More SCADA News- Water Plant Hacked

I’m linking to Jim at DCS Security- he has the best SCADA background in the blog community and hopefully he’ll dig into this particular hack a little more: The more we transition process control networks to the same tech we run the Internet on, and the same Windows and *nix systems we run our homes and businesses on, the more incidents like this we’ll see… (my original post on SCADA) Share:

Read Post

E-voting: Democracy is Dead. Dead and Rotted. Unless we Stop this Insanity

I don’t know a single security expert that supports any current implementation of electronic voting. It’s too late for this election, but if we don’t take action before 2008, we might as well kiss what’s left of democracy in the United States goodbye. We’re not just disenfranchising a small segment of the population; we’re disenfranchising our entire society. Yes, I really think it’s that bad. At least it will be, if we don’t do something… …and yes- I plan on doing something, but after this election cycle when we can leverage a new Congress, not lame ducks. Share:

Read Post

Former CEO of CA Gets 12 Years in Jail

I don’t cover industry issues here, but this is just too good to pass up. Sanjay Kumar, former CEO of CA, is sentenced to 12 years and $8M in fines. U.S. District Judge Leo Glasser said though Kumar was not a violent criminal, he “did violence to the legitimate expectations of shareholders.” Prosecutor Eric Komitee said Kumar deserved severe punishment as the architect of an elaborate coverup that was “the most brazen in the modern era of corporate crime.” … After the FBI began investigating the company in 2002, Kumar orchestrated a cover-up that involved lying under oath about the “35-day month” and other frauds and trying to buy the silence of a potential witness, authorities said. Oops. Share:

Read Post

I Admit it: on E-Voting Hyperbole and Optimism;—Also, Diebold Fights HBO

Now there’s something I need to admit here. Hopefully it won’t scare you courageous readers away. You see, as much as I (and fortunately, my employer) consider myself a security expert it wasn’t exactly my major. Nope, wasn’t computer science either. History, you ask? With a bit of molecular biology? Yep, you got it. So when Pete Lindstrom reminds me that it’s not like voter fraud is new to US elections I have to admit he’s right, and I knew it. Heck, to this day rumors still float around that Joe Kennedy may have been a bit of a proactive campaigner for his son. Ballot stuffing and voter intimidation are fine American traditions with a long and- well respectable isn’t the right word, but a long and something- history. I doubt there’s been a single election in the United States, on any level, from kindergarden class president to the President, that’s escaped some degree of shenanigans. So I will admit that despite my FUD and hand waving, the country won’t come to an end nest Tuesday leaving us all in some whacked out version of Mad Max where we mount staple guns to our Saturns. (Actually, I drive a Ford Escape… hybrid. I did used to live in Boulder and all). The thing is, as cynical, pessimistic, and paranoid as I am after a lifetime of working security and rescue and seeing the worst in human behavior, I still cling to some shred of patriotic optimism that this country is something more. More than what? Just more. I grew up on 4th of July parades, Boy Scouts, and little American flags on our car antennas. I’ve been in some sort of continuous volunteer (or paid) service to this country since I was 16. I’m proud that, on occasion, I still get to wear a uniform (not military- rescue stuff). Thus the hyperbole of my previous post is only the result of a deep desire to see this country live up to its potential. If we all keep rolling over and accepting things like voter fraud, there really won’t be anything left but voter fraud. Fortunately there are plenty of indications that, in this case, we not only have a chance to mitigate the problem, but enough people are becoming aware that we have a problem to incite action. Us security experts do have an important role to play in exposing inherent flaws in current electronic voting systems. This is full disclosure at its very best. E-voting itself isn’t dangerous; just the way we’re doing it now. And all you non-security experts have the responsibility to ask questions and implement change. Kind of the whole democracy thing and all, since it really isn’t dead yet. Just resting. But I hope Pete was kidding and is also worried, because e-voting is different. As with all information technology, it supports a scope and scale of fraud far beyond ballot stuffing or registering dead Civil War veterans. One programming change or glitch can swing elections on entire systems in a nearly undetectable way. A few pre-programmed memory cards can disenfranchise entire districts. If someone is stupid enough to connect these things to the Internet, one good worm or hacker could hand the Presidency to a 19 year old Diebold technician. All those scenarios are very possible. It doesn’t take a conspiracy theory. Election fraud has always existed; now we’re enabling it on the scale of the Internet. But the Boy Scout in me truly believes it won’t happen. Well, more than once. At least not on a national scale. Hopefully. As long as we get off our asses. And yes, keep watching this space. On a separate but related note it looks like Diebold is turning into the Court Jester of voter fraud. According to Slashdot, Diebold is insisting HBO not air a documentary questioning the integrity of voting machines. I’m not the biggest fan of using ROI to justify security expenses, but Diebold probably has a great case that the cost of threatening, suing, and defending themselves from allegations of security flaws is greater than the cost of actually fixing their damn product. Seriously guys, a couple of good security engineers are probably cheaper than all your lawyers and PR flacks. I can refer a few if you want. I just saw the article and it looks like “Hacking Democracy” airs tonight. Knowing HBO it will run like, every hour, for a few months, so I’m off to set the TiVo… Share:

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.