Study on Cloud security in Japan


(C) ITGI Japan

Content 1 Background 2 Survey 2.1 Respondents 2.2 User on cloud services 2.3 Risk issues for Cloud computing 2.4 User selection of Cloud provider 3 Comparison with the study by ENISA 4 Conclusion


2 About Survey
Institute of Information Security conducted a survey for use of cloud computing survey to companies, government and universities. One major purpose is to compare risk attitude of ENISA “Cloud Computing Risk Assessment”.
Survey term: 2010 August 1st to 31st Survey by: mail Target: Companies, government (local and central), Universities, 4,500 Effective Answer: 316(7%) Main survey items: (1) Organization (size, employees, Sales, and PCs) (2) Intention against cloud computing (3) Risk evaluation for cloud computing (4) Selection criteria for cloud provider

1 Respondent Answer Divisions (N=315) Information Security Dev. Information Systems Dev. General Dev. Other Dev. 3 . Planning Dev. Business Dev.2. Secretary of CEO Finance Dev. HR Dev.

1 Respondent 2 Respondent Position (N=312) Manager Directors Chief Staff President Others Specialists CEO BU Director 4 .2.

Entertainment.2.1 Respondent 3 Respondent Industry Less than 1% (N=313) Manufacturer Retail. Securities Service. teachers) Financial. Training 5 . Forestry. local) Others Transportation Specialists(consultant. Wholesale University Construction Information Processing Government (central. Leasing Hotel. Toiletry. Real estate. Mining Education. Welfare Agriculture. Fishery. Dining Medical.

00bil – Yen No (Non-profit.000bil Yen 1.2. government) 6 .1 Respondent 4 Annual Sales (N=309) Less than 1bil Yen 1bil – 3bil Yen 3bil – 5bil Yen 5bil – 10bil Yen 10bil – 50bil Yen 50bil – 100bil Yen 100bil – 300bil Yen 300bil – 500bil Yen 500bil – 1.

2.000- 7 .000-1.000-9.1 Respondent 5 Number of Employeess Less than 1% (N=315) Less than 100 100-299 300-499 500-999 1.500-4.499 5.999 10.000-49.999 50.499 1.

000-9.2.999 10.000-49.1 Respondent 6 Number of PCs Less than 1% (N=314) Less than 100 100-299 300-499 500-999 1.999 50.000-1.500-4.499 1.999 5.000- 8 .

1 Respondent 7 Security Policy (N=315) Developed Under Developing No 9 .2.

2.1 Respondent 8 IT audit for cloud computing (N=316) What sort of IT audit do you have had last year? Internal audit no audit External audit ISMS Internal audit Internal audit for Privacy Certification Internal audit for PCI-DSS 10 .

2.1 Respondent 9 Security Incident and frequency (N=312) Never Experienced in the past One time in a year 2-4 times in a year 5-9 times in a year more than 10 times in a year 11 .

2.2 Cloud computing 1 Usage of Cloud Computing (N=315) Using Under planning No plan but hope to use In the near future No plan and no need at this point 20% used and additionally 48% is willing to use 12 .

com Others Provider within a Group Other overseas provider Amazon Web Services 13 .2.2 Cloud computing 2 (N=316) Which cloud provider are you selected or going to adopt? Cloud Provider adoption Big Japanese provider Private Cloud Medium and small Japanese provider Google Telecomm Operator Salesforce.

2.2 Cloud computing 3 Service selection (N=316) multiple answer Which kind of cloud services are you selected or going to adopt? 14 .

15 . many think similar threat.2 Cloud computing 4 (N=311) (1) Information Systems (under control) or cloud computing (2) Outsourcing (including Hosting) or cloud computing Which is bigger threat ? Bigger threat is (1) Cloud computing IS under control same (2) Bigger threat is Cloud computing Outsourcer & Hosting same Users feel a little bigger threat in Cloud computing than IS under control or outsourcer.2. However.

Technical support 4. Initial Cost is low 5. Monthly charge 3. Incident response 2. Technical Experience Most important Very Important Important Not so important Not at all 16 .2.3 Cloud computing provider adoption 1 Important items are for provider adoption Top five items are listed (N=316) 1.

2. Proposals 5. Selection of Not at all Not so important Important Very Important Most important 17 . Seminar or events 3. Advertisement 2.3 Cloud computing provider adoption 2 Important items are for provider selection Bottom five items are listed (N=316) 1. Brand name 4.

導入(イニシャル)費用が安 い 3. Incident Response 4. 障害が起きた時の対応が早 5. い Technical Experience Very satisfied Satisfied Not so satisfied Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied 18 .3 Cloud computing provider adoption 3 User Satisfaction Top five items are listed (N=70) Company profile 1. 会社の実績が豊富である 4.2. Ccompany experience 3. 会社の知名度が高い Initial charge 2.

Reporting for Service 5. Audit Very unsatisfied Unsatisfied Not so satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied Users require provider proposal of cloud service Some user does not satisfy current service 19 .3 Cloud computing provider adoption 4 Satisfaction on Cloud Service Used Top five “unsatisfied” items are listed (N=70) 1. Reasonable Running Cost 4. Speedy implementation 2. Quality of Proposal 3.2.

オンライン応答時間 Average response time Logging capability 9. Average recovery time 平均復旧時間 4.3 Cloud computing provider adoption 5 Cloud provider SLA Top ten SLA items for adoption of cloud provider (N=316) multiple answer 1. Service Availability サービスUtilization 5. Service hours (help desk etc. バックアップデータの保存期間 Retention Period of backups 8. Service up time サービス時間 3. バックアップの方法 Backups methodology 7. Alternative service of major incident 重大障害時の代替手段 2. ログの取得 10.2.) サポート時間帯 6.障害通知プロセス Fault reporting process 20 .

その他 Others 21 . Pマークの認定取得 (domestic) Privacy certification 3. Disclosure for ASP/SaaS service 5. PCI DSSの認定取得 PCIDSS certification SysTrust certification 7. SysTrustの取得 CSA guidelines 8.3 Cloud computing provider adoption 6 Third party certification of guideline (N=316)multiple answer ISMS certification 1. ISMSの認定取得 2.2. SAS70type2/18号監査の認定取得 SAS70-type2 and similar by CPA 6. CSA参加 9. BS25999(BCM/BCP)の認定取得 BS25999(BCM) certification (BSI) 4.

LOSS OF BUSINESS REPUTATION DUE TO COTENANT ACTIVITIES Business competitiveness may harm because of user reputation will become no difference based on cloud service Survey result shows percentage of risk assessment by respondent Survey Result ENISA High High High Medium critical medium small No Japanese organisations do not think that “Lock in”. “Loss of governance” and “Compliance” are not so serious for their business. conversion tool is not provided Application lock-in LOSS OF GOVERNANCE All business processes are under control of Cloud Provider and cannot change or manage by user COMPLIANCE CHALLENGES If cloud provider violate laws and regulations. 22 .3 Comparison with ENISA result (1) Organizational Risk 1 Risk LOCK-IN Data format for storage. user may automatically challenge compliance.

23 . if cloud provider stops operation or service. ENISA Medium Medium Low critical medium small No Japanese organisations thinks it more serious on service continuation than EU organization. they are optimistic on acquisition. CLOUD PROVIDER ACQUISITION Cloud provider is acquired by competitor and may not continue service SUPPLY CHAIN FAILURE Cloud service may stop or change due to changes or outage of other cloud service provider.3 Comparison with ENISA result (1) Organizational Risk 2 アンケート結果 Survey Result Risk CLOUD SERVICE TERMINATION OR FAILURE Organization may not continue service. However.

and therefore indirectly on the organization’s reputation. MANAGEMENT INTERFACE COMPROMISE Customer management interfaces are Internet accessible and increased risk when combined with remote access and web browser vulnerabilities. and even reputation between different tenants of the shared infrastructure CLOUD PROVIDER MALICIOUS INSIDER . ENISA Medium Survey Result アンケート結果 High High Medium Japanese users feel “Malicious insider abuse” like EU but do not feel seriously for isolation failure. routing. critical medium small No 24 .ABUSE OF HIGH PRIVILEGE ROLES The malicious activities of an insider could potentially have an impact on all kind of services. memory.3 Comparison with ENISA result (2) Technical Risk 1 Risk RESOURCE EXHAUSTION Inaccurate modeling of resources or inaccurate resources allocation algorithms may degrade service ISOLATION FAILURE Failure of mechanisms separating storage.

ENISA Medium Medium Medium Medium Technical risks are similar to Japanese users and EU users. critical medium small No 25 . the worst case scenario would be the bankruptcy of the customer or a serious economic impact. this may not result in true wiping of the data. INSECURE OR INEFFECTIVE DELETION OF DATA Request to delete a cloud resource is made. INTRACLOUD Data are transferred more in transit and distributed across multiple physical machines. DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE (DDOS) DDoS to other user of cloud provider may impact ECONOMIC DENIAL OF SERVICE (EDOS) EDoS destroys economic resources.3 Comparison with ENISA result (2) Technical Risk 2 アンケート結果 Survey Result リスク INTERCEPTING DATA IN TRANSIT DATA LEAKAGE ON UP/DOWNLOAD.

critical medium small No 26 .3 Comparison with ENISA result (2) Technical Risk 3 Risk LOSS OF ENCRYPTION KEYS Disclosure of secret keys or passwords to malicious parties may impact to loss or leakage of important data UNDERTAKING MALICIOUS PROBES OR SCANS Malicious probes or scanning are indirect threats to the assets. CONFLICTS BETWEEN CUSTOMER HARDENING PROCEDURES AND CLOUD ENVIRONMENT Hypervisor. ENISA Medium Survey Result アンケート結果 Medium Medium Low Technical risks are similar to Japanese users and EU users. COMPROMISE SERVICE ENGINE Provider service engine have vulnerabilities and is prone to attacks or unexpected failure. or service engine may have vulnerabilities and is prone to attacks or unexpected failure.

ENISA High Survey Result アンケート結果 High High Medium critical medium small No EU organisations feels more legal risk than Japanese organisations. storage as well as shared hardware is at risk of the disclosure to unwanted parties User is not able to protect or preserve of evidence in the cloud when requested from Authorities RISK FROM CHANGES OF JURISDICTION User data may be held in multiple jurisdictions. 27 . some of which may be high risk LICENSING RISKS Licensing conditions and online licensing checks may become unworkable in a cloud environment.3 Comparison with ENISA result (3) Legal Risk 1 リスク SUBPOENA AND E-DISCOVERY As a result of subpoena.

NETWORK MANAGEMENT Provider network may not be managed properly and capacity and connection failure may impact to users. 28 .3 Comparison with ENISA result (4) Common Risk 1 Survey Result アンケート結果 リスク NETWORK BREAKS Potentially thousands of customers are affected at the same time. ENISA Medium High Medium Medium critical medium small No Japanese organisations are not seriously consider network issues. MODIFYING NETWORK TRAFFIC Network traffic between user and provider may not be modified in case of network failure. PRIVILEGE ESCALATION Potentially root authority has been seizure and data may be disclosed or modified. This is because Japanese telecom operator provide excessive quality services.

LOSS OR COMPROMISE OF SECURITY LOGS Provider may lose or compromise security logs.3 Comparison with ENISA result (4) Common Risk 2 アンケート結果 Survey Result リスク SOCIAL ENGINEERING ATTACKS Provider may be attacked “social engineering” and may disclose user data or information. BACKUPS LOST. STOLEN Provider may lose or compromise backed up files. 29 . ENISA Medium Low Low Medium critical medium small No Common risks are regarded less for Japanese users than EU users. LOSS OR COMPROMISE OF OPERATIONAL LOGS Provider may lose or compromise user logging data.

THEFT OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT Provider equipment (storage) may be stolen and user data may be compromised. earthquake. 30 . but do not evaluate high risk. ENISA Low Survey Result Low Low critical medium small No Japanese organisations are exposed more natural distress than EU organisations. volcano.3 Comparison with ENISA result (4) Common Risk 3 リスク UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO PREMISES Provider facilities may be invaded and infrastructures may be compromised. NATURAL DISASTERS Provider may not continue providing services due to natural disasters (flood. etc).

• European organisations utilize cloud computing with quality for money • European organisations feel higher risk on legal. • Expectation to cloud computing • Japanese organization should regard cloud computing as the new service category lower quality in good price. guarantied) to cloud provider.4 Conclusion • Anxiety for cloud computing • Many issues are similar and common among Japan and EU organisations. 31 . and loss of governance than Japanese organisations. lock-in. • Japanese organisations seek quality of services (non stop.

This Study is Supported by ITGI-Japan Contact: Yonosuke Harada. Professor Institute of Information E-mail: 32 .

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.