And Don’t Forget ISO/IEC 30111Guidelines for the vulnerability handling processes
A few days ago, I brought readers some highlights on the ISO/IEC 29147:2018 standard that guides us in the vulnerability disclosure processes. (If you haven’t read that post, I recommend that you do so before continuing with this one.) These processes mainly involve receiving security issues reports as a vendor and releasing repair advisories to all stakeholders. They’re two points, beginning-ending, of a course of action between which it is necessary to address the vulnerabilities in your systems. As a vendor, you have to verify that what the reporter informed you of is a real security issue and, if so, you need to come up with a solution asap. This is the topic covered by the ISO/IEC 30111:2019 standard. And I’ll talk about it in this post.
'Information technology -Security techniques- Vulnerability handling processes' is the name of this standard. Like the ISO/IEC 29147, it’s in the ISO standards catalog in group 35 'Information technology,' subgroup 35.030 'IT Security (including encryption).' As stated in its intro, it "describes processes for vendors to handle reports of potential vulnerabilities in products and services." Thus, as may already be clear, everyone should use it in line with that one of vulnerability disclosure. Beyond the handling of reports, it also covers requirements and recommendations for the procedures of examination, triage, and repair of flaws.
As a prior step, vendors should create and maintain vulnerability handling policies for a commitment to the security of their products or services. Of course, also for the benefit of their customers or users. ISO suggests that vendors make clear their plans to study and fix security issues to all interested parties. These policies should be continuously reviewed, updated, and improved by the managers of each organization. Part of the policies should be directed to vendors' staff. This, to give them basic guidelines, roles, and duties in handling reports and vulnerabilities. It’s of utmost importance that all concerned people also get caveats to ensure the privacy of data about flaws prior to repair.
ISO recommends that vendors build their vulnerability handling processes. They should assess them very often to be always ready to deal with reports and security issues. Every firm should have a file where all these processes remain faithfully recorded for prospective replication and possible optimization. Besides, they should always ponder a proper union of these operations with their other procedures. They should ensure that the required means for the intended ends are available all the time.
Firms ready for handling vulnerabilities set authorities to be aware of the internal processes, goals, and frameworks and make decisions at the control level. It’s apt for these organizations to have points of contact for communications with internal departments and external parties concerned with the issues disclosure and handling processes. Not to mention being ready to get and respond to questions from customers and other interested people when info about security weaknesses has already been made public.
At this point, those units mentioned by ISO as "product security incident response teams" (PSIRT) stand out. Apart from their activities as points of contact and supervisors of disclosure procedures, these teams may help with the vulnerability assessments of vendors' products and services. Their help should include tracking flaws found in third-party suppliers' software components that may impact the operations and assets of the vendors in consideration. In addition, PSIRT staff should understand the pertinence of maintaining confidentiality before flaw remediations are carried out and notifying 'product business divisions' for proper action.
Product business divisions, those that give products or services to vendors' clients, are also responsible parties in vulnerability handling processes. These divisions get flaw reports from PSIRT and should work with them in the development of remediations. After these are ready, the "customer support divisions" are in charge of sending corresponding advisories to customers and other stakeholders. A matter of vulnerability disclosure processes, which appears in ISO/IEC 29147.
Vulnerability handling process
Now, something that can serve as a guide for firms to establish their vulnerability handling processes. Let’s check what ISO shares for the phases of verification and repair of flaws.
Verification of vulnerabilities
After receiving a report of a potential flaw, the vendor has to verify it. Here’s where the study begins to confirm the weakness. Also, to determine the affected product or service, the security issue’s severity, and the root cause. If it’s necessary, the vendor should demand further proof from the reporter. When verification shows that the flaw is a duplicate, has no security implications, or is in an obsolete or external product, the vulnerability handling process must be broken off. Of course, if other vendors are compromised, the issue should be prudently reported to them.
It’s useful ISO’s emphasis on the continuous change in the exploitability of flaws resulting from advances in attack techniques. Another vital aspect to consider in verifications, usually when various vulnerabilities have been reported, corresponds to triage. "Vendors may consider several factors in determining the relative urgency of producing a remediation, such as potential impact, likelihood of exploitation, and the scope of affected users." Finally, after the flaw verification, reporters should gain data about the results.
Repair of vulnerabilities
Vendors need to establish either partial or total remediations to the vulnerabilities they’ve already verified. While the repair is expected to be generated fast, vendors should keep this in balance with the amount of testing required to ensure the product’s or service’s high quality. Quick and temporary remediations usually take place when the issues show critical or high-risk levels for users. (They should receive constant assistance.) In association with this, it may be necessary for vendors to disable at-risk apps for a period of time.
As for the tests to be carried out with the repairs, vendors should ensure evaluation on the corresponding platforms. Plus, their results should be enough proof of the absence of new flaws and operational and quality obstacles in products or services. Repair that doesn’t work is one that needs to be rethought.
After releasing the vulnerability remediations, vendors should keep updating them until it’s no longer required. On the other hand, vendors should check their software and make proper renewals based on the data gained during the study. All this is in order avoid similar security flaws in their products or services.
To finish, it’s worth highlighting the monitoring activity for the vulnerability handling processes suggested by ISO. Every firm or vendor should always keep track of (and be ready to improve) the speed at which they respond with verifications and repairs. They should also supervise that their remediations are full and that the results are as expected at the end of each case. All of this, it’s hoped, should go hand in hand with a confidential treatment of vulnerability info and individuals' and organizations' sensitive data.
P.S. Several essential details are missing in this post. If you’re really interested in vulnerability handling, we recommend that you read the entire ISO/IEC 30111:2019 doc.