Service Technology Symposium 2012 – Talks update 2

Your security guy knows nothing

This talk focused on the changes to security / security mindsets required by the move to cloud hosted or hybrid architectures.  The title was mainly as an attention grabber, but the talk overall was interesting and made some good points around what is changing, but also the many concerns that are still basically the same.

Security 1.0

–          Fat guy with keys; IT focused; “You can’t do that”; Does not understand software development.

Security 2.0

–          Processes and gates; Tools and people; Good for Building; Not as good for acquiring / mashing

Traditional security wants certainty –

–          Where is the data? – in transit, at rest, and in use.

–          Who is the user?

–          Where are our threats?

What happens to data on hard drives of commodity nodes when the node crashes or the container is shipped back to the manufacturer from the CSP?  (data at rest etc.).  The new world is more about flexible controls and polices than some of the traditional, absolute certainties.

Security guys want to manage and understand change;

–          Change control process

–          Risk Management

–          Alerts when things change that affect the risk profile

Whole lifecycle – security considered from requirements onwards, not tacked onto end of process..  This for me is a key point for all security functions and all businesses.  If you want security to be ingrained in the business, effective, and seen as an enabler of doing things right rather than a blocker at the end, it must always be incorporated into the whole lifecycle.

Doing it right – Business –Development – Security – Working together..

Business;

–          Render the Implicit Explicit

  • Assets
  • Entitlements
  • Goals
  • Controls
  • Assumptions

Development;

–          Include security in design

  • Even in acquisition
  • Even in mash ups

–          Include security in requirements / use cases

–          Identify technical risks

–          Map technical risks to business risks (quantify in money where possible)

–          Trace test cases

  • Not just to features
  • But also to risks (non functional requirements!)

Security;

–          Provide fodder (think differently, black hat / hacker thinking)

–          Provide alternative reasoning

–          Provide black hat mentality

–          Learn to say “yes”

–          Provide solutions, not limitations!

Goal – Risk management

Identify how the business is affected?

–          Reputation

–          Revenue

–          Compliance

–          Agility

What can techies bring to the table?

–          Estimates of technical impact

–          Plausible scenarios

–          Black Hat thinking

 Compliance – does not equal – Security!

–          Ticking boxes – does not equal – Security!

So the key take away points from this are that regardless of the changes to what is being deployed –

 – Work together

– Involve security early

– Security must get better at saying ‘yes, here’s how to do it securely’ rather than ‘no’

No PDF of this presentation is currently available.

————————

Moving applications to the cloud

This was another Gartner presentation that covered some thoughts and considerations when looking at moving existing applications / services to the cloud.

Questions;

–          What are our options?

–          Can we port as is, or do we have to tune for the cloud (how much work involved?)

–          Which applications / functions do we move to the cloud?

Choices;

–          Which vendor?

–           IaaS, PaaS, SaaS…?

–          How – rehost – refactor – revise – rebuild – replace – which one?

  • Rehost or replace most common, quickest and likely cheapest / easiest

You need to have a structured approach to cloud migrations, likely incorporating the following 3  stages;

–          Identify candidate apps and data

  • Application and data-portfolio management
  • Apps and data rationalisation
  • Legacy modernisation

–          Assess suitability

  • Based on cloud strategy goals
  • Define an assessment framework
    • Risk, business case, constraints, principles

–          Select migration option

  • rehost – refactor – revise – rebuild – replace

This should all be in the context of;

–          What is the organisations cloud adoption strategy

–          What is the application worth? What does it cost?

–          Do we need to modernise the application? How much are we willing to spend?

In order to make decisions around what to move to the cloud and how to move it you should define both your migration goals and priorities which should include areas such as;

–          Gain Agility

  • Rapid time to market
  • Deliver new capabilities
  • Support new channels (e.g. Mobile)

–          Manage costs

  • Preserve capital
  • Avoid operational expenses
  • Leverage existing investments

–          Manage resources

  • Free up data centre space
  • Support scalability
  • Gain operational efficiencies

Some examples of what we mean by rehost / refactor / revise / rebuild / replace;

Rehost – Migrating application – rehost on IaaS

Refactor – onto PaaS – make changes to work with the PaaS platform and leverage PaaS platform features

Revise – onto IaaS or PaaS – at least make more cloud aware for IaaS, make more cloud and platform aware for PaaS

Rebuild – Rebuild on PaaS – start from scratch to create new, optimised application.

Note – some of these (rebuild definitely, refactor sometimes) will require data to be migrated to new format.

Replace – with SaaS – easy in terms of code, data migration, business process and applications will change (large resistance from users is possible).

The presentation ended with the following recommendations;

–          Define a cloud migration strategy

–          Establish goals and priorities

–          Identify candidates based on portfolio management

–          Develop assessment framework

–          Select migration options using a structured decision approach

–          Be cognizant of technical debt (time to market more important than quality / elegant code!)

  • Do organisations ever plan to pay back ‘technical debt’?  Where Technical debt refers to corner cutting / substandard development that is initially accepted to meet cost / time constraints.

A pdf of this presentation can be downloaded from here;

http://www.servicetechsymposium.com/dl/presentations/moving_applications_to_the_cloud-migration_options.pdf

Overall another good presentation with very sensible recommendations covering areas to consider when planning to migrate applications and services to the cloud.

K

Service Technology Symposium Day 1..

So yesterday was day one of the Service Technology Symposium.  This is a two day event covering various topics relating to cloud adoption, cloud architecture, SOA (Service Orientated Architecture) and big data.  As mentioned in my last post my focus has mostly been on the cloud and architecture related talks.

I’ll use this post to provide a high level overview of the day and talks I attended, further posts will dive more deeply into some of the topics covered.

The day started well with three interesting keynotes.

The first was from Gartner covering the impact of moving to the cloud and using SOA on architecture / design.  The main points of this talk were understanding the need to move to a decoupled architecture to get the most from any move to the cloud.  This was illustrated via the Any to Any to Any architecture paradigm where this is;

Any Device – Any Service – Any Data

Gartner identified a ‘nexus of forces’ driving this need to decouple system component;

–          Mobile – 24/7, personal, context aware, real time, consumer style

–          Social – Activity streams, Personal intelligence, group sourcing, group acting

–          Information – variety, velocity, volume, complexity

–          Cloud services

In order to achieve this, the following assumptions must be true; All components independent and autonomous, they can live anywhere (on premise or in cloud), applications must be decoupled from services and data.

They also highlighted the need for a deep understanding of the SOA principles.

The second keynote speech was from the European Space Agency on their journey from legacy applications and development practices to SOA this was titled ‘Vision to reality; SOA in space’.

They highlighted 4 drivers for their journey; Federation – Interoperability – Alignment to changing business needs / requirements (agility) – Reduce time and cost.

And identified realising these drivers using SOA, and standards as outlined below;

Federation – SOA, Standards

Interoperability – SOA, Standards

Alignment to business needs – SOA, Top Down and Bottom up

Reduce costs – Reuse; SOA, Incremental development

Overall this was an interesting talk and highlighted a real world success story for SOA in a very complex environment.

The third keynote was from NASA Earth Science Data Systems.  This provided an overview of their use of SOA, the cloud and semantic web technologies to aid their handling of ‘big data’ and complex calculations.  They have ended up with a globally diverse hybrid cloud solution.

As a result of their journey to their current architecture they found various things worthy of highlighting as considerations for anyone looking to move to the cloud;

–          Understand the long term costs of cloud storage (cloud more expensive for their needs and data volumes)

–          Computational performance needed for science – understand your computational needs and how they will be met

–          Data movement to and within the cloud – Data ingest, data distribution – how will your data get to and from the cloud and move within the cloud?

–          Process migration – moving processes geographically closer to the data

–          Consider hybrid cloud infrastructures, rather than pure cloud or pure on premises

–          Security –  always a consideration, they have worked with Amazon GovCloud to meet their requirements

To aid their move to SOA and the cloud, NASA created various working groups – such as – Data Stewardship, Interoperability, semantic technologies, standards, processes etc.

This has been successful for them so far, and currently NASA Earth Sciences make wide use of SOA, Semantic technologies and the cloud (esp. for big data).

The day then moved to 7 separate track of talks which turned out for me to be somewhat of a mixed bag.

Talk 1 was titled ‘Introducing the cloud computing design patterns catalogue’.  This is a relatively new project to create re-usable deign patterns for moving applications and systems to the cloud.  The project can be found here;

www.cloudpatterns.org

Unfortunately the intended speaker did not arrive so the talk was just a high level run through the site.  The project does look interesting and I’d recommend you take a look if you are involved in creating cloud based architectures.

The second talk was supposed to be ‘A cloud on-boarding strategy’ however the speaker did not turn up, and the organisers had no idea if he was coming or not so wasted a lot of peoples time.  While it’s outside of the organisers control if someone arrives or not, they should have been aware the speaker had not registered and let us know rather than the 45 minutes of is he, isn’t he, we just have no idea that ensued..

The third talk was supposed to be ‘developing successful business plans for cloud computing projects’.  This was again cancelled due to the speaker not arriving.

Talk 2 (talks numbered by my attendance) was a Gartner talk titled ‘Building Cloudy Services’.  This was an interesting talk that I’ll cover in more depth in a following post.

Talks three to five were also all interesting and will be covered in some more depth in their own posts.  They had the below titles;

Talk 3 was titled ‘HPC in the cloud’

Talk 4 was titled ‘Your security guy knows nothing’

Talk 5 was titled ‘Moving applications to the cloud’

The final talk of the day was titled ‘Integration, are you ready?’  This was however a somewhat misleading title.  This talk was from a cloud ESB vendor and was basically just an advertisement for their product and how great it was for integration. not generally about integration.  Not what you expect from a paid for event.  I’ll not mention their name other than to say they seem to have been inspired by a piece of peer to peer software.. Disappointing.

Overall, despite some organisational hiccups and a lack of vetting of at least one vendors presentation, day one was informative and interesting.  Look out for more detailed follow up posts over the next few days.

K