Virtual machines aren't really more secure

VM technologies are very cool, and great at saving money (and space, electricity, and more), but in all but a small minority of cases, they will not improve your overall security posture

I've been at several recent conferences where virtual machine (VM) and security "experts" were telling audiences how VM technology can be used to improve computer security. Wow! They are either drunk on the marketing Kool-Aid, misinformed, or simply trying to misrepresent VM capabilities to sell more product.

VM technologies are very cool, and great at saving money (and space, electricity, and more), but in all but a small minority of cases, they will not improve your overall security posture. Most of the time, using VM technology will increase overall risk. In a large percentage of the cases I've been involved with, clients treat VMs as something less than their physical machines, tolerating slower and poorer security policies than they would on real computers. They often use weaker passwords, take longer to patch, and allow operational practices (such as connections from high-risk to low-risk assets, unmanaged shares, missing security software, and overly promiscuous permissions) that wouldn't pass muster in their normal production environments.

Let's suppose the VM-using-client practices the same security practices and policies on their virtual machines as they do their physical machines. This is definitely a step in the right direction, and theoretically they should have the same security risk, right? No.

By their very nature, VMs have the same security risks as physical computers (their ability to closely mimic a real computer is why we run them in the first place), plus they have additional guest-to-guest and guest-to-host security risks. Security assessments against multiple virtual machine technologies have revealed multiple vulnerabilities in these areas, and practically, these risks will always be there. You can minimize them over a period of time using SDL (Security Development Lifecycle) practices, but the risks themselves will always be there. They're inherent in the model.

Most of the published VM vulnerabilities during the past year or so were incurred because the VM vendor added new VM features (such as host-to-guest drive mappings, VM-specific tools, and so forth) that allowed an attacker to jump from guest-to-host or guest-to-guest. But some of the vulnerabilities occur in the VM software layer without the additional features needed.

Some VM vendors are working on future technologies that they claim will improve the security of VMs, and perhaps they will. One is a new API, VMware's Vsafe, which will allow host or network security defense tools to analyze and defend VM resources (memory and virtual hard drives, for example). Another vendor is working on a sort of virtual intrusion detection system for guest-to-host attacks. Both of these ideas sound interesting, and are likely to improve VM security (though they still do not lower risk compared to physical computers). But it is also possible that these mechanisms, which function in the host or hypervisor layer, will give way to additional guest-to-host vulnerabilities. Even if we decide that these technologies present no additional risk (which isn't realistic) to VM deployments, it means that we are still at a break-even point. They didn't improve overall security.

Join the newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

More about IBM AustraliaIPSPLUSSDLVMware Australia

Show Comments