Before diving into the specifics of enhancing your system’s security, it’s crucial to understand the foundation we’re building upon: system hardening. In essence, system hardening is the act of fortifying your system to minimize its attack surface and reduce vulnerabilities. Knowing how to approach this is essential for robust security.
Within the Department of Defense (DoD) and across various industries, the approach to system hardening can vary significantly. Some organizations might strictly adhere to Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs), while others adopt a more comprehensive strategy that extends beyond mere compliance. This distinction highlights the difference between simply ticking boxes for compliance and genuinely prioritizing security. Compliance confirms adherence to a set of rules, but security involves not only meeting those rules but also proactively seeking and mitigating any residual weaknesses.
The Application Security and Development STIG itself acknowledges this broader perspective, stating that if a DoD STIG or NSA guide is unavailable, organizations should configure third-party products based on commercially accepted practices, independent testing results, or vendor literature, in that order of preference. This indicates a layered approach to security, where STIGs are a critical component, but not necessarily the only one.
It’s important to recognize the hierarchical nature of DoD policy. Policies at the highest level are not always exhaustive. Often, there are multiple layers of policy that must be followed, with lower-level policies capable of imposing stricter requirements, but never less stringent ones. Consequently, some programs might be obligated to implement all recommendations from various policy levels to achieve a robust security posture. However, in practice, you’ll often find considerable overlap among these policies.
When faced with conflicting guidance, the policy with higher precedence takes precedence. For those aiming to thoroughly harden a system, it’s generally advisable to prioritize security. It’s also crucial to remember that all guidance documents are created by individuals and are therefore susceptible to errors. This is why revisions and updates are common, correcting typos or misunderstandings of specific technologies.
A critical question arises when implementing security guidance disrupts system functionality. In such cases, a careful risk assessment is necessary to determine whether the risk associated with a particular vulnerability outweighs the risk of impaired system usability. This delicate balance is at the heart of effective system hardening and vulnerability management.
