1 The 2006 ResNet Security Survey ResNet Applied Research Group David Futey Kevin Guidry December 15, 2006

2 Introduction Background References ResNet Applied Research Group (RARG) 2006 ResNet Survey development Placing the survey results in context 2006 ResNet Security Survey overview

3 Background Continuing evaluation of security Security Vulnerability Survey Assess readiness for Fall respondents 2005 ResNet Survey Security component 224 respondents 2006 Security Survey 101 respondents

4 References RARG research Get Connected: An Approach to ResNet Services EDUCAUSE Quarterly, No. 4, ResNet Survey Results: A Baseline Analysis EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, bulletin Issue 20,

5 ResNet Applied Research Group History Formed August 2004 Volunteer group within ResNet organization Present & Past (*) Members Carol Anderer, University of Delaware *Kevin Bullard, UNC-Greensboro David Futey, ResNet Applied Research Group *Jan Gerenstein, Northern Illinois University Kevin Guidry, Sewanee: University of the South Clifton Pee, Azusa Pacific University Erica Spencer, Baylor University

6 Assistance Question creation and review Pilot survey Support received from: ResNet Listserv members Security Task Force: Effective Practices Group Internet2/SALSA-NetAuth 2006 Survey Development

7 Survey Results in Context

8 Top “Current” Challenges from 2005 ResNet Survey Question 77

9 Top “Future” Challenges from 2005 ResNet Survey Question 78

10 Network Registration Tools 2004 ResNet Vulnerability Survey 85% use a tool to register student computers 2005 ResNet Survey 74% use a tool to register student computers 2006 ResNet Security Survey 83% use a tool to register student computers

11 Student Machine Vulnerability Evaluation 2004 ResNet Vulnerability Survey 69% use a tool to evaluate student's computer 2005 ResNet Survey 71% use a tool to evaluate student computers 2006 ResNet Security Survey 60% use a tool to passively evaluate student computers 42% use a tool to actively evaluate student computers

12 QOS 2005 ResNet Survey Practicing packetshaping or Quality Of Service (Y=84%) 2006 ResNet Security Survey Practicing packetshaping or Quality Of Service (Y=86%)

13 Key Points of 2006 ResNet Security Survey

14 Who is responsible for setting and enforcing policies? Questions 6-7 (2006) Number of respondents

15 How is policy decided? A vast majority of respondents (94%) indicated that their institution blocks, filters, or otherwise restricts network services for security purposes. (Q.8, N=101) (85% in 2005 ResNet Survey) A majority of respondents, (78%) either entirely or in part, base their decision to filter, block, or restrict on published best practices from professional security groups. (Q.14, N=95) Service License Agreements and Internal IT Security Expertise were the other predominate factors, besides the published best practices, that impacted the decision to block, filter, or restrict. (Q.14a)

16 Policy enacted.. In the event of an unexpected security incident, Central IT (50%), Security (25%), and Networking (18%) had authority to request immediate action.(Q.13, N=95) Central IT (52%), Networking (18%), and Security (17%) are primarily responsible for determining what services, ports or protocols are blocked, filtered, or restricted.(Q.12, N=95)

17 What services are blocked? Sampling from Question 9-11 Questions 9-11 looked at what services were blocked if the traffic was inbound to the ResNet network, outbound from the ResNet network, or remained internal to the ResNet Network. Please review the questions for specifics. Non-established services coming into the ResNet network are blocked (Q.9, 48%, N=90) Services with high percentages of not being blocked include FTP, Instant messaging, IRC, VoIP, IPSec, gaming, and console gaming. SMTP and Windows File and Print Sharing had high percentages of 'Always' being blocked, inbound and outbound

18 Does your institution require protective software be installed and is that software provided by the institution? Questions 22 & 23 (2006) Number of respondents, N=101

19 Wireless A majority of respondents, 74%, do not allow students to install personally-owned access points. (Q.31, N=98) (60% in 2005 ResNet Survey) Wireless installations in residences are (Q.32, N=97) : Not provided (37%) (46% in 2005 ResNet Survey) Part of overall institution wireless network (47%) Separate from institution wireless network (13%) SSID naming convention and 802.1x were primary security measures used for institutionally managed wireless Nearly (1/5) of respondents provided no security measures

20 Let's Hear From You Suggestions, questions, and comments can be directed to the RARG at: