SAP Publications Archives - Page 2 of 3

Introducing the SAP Cybersecurity Framework 4.0

Layer Seven on January 25, 2017

Cyber attacks are at epidemic levels. According to research performed by 360 Security, there were over 85 billion attacks in 2015, equivalent to 2000 attacks per second. The cost of data breaches continues to grow, year after year, and reached record levels in 2016. Juniper Research estimate that average costs will exceed $150M within three years.

Introduced in 2014, the SAP Cybersecurity Framework provides the most comprehensive benchmark for securing SAP systems against advanced persistent threats. It presents a roadmap for hardening, patching and monitoring SAP solutions using standard SAP-delivered tools. The newly released fourth edition of the Framework includes important updates in the areas of transport layer security, network segmentation in virtualized environments, and security settings applied through application level gateways.

The Framework no longer recommends the use of the EarlyWatch Alert (EWA) for security monitoring. This is due to concerns related to the updated rating scale used to grade security risks in the EWA. However, the Framework includes an expanded section for security monitoring using SAP Solution Manager including an overview of security-related tools bundled within Solution Manager such as Configuration Validation, System Recommendations, Monitoring and Alerting Infrastructure (MAI), Service Level Reports, Interface Monitoring, and Dashboards.

The SAP Cybersecurity Framework is available in the white paper Protecting SAP Systems from Cyber Attack.

Securing Your Business: Security at SAP

Layer Seven on October 29, 2016

In an open letter addressed to SAP customers earlier this year, SAP CEO Bill McDermott acknowledges the “tremendous concern around information security” given the “relentless and multiplying” threat presented by increasingly sophisticated attackers. The letter introduces the SAP paper Securing Your Business that discusses security trends and outlines SAP’s response to cyber threats.

According to the paper, cyber threats are driven by the growth in the volume of enterprise data, the growing value of data, the increasing connectivity and vulnerability of endpoints, and the commercialization of attacks.

The paper also discusses weaknesses in traditional security technologies such as firewalls and intrusion detection systems that are routinely bypassed by advanced and often encrypted exploits. The paper recognizes that attackers target enterprises systems such as SAP given the extensive and valuable data stored and processed by such systems.

The paper concludes by presenting SAP’s portfolio of products for preventing, detecting and responding to security breaches. This includes Enterprise Threat Detection (ETD), Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) and Code Vulnerability Analysis. The paper also cites services and tools available in SAP Solution Manager including SOS and System Recommendations.

Other important areas for security in SAP Solution Manager include Configuration Validation (ConVal). ConVal performs daily, automated scans for hundreds of vulnerabilities in SAP systems and is therefore an important preventative tool for responding to cyber threats. Furthermore, areas such as the monitoring and alerting infrastructure of SAP Solution Manager monitor SAP logs for signs of malicious attacks and generate alerts to warn responders of potential security breaches. Finally, tools such as Usage Procedure Logging, Solution Documentation and Business Process Change Analyzer (BPCA) identify application and functional areas impacted by Security Notes to increase the speed of response for SAP patches.

In contrast to many of the products outlined in the paper, SAP Solution Manager is installed in most SAP landscapes and therefore does not require any additional licensing. Contact Layer Seven Security to discuss how to implement advanced security monitoring and respond to cyber threats by optimizing your SAP Solution Manager.

7 Reasons You Should Upgrade to SolMan 7.2

Layer Seven on August 2, 2016

SAP Solution Manager (SolMan) is the epicenter of SAP implementations and the standard for monitoring and maintaining SAP landscapes. The general availability of release 7.2 in August is expected to deliver major advances in seven specific areas.

The first is support for managing the implementation lifecycle of HANA and S/4HANA. SolMan 7.2 is optimized to not only manage HANA systems but also run directly on HANA. Licenses for HANA are bundled with SAP maintenance contracts and are therefore effectively free for SolMan 7.2.

The second is support for hybrid systems. SolMan 7.1 SP13 or lower is directed primarily at ABAP and Java systems. However, SolMan 7.2 will extend support for monitoring both cloud and on-premise environments including SuccessFactors.

The third is an improved user experience through SAP Fiori. The Fiori launchpad provides a simple and graphical interface and replaces the work centers available in release 7.1. Dashboards have been migrated from Adobe Flash to the SAPUI5 (HTML5). Since HTML5 can be rendered on any device, SolMan no longer needs Android and iOS apps to support mobile users. The Fiori Launchpad enables users to personalize their screens to include access to other applications (see below).

The fourth is a wider array of application and cross-application dashboards for monitoring metrics such as system security, changes, events, incidents, availability and performance. Customers can also leverage custom dashboards using predefined templates available from Focused Insights. This includes dashboards for monitoring not just technical but business metrics. Focused Insights include over 800 best practices KPIs that can be deployed in minutes without programming.

The fifth is an enhanced Custom Code Management application to enable customers to optimize the quality, performance and security of custom developments. This includes governance models to identify custom code in system landscapes and tools such as UPL and SCMON to track the usage of custom code. Usage data can be used to decommission idle code to lower the attack surface for custom developments and reduce the scope of testing during system upgrades or enhancements.

The sixth is tighter integration between the Test Suite and solution documentation, enabling customers to focus testing on business processes impacted by proposed changes. This is performed using Business Process Change Analyzer (BPCA). BPCA leverages the inventory of business processes in solution documentation and Technical Bills of Materials (T-BOMs) for executables within processes.

SolMan 7.2 enables users to record and replay test scripts to automate testing using Component-Based Test Automation (CBTA). These and other applications for creating and maintaining test plans, scripts, and results including defects are accessed through the Test group in the SAP Fiori Launchpad.

The seventh and final reason for upgrading to SolMan 7.2 is that SAP cannot extend the deadline for ending maintenance for release 7.1 beyond December 31, 2017. Customers have a relatively short window to upgrade to release 7.2. The Monitoring and Alerting Infrastructure (MAI) is mandatory for all operations in SolMan 7.2. Therefore, MAI must be enabled in SolMan 7.1 before any upgrade. A stack split is performed during the upgrade procedure. Database migration to SAP HANA can also be performed during the upgrade. Detailed information is available in Notes 2161244, 2045230 and 2045342.

To discuss how Layer Seven Security can support your Solution Manager 7.2 implementation or upgrade projects, contact us here.

US-CERT Issues Alert for SAP Invoker Servlet Vulnerability

Layer Seven on May 12, 2016

US-CERT published an alert yesterday to warn SAP customers of the dangers posed by the invoker servlet vulnerability in AS Java systems. According to the alert, there is evidence to suggest that SAP systems at 36 organizations have been exploited by the vulnerability. The organizations are based in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, China, India, Japan, and South Korea, and operate in industries that include oil & gas, telecommunications, utilities, retail, automotive and the pubic sector.

The invoker servlet vulnerability arises when servlets can be called directly either by servlet name or by fully-qualified class name. This can be exploited to bypass authentication and authorization rules defined in the web.xml files of Java applications. In the cases referenced by the US-CERT alert, attackers appeared to have exploited the invoker servlet to call a Java component that enabled them to execute OS commands and create user accounts in SAP systems.

The vulnerability was patched by SAP in 2010. SAP also modified the default configuration of AS Java to disable the invoker servlet in versions 7.20 and later. Corrections were provided in Notes 1445998 and 1467771. The evidence of the active exploitation of the invoker servlet vulnerability five years after the underlying flaw was patched by SAP demonstrates that the greatest risk posed to SAP systems is the exploit of known weaknesses rather than so-called zero-day vulnerabilities.

The invoker servlet should be disabled at a global level by setting the EnableInvokerServletGlobally key to false. The key is located in the global properties of each J2EE instance. You can follow the three steps below to discover systems in your landscape vulnerable to the exploit using SAP Solution Manager.

1. Create a target system in Configuration Validation to check the value of the key for all systems using the servlet_jsp store. See below.

2. Edit the target system by removing all parameters in the servlet_jsp store except EnableInvokerServletGlobally. Set the value for the key to true and maintain the weight/ info. See below.

3. Run the weighted validation report for all Java systems and review the results of systems with the EnableInvokerServletGlobally set to true. See below.

The invoker servlet vulnerability is one of the 500+ checks performed by security rulesets provided by Layer Seven for ABAP, Java, HANA, and database systems. The rulesets can be imported into your Solution Manager systems in seconds to perform daily automated scans for vulnerabilities in SAP systems. To learn more, contact Layer Seven Security.

Survey Reveals 65 percent of SAP Platforms Were Breached Between 2014-15

Layer Seven on February 26, 2016

Earlier this week, the Ponemon Institute released the results of the most comprehensive study performed to date on the state of SAP cybersecurity. The Institute is widely known for the annual Cost of Data Breach report that trends average data breach costs across major countries. However, it also performs a variety of other studies related to privacy, data protection and information security. It’s latest study Uncovering the Risks of SAP Cyber Breaches reviews the challenges and perceptions associated with securing SAP platforms. The study surveyed over 600 IT and security professionals between December 2015 – January 2016.

The key findings of the study include:

65% of SAP platforms suffered one or more security breach over the prior 24 months. 32% experienced between 1-2 breaches. 16% were breached 3-4 times and 12% between 5-6 times

75% of respondents believe it is likely their SAP platforms have one or more malware infection

The impact of an SAP breach is serious to catastrophic in 92% of organizations

The average cost of a breach that interrupts the availability of SAP systems is $4.5M

47% of respondents expect the volume of cyber attacks against SAP systems to increase over the next 24 months. 42% expect no change. Only 11% expect a decrease

75% express low levels of confidence in their company’s ability to immediately detect an SAP breach. 65% believe they would not be able to detect a breach within one week and 59% doubt they would be able to detect a breach within a month

59% expect trends such as the cloud, mobile, big data and IoT to increase the attack surface and the probability of a breach in SAP systems

The ability to assess and audit compliance levels of SAP systems against security policies and standards is considered important by 78% of respondents

81% believe it is important to continuously monitor the security of SAP platforms

54% of respondents supported the statement that it is the responsibility of SAP, not their organizations, to safeguard the security of SAP software. The reality is that the responsibility is shared. SAP is responsible for ensuring the integrity and security of software code. To this end, SAP works diligently to detect and remove programming errors before and after the release of applications. However, the responsibility for implementing patches for programming and other errors lays exclusively with the customer.

SAP is also accountable for providing guidance to securely configure its systems and counteract known vulnerabilities and attack vectors. Recommendations for dealing with RFC exploits, password attacks, standard users, vulnerable Java and ICF services, and numerous other areas can be found in online SAP security guides, as well as SAP advisories and papers such as the Secure Configuration of SAP NetWeaver Application Server using ABAP and Securing Remote Function Calls.

Finally, SAP is responsible for providing customers with the tools to secure their infrastructure. This includes tools for identifying and applying security patches, performing continuous and automated audits for vulnerabilities that may be exploited to breach systems, and supporting real-time threat detection and response. SAP’s product portfolio includes tools to meet all of these needs. Patch management can be performed using System Recommendations. Vulnerability management for over 500 vulnerabilities impacting ABAP, Java and HANA systems can be accomplished using Configuration Validation. Customers can leverage these tools within their Solution Manager platforms without resorting to third party software solutions. For real-time threat management, customers can deploy Enterprise Threat Detection. Alternatively, they can integrate their SIEM platforms directly with SAP systems using adaptors or indirectly using agents.

Are 95 percent of SAP systems really vulnerable to cyber attack?

Layer Seven on May 26, 2015

Earlier this month, SAP issued a strongly-worded response to claims made by the software vendor Onapsis in a press release that over 95 percent of SAP systems assessed by Onapsis were exposed to vulnerabilities that could lead to the compromise of SAP systems. According to SAP, “The press release published by Onapsis is aimed at alienating SAP customers while promoting Onapsis’ own products. The assertion that over 95% of SAP systems were exposed to vulnerabilities is false.” In spite of such protests, the claims led to a wave of concern over vulnerabilities in SAP systems. The concerns were deepened by the revelation that the data breach at the government contractor USIS reported in 2014 was caused by a vulnerability in an SAP ERP system. The forensic investigators engaged by USIS to review the breach concluded that attackers were able to gain access to the system by exploiting an undisclosed SAP-level vulnerability or series of vulnerabilities. This assertion was based on evidence contained within SAP application trace logs and other sources. The breach led directly to the leakage of highly sensitive information impacting an estimated 25,000 government employees.

Along with similar incidents experienced by the Greek Ministry of Finance and Nvidia, the breach at USIS has served to illustrate the devastating impact to organizations when SAP systems are not securely configured and monitored to guard against possible cyber attack. Since the news of the source of the breach became public, security researchers have put forward several theories of possible exploits that could have been employed by attackers to compromise SAP systems connected to USIS. The theories include the use of default passwords, vulnerabilities in RFC gateways, remote code execution, and even database-level exploits. The fact that the attackers were presented with such an array of possible vectors is disturbing to say the least and highlights the wide attack surface presented by SAP systems.

Unless the specific SAP vulnerability that was exploited to breach USIS was a zero-day exploit, its likely that the breach could have been prevented through the proper hardening of SAP systems, regular patching, and continuous monitoring using tools provided by SAP in Solution Manager. It should be noted that almost all the attack vectors presented by researchers to explain the attack at USIS can be blocked by either applying applicable SAP patches or by observing the relevant SAP security guidance. This also applies to the so-called ‘Top Three Common Cyber Attack Vectors for SAP Systems’ declared by organizations such as Onapsis. Furthermore, once hardened, SAP systems do not necessarily require third party tools to monitor for possible changes or configuration errors that may expose them to cyber threats. The simplest, quickest and most cost-effective strategy is to leverage tools available in Solution Manager. They include System Recommendations for patch management, Change Analysis for detecting and investigating configuration changes, Alerting for security incident and event management, Dashboards for compliance monitoring and finally, Configuration Validation for comprehensive, automated vulnerability management. In short, both the information and the tools you need to secure your SAP systems against the type of attack that breached USIS are available to you at this very moment.

SAP Cybersecurity Framework 2.0: What’s New?

Layer Seven on January 14, 2015

Since the official release of the SAP Cybersecurity Framework in 2014, the standard has become the de facto benchmark for securing SAP systems from advanced cyber threats. Drawing upon guidance issued directly by SAP, as well as the real-world experience of front-line SAP security architects and forensic investigators, the framework delivers a single point of reference to harden SAP systems from cyber risks. It enables enterprises to counter weaknesses in perimeter controls such as network firewalls and intrusion detection systems by securing the technical infrastructure of SAP systems. Vulnerabilities in such infrastructure could be exploited to bypass perimeter controls and corrupt or leak sensitive business information or perform denial of service attacks in SAP systems.

The threat posed by attackers that seek out and exploit vulnerabilities has reached epidemic proportions. By all measures, attacks are growing in frequency and sophistication. The number of threat actors is also increasing, ranging from organized gangs of cyber criminals to hacktivist groups and state-sponsored agents. Finally, the impact of cyber attacks has reached new levels. The cost of a successful data breach is no longer measured in purely monetary terms. Recent experience has demonstrated that the impact can be strategic and long-lasting.

The SAP Cybersecurity Framework fills the void created by weaknesses in perimeter security and the limitations of GRC software that focus exclusively on the SAP authorization concept. It empowers organizations to better understand and respond to lesser known risks in the technical components of SAP systems to greatly reduce the likelihood of a system breach. It also enables enterprises to improve breach detection capabilities to respond more rapidly to attacks and contain the impact.

What’s more, the framework provides a clear path for securing SAP systems from cyber threats using only standard SAP-delivered software. It demonstrates that effective strategies are not necessarily tied to licensing third party solutions but leveraging the host of security tools made available by SAP to customers without any additional expense. This includes automated vulnerability detection and alerting tools available in Solution Manager. It therefore provides a powerful and cost-effective alternative to approaches that revolve around purchasing, installing and configuring solutions from independent software vendors.

The SAP Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 improves upon the original standard by incorporating new SAP guidance in areas such as trace functions to identify authorizations required for RFC users, enabling switchable authorization checks, whitelists for RFC callbacks, and approaches for identifying required security patches included in Notes and support packages.

Trace Functions
There are several limitations with analyzing log data in event logs configured in the Security Audit Log and transaction STAD for restricting permissions for RFC users. The former only record function groups accessed by users and the latter is resource-intensive. Therefore, SAP recommends using short and long-term trace functions through transactions STAUTHTRACE, STRFCTRACE or STUSOBTRACE. This approach will reveal the function modules accessed by users and consume fewer system resources than STAD.

Switchable Authorization Checks
Switchable authorization checks are intended to strengthen security for critical remote-enabled function modules that are used to access or modify sensitive data by requiring additional authorization checks above and beyond the standard S_RFC check. They are delivered via Notes and support packages but should only be enabled after relevant user profiles are updated to include the new authorizations. The DUO and DUQ event logs of the Security Audit Log should be activated and reviewed to identify the specific users requiring the authorizations during a non-disruptive logging phase.

RFC Callbacks
Positive whitelists for systems with later versions of SAP Basis have been introduced by SAP to control the dangers posed by RFC callbacks. Callbacks enable servers to open RFC connections in clients during synchronous calls using the privileges of the RFC user in the client system. A new profile parameter rfc_callback_security_method is used to enable the whitelists which are configured using SM59.

Security Notes and Support Packages
The framework no longer recommends the use of the EarlyWatch Alert and RSECNOTE for the identification of relevant Notes and support packages. Both components have severe drawbacks and are effectively deprecated by SAP. Security Notes and support packages should be identified using System Recommendations accessed through the Change Management Work Center in Solution Manager or via WDC_NOTE_CENTER through the Easy Access Menu.

The SAP Cybersecurity Framework is presented in the white paper Protecting SAP Systems from Cyber Attack.

SAP Security Architects at Layer Seven Security perform comprehensive gap assessments against the recommendations of the SAP Cybersecurity Framework and enable customers to implement defense in depth by hardening the entire SAP technology stack. The layered control strategy supported by the framework is based on best practices and SAP security recommendations and represents the most comprehensive, efficient and cost-effective approach to secure SAP systems from cyber attack. To learn more, contact Layer Seven Security.

New SAP Guidance Recommends Configuration Validation for Security Monitoring

Layer Seven on December 2, 2014

Some of the most critical recommendations issued by SAP in the recently released paper Securing Remote Function Calls include the use of configuration validation in Solution Manager to monitor RFC destination settings. This includes checks for destinations with stored credentials, trusted connections, and authorizations granted to RFC users in target systems. It also includes the review of profile parameters for RFC and secure network communication, as well as access control lists for RFC gateways. The SAP paper lends support for other security functions in Solution Manager such as management dashboards and alerts by pointing out that “an overview of the current security status can be provided in a security dashboard and alerts on noncompliance can be collected in the alert in-box” (p33).

The paper draws together leading practices and SAP recommendations into a single reference document for protecting one of the most vulnerable areas in SAP landscapes that is often targeted by remote attackers. RFC is a proprietary SAP technology that drives cross-system integration. Misconfigurations in RFC destinations and gateways that manage RFC communications can lead to the complete compromise of not just individual SAP systems but entire landscapes. Common mistakes include using destinations with stored logon credentials or trusted connections between systems with differing security classifications, using service or communication user types for RFC destinations rather than system users, granting excessive authorizations to RFC users, failing to limit access to remote-enabled function modules, and non-existent access control lists to control the registration and starting of external RFC servers.

The paper emphasizes the importance of established and well-known counter measures for securing RFCs based on the authorization concept. This includes not granting full access to objects such as R_RFC_ADM, S_RFC_TT, S_ADMI_FCD used to administer RFC destinations and other objects such as S_RFC , S_ICF and S_RFCACL that control access to remote-enabled function modules and logons in trusting systems. The paper also discusses enhancements delivered by SAP in the most recent release of NetWeaver AS ABAP, including unified connectivity (UCON). UCON blocks access to remote-enabled function modules using whitelists configured in so-called communication assemblies. According to SAP, “Typically, less than 5% of all available RFC function modules are used in customer software systems for remote RFC communication” (p14). It also outlines methods for performing short-term and long-term traces to identify authorizations checks performed during the execution of RFC-enabled function modules called remotely. This should be used to reign in access privileges for RFC users. Finally, the paper outlines how to control dangerous RFC callbacks and activate switchable authorization checks that are only enabled in specific RFC scenarios.

Contact an SAP Security Architect at Layer Seven Security for professional services to implement these and related SAP recommendations. Our SAP Cybersecurity Solution includes a gap assessment for all of the recommendations on RFC security issued by SAP in the paper.

To request a copy of the SAP paper Securing Remote Function Calls, email info@layersevensecurity.com.

The Final Frontier: The Challenges in Developing Secure Custom ABAP Programs

admin on January 18, 2013

In November, SAP released an unusually high number of Security Notes to patch various forms of injection vulnerabilities in it’s software. The trend continued in December with the release of several patches for code injection flaws in the Computer Center Management System (BC-CCM), Project System (PS-IS), Transport Organizer (BC-CTS-ORG) and work processes in Application Servers responsible for executing ABAP programs (BC-CST). Given this alarming trend, this article is focused on discussing the challenges of developing secure ABAP programs for SAP systems, free of common vulnerabilities including not only injection flaws, but cross-site scripting errors, buffer overflows, directory traversals and backdoors and rootkits.

There are three attack surfaces in SAP systems. The first is through improperly defined and controlled application-level access. This attack surface is the most commonly known and understood by SAP customers. Today, most SAP clients deploy any one of a variety of access management tools to control access to sensitive functions and maintain a strict segregation of duties in their ERP systems. This manages the risk of unauthorized access through inadequate authorization structures that grant excessive or conflicting privileges to users and administrators.

The second attack surface lies at the platform level. This generally refers to components of the NetWeaver Application Server, also referred to as the Basis area of SAP systems. The NetWeaver AS is the technical foundation of the entire SAP software stack. It provides the runtime environment for SAP applications and includes work processes for ABAP and Java programs, gateways and modules for managing RFC, Web-based and other forms of communication protocols, tools to manage user roles, profiles and authorizations, and utilities that control certain database and operating system functions. The secure configuration and management of the NetWeaver AS is a vital component of a comprehensive SAP security strategy. However, the results of our security assessments repeatedly reveal common vulnerabilities in basis settings in most SAP environments. This provides a lush attack surface to internal and external attackers looking for an avenue to manipulate or appropriate business data or deliberately disrupt the availability of SAP systems.

The third and final attack surface in SAP provides an even greater array of opportunities for attackers. This surface exists at the program level. ERP systems such as SAP are designed to perform thousands of distinct functions ranging from, for example, adding a vendor to a list of approved suppliers, performing a transport to implement a change in a specific system, or encrypting/ decrypting traffic between servers or clients. These functions are performed by programs stored in the database table known as REPOSRC that are called when requested by work processes in the NetWeaver AS.

SAP programs are developed using two distinct programming languages: Advanced Business Application Programming (ABAP) and Java. Both are vulnerable to coding errors that could expose SAP programs to exploits such as code, OS and SQL injection, cross-site scripting, cross-site request forgery, buffer overflow, directory traversal and denial of service. SAP programs are also susceptible to missing or broken authority-checks that could lead to unauthorized execution of programs. Finally, SAP programs can contain backdoors through hardcoded credentials that bypass regular authentication and authorization controls, as well as malware known as rootkits that provide attackers with remote, privileged access to system functions and resources.

SAP performs a rigorous code review for all standard or delivered programs prior to release. However, some of the vulnerabilities present in the code base are not detected and patched until after release. Security Notes are therefore an important mechanism used by SAP to patch vulnerabilities arising from programming errors.

Custom programs are rarely subject to the same level of scrutiny applied by SAP to standard programs. Programs developed by in-house or off-shore developers to meet the needs of customers not met by standard SAP functionality are often laden with vulnerabilities that, when exploited, undermine the integrity of entire SAP landscapes. Such landscapes are only as strong as their weakest point. A robust application layer fortified with GRC tools has led attackers to shift their focus to the platform and code level. Given the relative openness of most SAP systems at the technical level, the strategy is proving to be profitable.

SAP has responded by issuing a series of recommendations to customers to strengthen configuration settings in components of the NetWeaver AS. These can be found in the whitepaper Secure Configuration of the SAP NetWeaver Application Server Using ABAP.

However, understandably SAP is less vocal on development procedures for custom programs since this is generally the responsibility of each SAP customer. The challenge should not be underestimated. Although manual code reviews to detect common vulnerabilities are theoretically possible, the skill-set to effectively review custom code is not only rare but expensive. Furthermore, it often leads to an increase in development time. Customers should consider investing in code scanning tools that are tuned to detect suspicious statements in ABAP code and integrate directly into the SAP Transport Management System (TMS). Such tools should also be capable of auto-correcting ABAP statements to minimize resource requirements and the impact on existing development times. Presently, the only tool capable of detecting and auto-correcting vulnerabilities in custom ABAP programs, with direct integration with SAP TMS, is Virtual Forge CodeProfiler. To arrange a security scan of custom programs in your SAP environment using CodeProfiler, please contact a representative at Layer Seven Security.

The Four Myths of ERP Security

admin on May 2, 2012

There are several myths in ERP security. One of the most common is that security is largely a matter of controlling access and segregation of duties. Another is that business applications are accessible only within internal networks. Yet another is that such applications are not a target for attack. All three are based on a simplistic and misguided take on today’s ERP systems.

The reality is that contemporary ERP systems have a highly complex structure. Complexity is the enemy of security. Vulnerabilities can be found not only in the business or application layer (which is the traditional area of focus for ERP security practitioners) but the technical layer that includes database, operating system and network components. A Fort Knox approach for the application level will provide a false sense of security if architectural,Â configuration and programming flaws are not addressed at the technical level.

This is compounded by the fact that most ERP instances have more than one attack surface. Almost all have direct or indirect connections to the Internet. The former includes connections to external offices, suppliers, vendors or other partners and to SAP services. The latter can include connections to user workstations with Web access. ERP resources are increasingly designed to be accessible by mobile users using Web-based protocols, ports and services. The isolated mainframes of yesteryear are a distant memory in our era of global communications.

Vectors for attack surfaces in ERP systems are generally well-known. What’s more, most can be performed with low-spec laptops and minimal technical knowledge. The idea that very few people have any motive to attack such information-rich systems is one of the most disturbing and perplexing myths in ERP security. I’m reminded of a comment that was made to me by a prominent partner in a well-known consulting firm. The partner was engaged as a security advisor by a large meat processing company during an otherwise successful SAP implementation. In his view, the client had a relatively low risk profile which justified a ‘vanilla’ security framework for its SAP systems. As a result, the company was urged to stick with SAP defaults, wherever possible.

The leads to the fourth and most damaging myth in ERP security: the notion that systems are securely configured by default and, where they are not, it’s the responsibility of the vendor to secure the system. ERP systems are designed to be flexible. They have to be capable of meeting the diverse needs of every imaginable business in all industries and sectors. As a result, there is no standard configuration that can meet the requirements of every business. Security has to be enabled. Default security settings are often highly dangerous and can leave organizations open to internal and external attacks. For this reason, SAP has issued numerous white papers, security guides and other publications to support the secure configuration of its software during and after implementation. This should be required reading for all security professionals specializing in SAP.

SAP does not take responsibility for security issues arising from architectural flaws, misconfigurations and inadequate patching. Customers are expected to design, manage and maintain their systems in a secure manner. This can prove to be a challenge in companies where there is no clear ownership over SAP resources or in cases where systems are owned by business departments that lack the technical skills to effectively manage ERP security. In these scenarios, business owners should take steps to share ownership with IT functions, especially technical resources within their organization that are more accustomed to dealing with infrastructure or platform-level security. There is often a strong relationship between the strength of SAP security in organizations and the degree of partnership between business and IT.