ADAPTIVE COUNTERMEASURE SELECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS

Abstract: A method of selecting a security model for an organization operating an application on the organization's computer network is described. A current strength level for a countermeasure is determined based on input data and rules corresponding to the application. The method and apparatus determine a recommended strength level for countermeasures based on the input data and security risk data. Based on the current strength level and the recommended strength level, the method determines and outputs a security model including a countermeasure and corresponding strength level. The method may also modify the model based on exception conditions. The method may be used to calculate the risk of attack to the application and degree to which the organization conforms to industry practices.

Description: ADAPTIVE COUNTERMEASURE SELECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION A. Field ofthe Invention This invention relates generally to information security and, more particularly, to improved methods and apparatus for selecting information security solutions based on a multitude of parameters. B. Description ofthe Related Art The number of entities using the Internet and the World Wide Web for all types of business solutions is growing rapidly. At the same time, the need for increased internal security around corporate information systems is also increasing due, in part, to the increased penetration of information systems. Increasing physical security is often not the only solution especially if the business allows access not just to employees, but to personnel outside the organization such as vendors, contractors, and temporary employees. One common solution to information security risks is to protect information using firewalls. A firewall is a combination of hardware and software that limits the exposure of a computer or group of computers to attacks from the outside. Firewalls provide a single point of entry to protect network resources from unauthorized access. A firewall may comprise, for example, application proxies, access control lists, logging capabilities, or filtering. Relying solely on firewall perimeter protection is often inadequate. Furthermore, firewalls frequently hinder business plans to communicate electronically between customers, suppliers, and business partners. Other existing security countermeasures include password protection, encryption, j and fireridges. A fireridge is essentially a limited firewall operating on an internal ! ι i I network, such as an intranet, and can contain filters, application proxies, and other means I 11 for shielding computers from other computers on the internal network. Each of these ' I security countermeasures used alone may be inefficient in part because they were not ! ' designed for use with corporate networks or because security holes exist in the overall ; l 1 j systems implementation. Evaluating an organization's overall system of security measures on an application by application basis is very expensive and often difficult. Interpretation of the results of a ! ' security risk assessment is often unreliable and subjective because they are conducted by I human auditors who may have varying degrees of expertise in systems security I , ι ■ , engineering and may unknowingly focus on one area of the system more than another. I i Additionally, conventional risk assessments are often expressed in terms of estimated loss I calculated without using formulas or historical data. Consequently, entities in the business of managing risk exposure, such as corporate management or insurance service ' ι ' groups, have few actual tools to use in estimating loss. Furthermore, conventional risk I ! assessment tools, such as annual loss expectancy, do not assist organizations in selecting j a less risky security model. j The security of large corporate networks is particularly challenging to assess for ! : many reasons. The networks may have hundreds of different applications systems and i servers, thousands of user accounts, and exchange billions of bytes of information with 1 'the Internet every day. The sheer volume of users and transactions make it more difficult i ; to design and monitor a secure architecture. The process of inventorying an organization's 11 application systems, the current level of security measures implemented by the 11 u I . organization, and even the applications architecture can be a daunting task Moreover ' i once this information is collected, the information is difficult to keep current with the . dynamism of the corporation is a difficult task. Without automation, therefore, the task of risk analysis can be further complex and very time consuming to do well. Therefore, a need exists for an improved method of assessing the information security of large corporate systems in a manner that is based on best industry practices j j and principles and is reliable, repeatable, cost efficient, and consistent from system to ! system. Furthermore, a need exists for a method of selecting a security model based on 1 the assessment. , ! SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION In accordance with the invention, systems and methods consistent with the present invention create a security model for an organization operating an application on a computer network to protect the application from attack by unauthorized sources. A current countermeasure strength level and a recommended countermeasure strength level are determined for each of at least one countermeasure based on input data and security risk data. A security model including at least one countermeasure and a corresponding strength level is determined based on the current and the recommended strength levels. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute a part of this specification, illustrate an embodiment ofthe invention and, together with the ' I j ' description, serve to explain the advantages and principles of the invention. In the , drawings, j j Fig. 1 is a flow diagram representing states of a method consistent with the ' i I , present invention. ! : Fig. 2 is an example of a questionnaire consistent with the present invention; ! ' Figs. 3a and 3b are tables showing parameters consistent with the present 1 , invention; : ; Fig. 4 is an example of a data base of rules consistent with the present invention; Fig. 5 is an example of rules for handling exception conditions consistent with the 1 , i j present invention; ' j Fig. 6 shows an example of information security policies consistent with the , present invention; and ' i i Fig. 7 shows a block diagram of a system consistent with the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION Reference will now be made in detail to an implementation consistent with the the activities of an organization being evaluated. The following example describes an organization whose principle activity is the manufacture and development of computer ! : systems. I Consistent with the present invention, the organization begins by determining the business concerns ofthe organization (state 100). The set C of business concerns include specific consequences against which an organization would like to protect its application assets including, for example, loss of market share, system outage or unavailability, loss of property, and damage to reputation. The actual types of business concerns may vary I I depending in part on the activities ofthe organization being evaluated. Application assets i ' are any software programs and associated information data bases that carry out a useful , task including transaction systems, database managers, spreadsheets, communications packages, and document processors. Some other examples of application assets are, for ! example, the software for managing general ledger data, distribution, and product 1 tracking. ! The organization must also determine the types of attacks that the organization may be subject to and corresponding countermeasures that may be implemented to avert i those attacks (state 105). The set T of attack types, includes but is not limited to, for I I I example, unauthorized access to and use of confidential business information, I j unauthorized deletion, destruction or modification of data records, and interruption or : ' denial of service. The set M of countermeasures may include, for example, employing a person (such as an account or security administrator to oversee security measures), l ι iimr plementing a technique (such as password protection, event logging, or authentication), or a installing a device (such as a particular secure network configuration). Attack and countermeasureiypes may also vary depending on the application being evaluated, the j type of business concerns, and the organization's corporate and computing architecture. Consistent with the present invention, information is gathered that describes the 1 application assets and system architecture of the organization, details about daily I I , ; operations, and the countermeasures employed at the time of assessment (state 1 10). In I j one implementation, this information is obtained by using a questionnaire that is I answered by personnel familiar with the organization's operations, although other i 1 mechanisms for obtaining the information may be used such as, for example, automated , interrogation of computer configurations and networked security services. The questionnaire is tailored to solicit information consistent with the parameters identified I I ■ above. For example, if corporate training is identified as a countermeasure, then the 1 questionnaire will ask questions such as how often training is performed, what type of training is given, and who delivers the training. One example of a questionnaire consistent with the present invention is shown in Fig. 2. The identified parameters are used to generate two parameter tables as shown in ! of Figs. 3 A and 3B (state 115). Table 1 of Fig. 3 A, for example, shows identified business concerns in the lefthand column and attack types across the top. Each table entry, φ , represents the probability that business concern, c„ will result from attack t,. determined by independent security councils of security consulting organizations or from existing data from actual business practice. Table 2 of Fig. 3B is a vulnerability profile showing the set of countermeasures in the left hand column and attack types across the top. Each table entry, & represents the I i j probability that countermeasure, m,, will avert attack type, t-. The probabilities may be I , , determined by independent security councils of security consulting organizations or from I ' existing data from actual business practice. ! : Consistent with the present invention, one or more rule data bases are constructed i . for interpreting the information gathered in state 1 10 (state 120). The rule data bases ! , . : may be constructed, for example, as rules for use in determining current and | i j i recommended countermeasure strength levels. Rule Base A in Fig. 4 is an example of a i j rule data base consistent with the present invention. Rule Base A reduces the user input I j i on a questionnaire to a numeric value indicating the current countermeasure strength i ; level. In Fig. 4, countermeasures are listed in the lefthand column. The columns marked ; i "Level 1", "Level 2", etc., indicate the various levels of implementation of a countermeasure. Each of the boxes in the body of the table contains logical rules that ! ! Another example of a rule data base consistent with the present invention is a rule j data base for detecting exception conditions, referred to herein as Rule Base B, an example of which is shown in Fig. 5. Rule Base B may include, for example, rules for I including or excluding various operating system services, such as authentication modules or I/O devices. Rule Base B may also include rules for identifying conditions that may I I i require increasing existing countermeasure strengths, such as organization size or ' connections to insecure networks such as the Internet. Organization size may include ' number of employees, users, computers, and connections. Rule Base B may also contain , i rules for recognizing that combinations of certain countermeasures are indicated and for I , ' ! adjusting countermeasure effectiveness accordingly. In general, Rule Base B identifies i ' ! ] special conditions that may require special actions, such as an engineering review, legal • i ; action, or additional physical security. : ! ; ! After these parameters are determined for the business ofthe organization, each i application asset in the overall system is evaluated independently using states 125-177. For each application asset, processing begins with computation of a maximum loss factor, j V, for the current application asset (state 125). For each c, in the set of C business i concerns, there exists a corresponding v, representing a monetary value ofthe loss to the ] ι : organization if loss ofthe current application asset results in the business concern c,. The ' I v, for this application asset is submitted to the function f, to obtain a maximum loss factor, V. V may be represented mathematically as follows: j P = /,(maxv.) /= ! m where v, is the monetary value ofthe loss ofthe i* business concern identified for the 1 current application asset and/, is a conversion function that returns a value factor I ' depending on the maximum loss corresponding to a business concern. For example,/ 1 may be the following function: 0.8 v, < $5Λf 1.0 $5 < v, < $10 /•(v.) = 1.2 $10 < v, < $50 15 $50 < v, < $100 2.0 v, > $100 IThe outputted numeric factor acts to decrease or increase the required effectiveness level .based on the application asset's potential recovery cost, replacement loss, and/or other damage created by the attack. Factors consistent with the present invention, such as the factors in the example above, will likely be developed by a panel of security experts and depend on the organization type. Next, for each of n countermeasures identified in state 105, the method determines ! > , current and recommended strength levels. Current strength level is the level of a countermeasure that the organization was employing at the time of assessment. Current 1 1 strength level ofthe n m countermeasure, H n is determined using Rule Base A compiled in 11 state 120 and described above (state 130). For example, referring again to Fig. 4, for the , , countermeasure "Policy Awareness" with reference 1.1, there are four possible levels, LI, , ι ' L2, L4, and L5. As shown in the block under column "LI," if the answer to question 1.1 on the questionnaire is 1.1.1 (no), the countermeasure "Policy Awareness" is accorded a level of "1" (block 401). The value of H n is therefore 1. In column "L4", for example, if the answer to question 2.1 is 2.1.2(yes) and the answer to question 2.2 is 2.2.3 (b, or the second choice of three), the level of "Policy Awareness" is 4 and H n = 4 (block 402). Next, the method determines the current effectiveness level of countermeasure n in preventing attacks of all types against each ofthe business concerns identified for this application asset (state 135). A„ e represents the probability that a particular countermeasure, m„, will prevent all types of attack for a specific business concern, c e . For each business concern, A„ e may be computed as follows: A = ∑ v g , k 2 for each of e business concerns. The quantity g- , , is the probability that employing countermeasure m n will avert attack t, as shown in Table 1 in Figure 3 A. The quantity φ e , is the probability that attack t e will cause business concern c f as shown in Table 2 of Figure 3B. The onstant k is a constant designed to establish the numerical range of A. The maximum effectiveness, S„, of using a particular countermeasure m n to avert ; , all attack types is determined in state 140. S n equals the maximum value that results from : multiplying each A n e by the maximum loss factor, V. S n may be represented , ' mathematically as follows: :i ! I P n is the recommended strength level for the r& countermeasure (state 145). 1 ' Function f 2 is a conversion function that accepts as input, S n , the maximum effectiveness j j of a particular countermeasure, and returns an ordinal value representing a recommended ι | I ' countermeasure strength level. P n may be represented mathematically as P n = f 2 (n,S n ). ! The function f 2 (n,S n ) results in an value corresponding with a countermeasure strength ' level for countermeasure n and differs depending on the number of possible strength levels for the n" 1 countermeasure. For example, if countermeasure 12 has two possible ι ; i strength levels, f 2 (12,S n ) will output a value of 1 or 2. If four strength levels are possible for countermeasure 25, f 2 (25,S n ) will output a value of 1, 2, 3, or 4. The current effectiveness level ofthe current policy, , for each countermeasure ! is determined using a third function, f 3 , that uses current strength level, H n , as input (state 150). Current policy effectiveness may be represented mathematically as follows: n = S n f 3 { n ,H n ) In a function f, consistent with the present invention, f 3 returns a ordinal value corresponding to the relative effectiveness ofthe countermeasure strength level such as in the example below. The actual values chosen for the ranges in f 3 may vary, however, the exemplary ranges used for function f 3 as shown above were determined by independent security councils of I leading security-consulting organizations. Furthermore, for ease of formulation, each of i ; I i j the countermeasures in the examples was assumed to have a linear distribution. The 1 function f 3 for each countermeasure may also be adjusted for nonlinearity of the relative I I i I 1 j effectiveness ofthe strength levels of the countermeasures depending on the implementation. 1 j Recommended policy effectiveness, Φ n , for countermeasure m n is also ! determined using the third function, f 3 , with recommended strength level, P n as input ! (state 155). Recommended policy effectiveness, Φ n , may be represented mathematically as: Φ „ = π / 3 (P„) Next, an implementation cost N n is computed using recommended strength level, P n (state 157). Implementation cost N n is the estimated cost to implement the n" countermeasure at level P n . Countermeasure efficiency Q n for the n' h countermeasure can then be calculated as follows (state 159): Φ β ^ = — N ' * where Φ n and N n , respectively, are the recommended strength level and implementation !i . cost for the n th countermeasure. Countermeasure efficiency is useful for selecting : i .between countermeasures of approximately the same effectiveness. A higher efficiency i ; will show a greater payback for a given investment. j ι : 1 After states 130 through 160 are completed for each countermeasure in the set, the [ process continues with state 170. If there are still counterr easures to evaluate, the • i method continues with state 165 and evaluates the next countermeasure. ! ! Once all the countermeasures have been evaluated, the level of conformance to , recommended security policies is calculated (state 170). The level of conformance ofthe '. i i : application system at the time of assessment, or application risk, is the difference between j i current strength level effectiveness and recommended strength level effectiveness ofthe 11 countermeasures. In an implementation consistent with the present invention, only the j positive differences between current and recommended strength levels are considered. 1 By considering only positive differences, the method does not give credit for "overachieving" or, in other words, implementing security procedures that are well above what is considered necessary to be effective. Overachieving can be costly and add unnecessarily to program expenditures. In the example where only positive differences are considered, the level of conformance is calculated as follows: Δ = b - ∑ max(φ „ - Λ rt ,θ) where b - ∑ Φ ( .≥α I ' and Λ„ and Φ n equal the current effectiveness level and recommended effectiveness U el I ' for countermeasure M n , respectively. A high Δ, or conformance value, indicates a sec 2 j , application system. The conformance value also quantifies the difference between the i l 1 ' current security level policy and security policies established by industry best practices 1 and, indirectly, the amount of the applications vulnerability, or risk. A total amount of 1 risk to the organization may be estimated by computing the weighted average of multiple application conformance values, weighted by the proportional value of each application to the organization's total application systems value. There exist a number of conditions that may need to be addressed in order to fine tune the selection method. These "exception conditions" are special conditions that need to be addressed with special rules such as those found in Rule Base B determined in state 1 120 (state 175). Fig. 5 is an example of additional rules consistent with the present 'invention that may constitute Rule Base B. For example, if any ofthe processors in the > is number and value of transactions processed by the application. If, for example, the 1 ! application is used to access bank account data or make large payments, the organization ; l 1 may want to employ added security protections such as formalized configuration jl management, compartmentalizing data, special audit procedures, or requiring a minimum of two people acknowledge changes to the application code. Applications that are operated on network devices that are physically located in multiple geographic locations may also require special attention. Exception conditions may also take into consideration exceptional costs of implementation, such as licensing, training, installation and development costs. If there are still application assets to evaluate, the process continues with the next application (state 122). If the last application asset has been evaluated, the method outputs a written report (state 180). In addition to other management information, the reports may contain specifications of both the current and recommended level of countermeasure implementation. For example, Fig. 6 contains an example of written security policies for implementation of each countermeasure. For example, if the n' h countermeasure-is "2.1 Requirements for Corporate Security Awareness Training" as shown in Fig. 6, and the recommended strength level for the n* countermeasure is P n = 3, I j then the method may print out an information security policy like "Training requirement i identified, but not formal" and accompanying text as shown for level L3 in Fig. 6. ' l | | B. Architecture ' i 1 j Fig. 7 is a block diagram that illustrates a computer system 700 upon which I j embodiments ofthe invention may be implemented. Computer system 700 includes a j I I I j J bus 702 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, and a i , processor 704 coupled with bus 702 for processing information. Computer system 700 i also includes a memory 706, which can be a random access memory (RAM) or other ; ι I ! dynamic storage device, coupled to bus 702 for storing information, such as the I 'parameter tables, rule data bases, and questionnaire, and instructions to be executed by 'processor 704. Memory 706 also may be used for storing temporary variables or other I intermediate information during execution of instructions to be executed by processor I I ! 704. Computer system 700 further includes a read only memory (ROM) 708 or other I static storage device coupled to bus 702 for storing static information and instructions for processor 704. A storage device 710, such as a magnetic disk or optical disk, is provided and coupled to bus 702 for storing information and instructions. Computer system 700 may be coupled via bus 702 to a display 712, such as a cathode ray tube (CRT) or liquid crystal display (LCD), for displaying information to a computer user. An input device 714, including alphanumeric and other keys, is coupled i j to bus 702 for communicating information and command selections to processor 704. ! I Another type ofuser input device is cursor control 716, such as a mouse, a trackball or I I l l 11 cursor direction keys for communicating direction information and command selections to processor 704 and for controlling cursor movement on display 712. This input device I I . typically has two degrees of freedom in two axes, a first axis (e.g., x) and a second axis i ; (e.g., y), that allows the device to specify positions in a plane. i An embodiment of the present invention uses a computer system 700 for selecting [ , computer-readable medium, such as storage device 710. Execution ofthe sequences of | i . j ' instructions contained in memory 706 causes processor 704 to perform the process states ; described herein. In an alternative implementation, hard-wired circuitry may be used in , ' place of or in combination with software instructions to implement the invention. Thus ! i implementations ofthe invention are not limited to any specific combination of hardware circuitry and software. The term "computer-readable medium" as used herein refers to any media that participates in providing instructions to processor 704 for execution. Such a medium i may take many forms, including but not limited to, non- volatile media, volatile media, and transmission media. Non-volatile media includes, for example, optical or magnetic disks, such as storage device 710. Volatile media includes dynamic memory, such as memory 706. Transmission media includes coaxial cables, copper wire, and fiber optics, including the wires that comprise bus 702. Transmission media can also take the form of acoustic or light waves, such as those generated during radio-wave and infra-red data j i communications. j l j i Common forms of computer-readable media include, for example, a floppy disk, a ! ! flexible disk, hard disk, magnetic tape, or any other magnetic medium, a CD-ROM, any I J other optical medium, punch cards, papertape, any other physical medium with patterns I of holes, a RAM, PROM, and EPROM, a FLASH-EPROM, any other memory chip or cartridge, a carrier wave as described hereinafter, or any other medium from which a computer can read. Various forms of computer readable media may be involved in carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions to processor 704 for execution. For example, I j the instructions may initially be carried on magnetic disk of a remote computer. The ' i remote computer can load the instructions into its dynamic memory and send the i instructions over a telephone line using a modem. A modem local to computer system I j ; ; 700 can receive the data on the telephone line and use an infra-red transmitter to convert the data to an infra-red signal. An infra-red detector coupled to bus 702 can receive the data carried in the infra-red signal and place the data on bus 702. Bus 702 carries the data to memory 706, from which processor 704 retrieves and executes the instructions. The instructions received by memory 706 may optionally be stored on storage device 710 either before or after execution by processor 704. Computer system 700 also includes a communication interface 718 coupled to bus 702. Communication interface 718 provides a two-way data communication coupling to a network link 720 that is connected to local network 722. For example, communication interface 718 may be an integrated services digital network (ISDN) card, a cable modem, j or a modem to provide a data communication connection to a corresponding type of , telephone line. As another example, communication interface 718 may be a local area network (LAN) card provide a data communication connection to a compatible LAN. 1 Wireless links may also be implemented. In any such implementation, communication interface 718 sends and receives electrical, electromagnetic or optical signals that carry | i I ■ digital data streams representing various types of information. Network link 720 typically provides data communication through one or more networks to other data devices. For example, network link 720 may provide a connection I through local network 722 to a host computer 724 and/or to data equipment operated by an Internet Service Provider (ISP) 726. ISP 726 in turn provides data communication , _ services through the Internet 728. Local network 722 and Internet 728 both use electric, electromagnetic, or optical signals that carry digital data streams. The signals through the i various networks and the signals on network link 720 and through communication interface 718, which carry the digital data to and from computer system 700, are I 1 exemplary forms of carrier waves transporting the information. |ι j Computer system 700 can send messages and receive data, including program i j program through Internet 728, ISP 726, local network 722 and communication interface j 718. In accordance with the present invention, one such downloaded application allows a j i j j user to select security countermeasures and countermeasure strength levels, as described I I ' herein. The received code may be executed by processor 704 as it is received, and/or stored in storage device 710, or other non- volatile storage for later execution. In this , manner, computer system 700 may obtain application code in the form of a carrier wave. ' Although computer system 700 is shown in Fig. 7 as being connectable to one server, 730, those skilled in the art will recognize that computer system 700 may establish connections to multiple servers on Internet 728. Additionally, it is possible to implement methods consistent with the principles ofthe present invention on other device comprising at least a processor, memory, and a display, such as a personal digital assistant. C. Conclusion As described in detail above, methods and apparatus consistent with the present ' invention select a security model based on input data and rules corresponding to the therefore defined by the claims and their equivalents.

Claims: i What is claimed is: 1. A method of selecting a security model for an organization operating an application on the organization's computer network, the method comprising: (a) determining a current strength level for at least one countermeasure based on input data and rules corresponding to the application; and (b) determining a recommended strength level for the at least one ; ι ' i countermeasure based on the input data and security risk data. !i ; 2. A method of selecting a security model for an organization operating an : application on the organization's computer network, the method comprising: ; j (a) determining a current strength level for at least one countermeasure based I i on input data and rules corresponding to the application; ! (b) determining a recommended strength level for the at least one countermeasure based on the input data and security risk data; and (c) determining a security model based on the current strength level and the recommended strength level, the security model including at least one countermeasure j and a corresponding strength level. | ; I ; I ' 3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: modifying the security model based on at least one exception condition. 4. The method of claim 3, wherein modifying the secunty model includes: modifying the security model based on at least one or a combination of: (a) the organization's size; (b) countermeasure implementation costs; (c) number of transactions processed by the application; (d) monetary value of transactions processed by the application; (e) number of data transfer interfaces between the application and other applications; (f) configuration ofthe computer network; and i (g) number of processors in the computer network. ■ I I 1 I j 5. The method of claim 2, further comprising: ' I modifying the security model if the application shares data with another I application. 6. The method of claim 2, further comprising: , i modifying the security model if the application operates on computer network devices located in more than one geographic location. I 7. The method of claim 2, wherein determining a recommended strength level includes: \ j determining a recommended strength level for the at least one countermeasure ' > based on the input data and the security risk data, wherein the risk data is based on a set j i ' ϊ of business concerns, a set of attack types, and the at least one countermeasure. ( I ' I 8. The method of claim 2, further comprising: j I (d) determining recommended policy effectiveness for the at least one i l ' I countermeasure based on the recommended strength level and a maximum effectiveness 1 i level; (e) determining current policy effectiveness based on the current strength level and the maximum effectiveness level; and (f) determining a level of conformance based on the current policy effectiveness and the recommended policy effectiveness. 9. The method of claim 8, wherein determining a level of conformance includes: determining a risk of attack to the application that results in at least one of a set of ! business concerns. 10. The method of claim 2, further comprising: (d) determining an implementation cost for the at least one countermeasure; and (e) determining countermeasure efficiency based on a maximum effectiveness level and the recommended strength level for the at least one countermeasure. 11. The method of claim 10, further comprising: (f) selecting a countermeasure of the at least one countermeasures based on ■ i , 1 : I the countermeasure efficiency. i | 112. The method of claim 10, wherein determining an implementation cost includes: I determining an implementation cost for the at least one countermeasure, wherein the implementation cost is based on at least one or a combination of: (a) cost to train people to use the selected countermeasure; (b) cost to license the selected countermeasure; (c) cost to modify the organization's computer network for to use the selected countermeasure; and (d) cost to modify the application based on the selected countermeasure. 13. The method of claim 2, wherein determining a current strength level comprises: obtaining responses to a set of questions relating to security procedures at the i organization; and j ; determining a current strength level for the at least one countermeasure based on 1 1 1 ' the responses and rules related to the questions. 14. An apparatus for selecting a security model for an organization operating an application on the organization's computer network, the apparatus comprising: a memory having program instructions, and a processor configured to use the program instructions to: (a) determine a current strength level for at least one countermeasure based on input data and rules corresponding to the application; and (b) determine a recommended strength level for the at least one countermeasure based on the input data and security risk data. 15. An apparatus for selecting a security model for an organization operating an application on the organization's computer network, the apparatus comprising: 11 a memory having program instructions, and ! i a processor configured to use the program instructions to: l l (a) determine a current strength level for at least one countermeasure based on j . input data and rules corresponding to the application; • I (b) determine a recommended strength level for the at least one countermeasure based on the input data and security risk data; and 16. The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to use the j program instructions to: modify the security model based on at least one exception condition. 17. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the program instruction to modify the security model includes the instruction to: modify the security model based on at least one or a combination of: (a) the organization's size; (b) countermeasure implementation costs; (c) number of transactions processed by the application; (d) monetary value of transactions processed by the application; (e) number of data transfer interfaces between the application and other I ! applications; , j (f) configuration of the computer network; and I : (g) number of processors in the computer network. 18. The apparatus of claim 15 , wherein the processor is further configured to use program instructions to: modify the security model if the application shares data with another application. ' 19. The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to use program instructions to: modify the security model if the application operates on computer network ; ' ■ devices located in more than one geographic location. ' ! 20. The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the program instruction to determine a ; ι ! recommended strength level includes an instruction to: I I 11 determine a recommended strength level for the at least one countermeasure based ' I ' i on the input data and the security risk data, wherein the risk data is based on a set of ' I ■ business concerns, a set of attack types, and the at least one countermeasure. 21. The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to use program instructions to: (d) determine recommended policy effectiveness for the at least one countermeasure based on the recommended strength level and a maximum effectiveness level; (e) determine current policy effectiveness based on the current strength level and the maximum effectiveness level; and (f) determine a level of conformance based on the current policy effectiveness and the recommended policy effectiveness. 22. The apparatus of claim 21 , wherein the instruction to determine a level of conformance indudes an instruction to: determining a risk of attack to the application that results in at least one of a set of business concerns.. 1 j 23. The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to use the ! j program instruction to: 1 j (d) determine an implementation cost for the at least one countermeasure; and (e) determine countermeasure efficiency based on a maximum effectiveness level and the recommended strength level for the at least one countermeasure. 24. The apparatus of claim 23, wherein the processor is further configured to use the j program instruction to: i j ' j (f) select a countermeasure of the at least one countermeasures based on the i countermeasure efficiency. ; 25. The apparatus of claim 23, wherein the instruction to determine an implementation- cost includes the instruction to: determine an implementation cost for the at least one countermeasure, wherein the [ implementation cost is based on at least one or a combination of: I j (a) cost to train people to use the selected countermeasure; \ ; j (b) cost to license the selected countermeasure; I I • j (c) cost to modify the organization's computer network for to use the selected countermeasure; and :i ! j (d) cost to modify the application based on the selected countermeasure. . ;26. The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the instruction to determine a current strength .level includes the instruction to: obtain responses to a set of questions relating to security procedures at the i organization; and , ' determine a current strength level for the at least one countermeasure based on the I ' I responses and rules related to the questions. 27. A computer-readable medium containing instructions for controlling a computer system to perform a method, the computer system having a group of data structures reflecting a logical structure of a data source, the method comprising: (a) determining a current strength level for at least one countermeasure based i on input data and rules corresponding to the application; and I j (b) determining a recommended strength level for the at least one j j countermeasure based on the input data and security risk data. j 28. A computer-readable medium containing instructions for controlling a computer system to perform a method, the computer system having a group of data structures reflecting a logical structure of a data source, the method comprising: ι l l l (a) determining a current strength level for at least one countermeasure based ! ! ; i on input data and rules corresponding to the application; I i (b) determining a recommended strength level for the at least one j ; countermeasure based on the input data and security risk data; and | l I j (c) determining a security model based on the current strength level and the recommended strength level, the security model including at least one countermeasure and a corresponding strength level. 29. The computer-readable medium of claim 28, further including: modifying security model based on at least one exception condition. 30. The computer-readable medium of claim 29, wherein modifying the security model includes: modifying the security model based on at least one or a combination of: (a) the organization's size; (b) countermeasure implementation costs; (c) number of transactions processed by the application; ! i (d) monetary value of transactions processed by the application; ! j (e) number of data transfer interfaces between the application and other ! i j applications; ;l : j (f) configuration ofthe computer network; and (g) number of processors in the computer network. 31. The computer-readable medium of claim 28, further including: modifying the security model if the application shares data with another application. 32. The computer-readable medium of claim 28, further including: modifying the security model if the application operates on computer network devices located in more than one geographic location. 33. The computer-readable medium of claim 28, wherein determining a recommended strength level for the at least one countermeasure based on the input data and the security risk data includes: determining a recommended sfrength level for the at least one countermeasure based on the input data and security risk data, wherein the risk data is based on a set of business concerns, a set of attack types, and the at least one countermeasure. 34. The computer-readable medium of claim 28, further comprising: (d) determining recommended policy effectiveness for the at least one countermeasure based on the recommended strength level and a maximum effectiveness level; (e) determining current policy effectiveness based on the current strength level and the maximum effectiveness level; and (f) determining a level of conformance based on the current policy effectiveness and the recommended policy effectiveness. 35. The computer-readable medium of claim 28, wherein determining a level of conformance includes: determining a risk of attack to the application that results in at least one of a set of business concerns. l ! 36. The computer-readable medium of claim 28, further comprising: (d) determining an implementation cost for the at least one countermeasure; and (e) determining countermeasure efficiency based on a maximum effectiveness . I level and the recommended strength level for the at least one countermeasure. i l i | i i J 37. The computer-readable medium of claim 35, further comprising: i I (f) selecting a countermeasure of the at least one countermeasure based on the 1 1 : recommended efficiency level. 1138. The computer-readable medium of claim 35, wherein determining an | !l j implementation cost includes: determining an implementation cost for the at least one countermeasure, wherein the implementation cost is based on at least one or a combination of: (a) cost to train people to use the selected countermeasure; (b) cost to license the selected countermeasure; (c) cost to modify the organization's computer network for to use the selected countermeasure; and (d) cost to modify the application based on the selected countermeasure. 39. The computer-readable medium of claim 28, wherein determining a current strength level includes: obtaining responses to a set of questions relating to security procedures at the I j j l i organization; and I determining a current strength level for the at least one countermeasure based on j the responses and a rules related to the questions.

Inventors: TOWNSEND TIMOTHY J, TOWNSEND, TIMOTHY, J.
Applicants: SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC, SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.
Application year: 1999
Main classification: G06F1
IPC codes: G06F1, G06F21, H04L29