file transfers. Consider using secure configuration management tools or manual secure key exchange. This is partially OSSEC related as it's about managing OSSEC agent keys. 4. Regularly rotate agent keys as a security best practice within OSSEC key management. Define a key rotation schedule (e.g., annually or semi-annually). 5. On the OSSEC server, properly manage and store agent keys securely. Restrict access to the key storage location used by OSSEC. 6. Configure OSSEC server to only accept connections from authenticated agents with valid keys. 7. Monitor agent registration and authentication logs provided by OSSEC for any suspicious activity or unauthorized agent connection attempts.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Threat: Unauthorized agents connecting to the OSSEC server. Severity: High.
      • Threat: Rogue agents injecting false alerts or manipulating OSSEC data. Severity: High.
      • Threat: Denial of service attacks by unauthorized agents overwhelming the OSSEC server. Severity: Medium to High.

    • Impact:

      • Unauthorized Agents: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). Agent authentication prevents unauthorized devices from connecting and interacting with the OSSEC system.
      • Rogue Agents: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). Ensures only trusted and authorized agents can send data to the OSSEC server, preventing malicious data injection into OSSEC.
      • Denial of Service: Risk reduced (Medium to High impact). Limits the potential for unauthorized agents to flood the OSSEC server with requests, contributing to DoS prevention against OSSEC.

    • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Agent keys are used for authentication during agent registration. Keys are generated and distributed manually during agent deployment.

    • Missing Implementation: Formal process for secure OSSEC agent key distribution is not fully defined and automated. OSSEC agent key rotation is not implemented. Documentation of the OSSEC key management process is missing. Monitoring of OSSEC agent registration and authentication logs is not actively performed.

Mitigation Strategy: Regularly Update OSSEC Components

  • Description: 1. Establish a process for regularly updating OSSEC server, agents, and any related components to the latest stable versions. 2. Monitor OSSEC project security advisories and apply patches promptly to address identified vulnerabilities in OSSEC. 3. Automate the update process where feasible to ensure timely patching of OSSEC components.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Threat: Exploitation of known vulnerabilities in outdated OSSEC components. Severity: High.
      • Threat: Security breaches due to unpatched vulnerabilities in OSSEC. Severity: High.
      • Threat: Instability and malfunction of OSSEC due to outdated software. Severity: Medium.

    • Impact:

      • Exploitation of Vulnerabilities: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). Regular updates patch known vulnerabilities, preventing exploitation.
      • Security Breaches: Risk reduced significantly (High impact). Timely patching minimizes the window of opportunity for attackers to exploit vulnerabilities in OSSEC.
      • Instability and Malfunction: Risk reduced (Medium impact). Updates often include bug fixes and stability improvements for OSSEC.

    • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. OSSEC components are updated manually on an ad-hoc basis when new versions are noticed.

    • Missing Implementation: Formal process for regular OSSEC updates is not defined. Automated update mechanism for OSSEC is not in place. Monitoring of OSSEC security advisories and patch application is not formalized.

Mitigation Strategy: Monitor OSSEC Resource Usage

  • Description: 1. Continuously monitor the resource consumption of OSSEC servers and agents (CPU, memory, disk I/O). Specifically OSSEC processes. 2. Establish baseline resource usage for OSSEC and set alerts for abnormal resource consumption patterns related to OSSEC. 3. Investigate and address any resource exhaustion issues promptly to prevent performance degradation or denial of service of OSSEC.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Threat: Denial of service due to OSSEC resource exhaustion. Severity: Medium to High.
      • Threat: Performance degradation of OSSEC monitoring capabilities. Severity: Medium.
      • Threat: Underlying system instability caused by runaway OSSEC processes. Severity: Medium.

    • Impact:

      • Denial of Service: Risk reduced (Medium to High impact). Proactive monitoring and resource management prevent OSSEC from becoming unavailable due to resource exhaustion.
      • Performance Degradation: Risk reduced (Medium impact). Ensures OSSEC maintains its monitoring effectiveness by preventing resource-related performance issues.
      • System Instability: Risk reduced (Medium impact). Prevents OSSEC from negatively impacting the stability of the underlying system due to resource problems.

    • Currently Implemented: Basic system resource monitoring is in place for servers, but not specifically focused on OSSEC processes or with OSSEC-specific thresholds.

    • Missing Implementation: OSSEC-specific resource monitoring metrics are not defined. Alerting thresholds for abnormal OSSEC resource usage are not configured. Automated monitoring and alerting for OSSEC resource consumption is missing.

Mitigation Strategy: Tune OSSEC Configuration for Performance

  • Description: 1. Optimize OSSEC configuration to balance security monitoring effectiveness with performance impact. 2. Adjust rule sets in OSSEC, log levels in OSSEC, and monitoring frequency within OSSEC configuration to minimize resource consumption while maintaining adequate security coverage. 3. Regularly review and tune OSSEC configuration based on performance monitoring and operational experience.

    • List of Threats Mitigated:

      • Threat: Performance impact of OSSEC on monitored systems. Severity: Medium.
      • Threat: Overload of OSSEC server due to excessive event processing. Severity: Medium to High.
      • Threat: Missed security events due to overly aggressive performance tuning (e.g., too low log levels). Severity: Medium.

    • Impact:

      • Performance Impact on Monitored Systems: Risk reduced (Medium impact). Tuning OSSEC minimizes its performance overhead on monitored applications and systems.
      • Overload of OSSEC Server: Risk reduced (Medium to High impact). Prevents the OSSEC server from being overwhelmed by excessive events, ensuring stability and responsiveness.
      • Missed Security Events: Risk balanced (Medium impact). Careful tuning aims to optimize performance without sacrificing critical security monitoring capabilities.

    • Currently Implemented: Basic initial OSSEC configuration was performed, but no specific performance tuning has been done yet.

    • Missing Implementation: Performance tuning of OSSEC configuration is not yet implemented. Performance testing and benchmarking of OSSEC are not performed. Regular review and tuning of OSSEC configuration for performance is not scheduled.