PowerNews: May 2011
Posted in Audits, Company News, Security on May 6th, 2011 by Kiki – Be the first to comment
PowerTech Releases 2011 “State of IBM i Security” Study
By Robin Tatam, Director of Security Technologies
PowerTech recently unveiled the 2011 edition of its unique “State of IBM i Security” study. Unfortunately, there’s still a lot of room for improvement for the average IBM i shop.
This year’s statistics were aggregated from 243 systems of all shapes and sizes, serving applications to virtually every industry. And, while regulatory compliance is the common driver for many customer conversations, it appears that mandates to secure IBM i servers and data still haven’t been fully realized.
Published annually since 2004, the study highlights six areas of IBM i security configuration:
- System Auditing
- System Security Values
- Powerful User Profiles
- Network Access
- Public Authority
- User and Password Management
PowerTech’s free Compliance Assessment tool is used to collect, analyze, and report on the assessed systems, and a simple opt-in feature allows the data to be shared anonymously with PowerTech. To assess your own server (with or without sharing your findings), request a Compliance Assessment.
Password Management
The average server in this year’s study contained 829 users and 914 libraries, along with more than 300 inactive profiles (those not used in the 30 days preceding the assessment), and 68 profiles with default passwords (the password matches the profile name). With a powerful built-in database, user security is one of the most critical aspects of IBM i security. Large numbers of profiles with default passwords indicate overuse of an unfortunate IBM parameter default setting, and an excessive number of old profiles means there is very little oversight of profile housekeeping.
Powerful User Profiles
Users often are given special authority privileges that far exceed their documented business requirement. It’s unusual to find an IBM i server where base users should be able to access any object (*ALLOBJ), or end the system to a restricted state (*JOBCTL). However, we often see that most servers have an over-abundance of both!
System Security
Security Level 40 (the minimum level recommended by IBM), continues to be the standard on the majority of servers reviewed, but that left almost 60 servers running on a level with known vulnerabilities, including being able to run jobs as another (potentially more powerful) user. With a documented “upgrade” path, and the ability to predict issues before committing, there are few legitimate reasons not to be running at a recommended level. Of course, IBM’s adoption of security level 40 as the current default has contributed to this shift towards compliance.
System Auditing
On a slightly more positive note, we did see an increase in the number of servers that use IBM i built-in auditing. In 2011, the percentage of systems collecting events into the security audit journal (QAUDJRN) was 87%. Of course, evidence suggests that this function is often used primarily to capture system events for high availability solutions, rather than for security. The common lack of commercial forensics capability supports this theory, as it’s difficult to effectively review large event logs manually.
Network Access Control
Surprisingly, almost half of the systems are running without any firewall protection to oversee access from powerful desktop interfaces such as FTP, ODBC, and remote command. In addition to providing a supplemental layer of protection, a commercial-grade exit point firewall is the recommended way to provide visibility to these types of transactions. As a result, there may be a large cross-section of user activity that remains transparent—including executing operating system commands—even on those servers with QAUDJRN actively configured.
Data Access
Public authority to objects and libraries remains very problematic in 2011. Most systems still haven’t been configured to enforce object-level security, instead requiring that a user only needs to provide a valid user profile and password combination. This is a contributing factor to why default passwords represent such significant exposure. The menu-based security model often found in legacy applications broke down with the advent of advanced TCP-based interfaces. Exit point firewalls can mitigate some of the risk associated with little or no object security, but implementing strong object authorities is recommended as the basis of a multi-layered security infrastructure.
This is just a brief overview of the 2011 study. Read the complete white paper here.
—————————————————————————————-
Q & A with Paulie Culin
Dear Paulie,
Can Compliance Monitor show me when someone creates new user profiles?
A: It sure can. By simply modifying or filtering reports that already exist, you can create just about any report that you might need.
The information you need is contained in at least two existing reports. The first (and fastest) is the (T:CP) User Profile Changes report found in the Log File report group. This report shows the Actions for CHGUSRPRF, CRTUSRPRF, RSTUSRPRF, DST reset of QSECOFR, and QSYRESPA API. With some fast filtering on these Actions, you have the ability to create five different reports!
In your case, you need to filter on the Actions field for CRTUSRPRF. (Depending on the release of Compliance Monitor you have installed, you might need to use wildcards in your filter, such as %CRT%.)
Created profile information also is available in the (T:CO) Created Objects report, located in the Log File report group. Simply filter on the Object Type field with %USRPRF%. (Hint: You can use this same filter on the (T:DO) Deleted Objects report to identify deleted user profiles.)
Once you’ve filtered the report, rename it and save it to your personal report group for future use.















![image001[2] image001[2]](http://www.powertech-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/image0012.jpg)



