De-perimeterisation as a cycle: tearing down and rebuilding security perimeters

If an organisation wants to secure its IT assets, where should the security mechanisms be placed? The traditional view is the hard-shell model, where an organisation secures all its assets using a fixed security border: What is inside the security perimeter is more or less trusted, what is outside is not. Due to changes in technologies, business processes and their legal environments this approach is not adequate anymore.\ud This paper examines this process, which was coined de-perimeterisation by the Jericho Forum.\ud In this paper we analyse and define the concepts of perimeter and de-perimeterisation, and show that there is a long term trend in which de-perimeterisation is iteratively accelerated and decelerated. In times of accelerated de-perimeterisation, technical and organisational changes take place by which connectivity between organisations and their environment scales up significantly. In times of deceleration, technical and organisational security measures are taken to decrease the security risks that come with de-perimeterisation, a movement that we call re-perimeterisation. We identify the technical and organisational mechanisms that facilitate de-perimeterisation and re-perimeterisation, and discuss the forces that cause organisations to alternate between these two movements

Future consumer mobile phone security: a case study using the data centric security model

In the interconnected world that we live in, traditional security barriers are\ud broken down. Developments such as outsourcing, increased usage of mobile\ud devices and wireless networks each cause new security problems.\ud To address the new security threats, a number of solutions have been suggested,\ud mostly aiming at securing data rather than whole systems or networks.\ud However, these visions (such as proposed by the Jericho Forum [9] and IBM\ud [4]) are mostly concerned with large (inter-) enterprise systems. Until now, it is\ud unclear what data-centric security could mean for other systems and environments.\ud One particular category of systems that has been neglected is that of\ud consumer mobile phones. Currently, data security is usually limited to a PIN\ud number on startup and the option to disable wireless connections. The lack of\ud protection does not seem justified, as these devices have steadily increased in\ud capabilities and capacity; they can connect wirelessly to the Internet and have\ud a high risk of being lost or stolen [8]. This not only puts end users at risk, but\ud also their contacts, as phones can contain privacy sensitive data of many others.\ud For example, if birth dates and addresses are kept with the contact records, in\ud many cases a thief will have enough information to impersonate a contact and\ud steal his identity.\ud Could consumer mobile phones benefit from data-centric security? How\ud useful is data-centric security in this context? These are the core questions we\ud will try to address here

IPv6 Network Mobility

Network Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting has been used since before the days of the Internet as we know it today. Authentication asks the question, “Who or what are you?” Authorization asks, “What are you allowed to do?” And fi nally, accounting wants to know, “What did you do?” These fundamental security building blocks are being used in expanded ways today. The fi rst part of this two-part series focused on the overall concepts of AAA, the elements involved in AAA communications, and highlevel approaches to achieving specifi c AAA goals. It was published in IPJ Volume 10, No. 1[0]. This second part of the series discusses the protocols involved, specifi c applications of AAA, and considerations for the future of AAA

Rethinking De-Perimeterisation: Problem Analysis And Solutions

For businesses, the traditional security approach is the hard-shell model: an organisation secures all its assets using a fixed security border, trusting the inside, and distrusting the outside. However, as technologies and business processes change, this model looses its attractiveness. In a networked world, “inside” and “outside” can no longer be clearly distinguished. The Jericho Forum - an industry consortium part of the Open Group – coined this process deperimeterisation and suggested an approach aimed at securing data rather than complete systems and infrastructures. We do not question the reality of de-perimeterisation; however, we believe that the existing analysis of the exact problem, as well as the usefulness of the proposed solutions have fallen short: first, there is no linear process of blurring boundaries, in which security mechanisms are placed at lower and lower levels, until they only surround data. To the contrary, we experience a cyclic process of connecting and disconnecting of systems. As conditions change, the basic trade-off between accountability and business opportunities is made (and should be made) every time again. Apart from that, data level security has several limitations to start with, and there is a big potential for solving security problems differently: by rearranging the responsibilities between businesses and individuals. The results of this analysis can be useful for security professionals who need to trade off different security mechanisms for their organisations and their information systems

The Road Ahead for Networking: A Survey on ICN-IP Coexistence Solutions

In recent years, the current Internet has experienced an unexpected paradigm shift in the usage model, which has pushed researchers towards the design of the Information-Centric Networking (ICN) paradigm as a possible replacement of the existing architecture. Even though both Academia and Industry have investigated the feasibility and effectiveness of ICN, achieving the complete replacement of the Internet Protocol (IP) is a challenging task. Some research groups have already addressed the coexistence by designing their own architectures, but none of those is the final solution to move towards the future Internet considering the unaltered state of the networking. To design such architecture, the research community needs now a comprehensive overview of the existing solutions that have so far addressed the coexistence. The purpose of this paper is to reach this goal by providing the first comprehensive survey and classification of the coexistence architectures according to their features (i.e., deployment approach, deployment scenarios, addressed coexistence requirements and architecture or technology used) and evaluation parameters (i.e., challenges emerging during the deployment and the runtime behaviour of an architecture). We believe that this paper will finally fill the gap required for moving towards the design of the final coexistence architecture.Comment: 23 pages, 16 figures, 3 table