Debunking Myths Around RASP

Runtime application self-protection (RASP) has taken a fair bit of scrutiny over the last few years. Like many security technologies that pioneer new ways of tackling old problems, people inherently don’t like change. Several companies entered the space early and early adopters helped mature various RASP solutions on the market and the technology has advanced rapidly.

When applications began to be the favored target of bad guys, tons of companies started to reposition their perimeter security products closer to the application. Web application firewalls (WAFs) are similar to IPS for the network, so easy mind shift for most security practitioners. The problem is they require you to know your adversary. That’s like asking a security guard to keep out a single troublemaker, while letting in their associated gang of thugs.

As we saw recently with WebLogic, exploiting applications is a shell game. When one vulnerability is exposed and patched, another one, which shares the same modus operandi, comes out. When reports came out comparing the most recent WebLogic vulnerability to vulnerabilities found last year in CVE-2018-2628, CVE-2018-2893 and CVE-2017-10271, Oracle posted a blog explaining last year’s vulnerabilities had been patched. The problem was the underlying code mechanism that led to the above-mentioned CVEs (insecure deserialization) had not been fixed.

Deserialization is a perfect illustration of why RASP is the Chuck Norris of application security. Instead of applying a patch (which in the case of Oracle’s WebLogic, blacklisting the exploit method via a patch), RASP looks at the totality of the code before it executes and says, “If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, apply a roundhouse kick to the entire enumeration.”

It’s important for enterprises to protect their customers from insecure deserialization with RASP products. Further, it’s critical to consider learning and debunking some of the common misconceptions in the overall perception of runtime security:

Performance Impact

Evaluate an agent-based solution, which often makes app owners concerned it’ll impact the performance of their applications. When evaluating RASP providers, especially agent-based solutions, ask for agent size, performance benchmarks and certainly conduct your own performance testing during evaluation.

Writing Secure Code

With the DevOps movement, companies have ramped investments in training and programs around secure development practices. And while security is shifting left with this movement, programming still has a little bit of art infused, especially when developing applications that have been around for a long time and have seen variations in development resources. As is the case with WebLogic, application developers should create apps with security in mind, but they don’t have a crystal ball and exploits evolve just as applications do.

My Developers Will Become Lazy

Somewhere in these early days of RASP, the notion came about that RASP means you no longer need to remediate vulnerabilities in your application source code. Notably, the root cause of all vulnerabilities should be fixed as soon as possible. However, RASP can also function as an insurance policy allowing DevOps teams to better plan fixes and prevent derailing other projects focused on the business.

Why Do We Need RASP If We Have a WAF?

The WAF has become ubiquitous in most organizations and it is certainly valuable for organizations looking to take a defense-in-depth strategy. WAFs have become a significant strain on resources as they produce unmanageable amounts of false-positives that require constant tuning. In a recent survey by Ponemon, it takes most organizations 45 hours a week to address alerts and 16 hours per week creating or updating rule sets.

Hopefully, this article illustrates more color to today’s RASP. We’ve seen a lot of advancements in the early days of this technology and hopefully that will mean a lot less headlines.

— John Adams