Good Thing for Backups! But Why Can’t They…?

My work day had a bit of an unplanned interruption today. I shut down my computer to head from the home office to a nice quiet coffee shop for a change of scenery and a little time off the Internet to get some research done. When I booted up in the coffee shop I noticed that all my personal settings were gone for some reason. All my data was there, but every single preference in every single application (including registration keys) were missing. I looked in my preferences folder in the Library (a Mac thing, way better than a registry) and everything seemed to be in place, but anytime I opened an app it would overwrite the old preferences with a new preference file. Oops. Repairing disk permissions (a Mac thing, not so cool) and some other routine fixes didn’t work, so I scooted home to my backups. I copied over my 2-day-old preference files from a backup and that seemed to do the trick for most apps and my desktop/startup items. A few things are still hinky, but most of it’s normal. The one bad problem was my blog software (Ecto). Ecto seemed to lose all settings even after the fix, including all my drafts for future posts. Big bummer. A half hour later I was able to dig up some of the other settings files, replace those from 2 days ago, and everything seems fine. Backups are good. Nightly backups are better, and I think I’ll be even more diligent from now on. That said, this incident raised some questions in my mind. Even assuming I had a complete backup from last night, or a current differential, I was still looking at an uncomfortable loss of data from just the morning. I’m realizing that on any average day I produce a fair volume of data throughout the day. From calendar entries to emails to blog posts. Losing that hourly data won’t kill me, but would still be seriously annoying. Also, it was a VERY manual process to restore my preferences. I’d like to see more continuous backup software; and not just backups of documents/photos, but of settings and other system information, all with a granular restore. Time Machine in the next OS X looks like a good step in this direction, and I hope Apple includes settings in the backup schemes. I’ve played with a few Windows system restore settings, and while those do a good job of restoring your system you tend to lose a lot of the hourly data. That might be motivation to keep data on a separate partition from system software and settings to better enable granular restores. All of which is a real pain for us laptop users. As it is I own AT LEAST one external hard drive for every PC/Mac, not counting my small NAS. That’s a lot of drives and a lot of manual backups, and I don’t backup on the road. Eventually I’d like to have all my home systems automagically backup on the network every night, but that has to wait I can move to gig Ethernet and get a bigger, faster NAS. This is well beyond the average home user’s capabilities. As our entire lives and family histories move to fairly unreliable PCs (and Macs; they lose hard drives too) we could be destroying our social records. Despite constant warnings I still can’t get ANY of my family members to reliably backup their digital photos. I look forward to the day where no PC or Mac ships without an extra drive just to backup data. To operating systems that scream and kick their feet until you agree to backup to magnetic or optical media. To the day where all of this is transparent to the average user. Maybe System Restore and Time Machine will solve the problem. But I doubt it. There has to be a better way to preserve our digital lives. (sorry for the less-than-insightful rant, but I’ve been on a backup kick lately. We really don’t pay enough attention to backups in the consumer world- even us hard core geek consumers) Share:

Read Post

Bad Math- No ROI for You

To follow up on metrics, Amrit pointed out in the comments that we can’t use totally imaginary numbers. There’s some myth out there that assumes risk models can track directly to ROI models. I’ll save the full rant for later, but here’s a little math. Back in science days we talk about significant digits. Basically, every number has a certain number of significant digits. 22.1 has 3, while 22.11 has 4 significant digits. When multiplying or whatever, you use the least number of significant digits in the result. Since one number has greater precision than the other, the result can’t be any more precise than the least precise number. (I’m a history major, work with me). We like to multiply in risk assessments a lot, but most of those numbers are guesses. So here are my two formulae for risk management: A number of no significant digits X another number of no significant digits = a number of no significants To put it another way: A guess X a guess = a wild-assed guess Amrit’s right- fake numbers are bad if you treat them as numbers. The math just don’t work. When I suggest you use structured qualitative metrics I don’t mean you should treat them like they are anything other than imaginary numbers. They’re still valuable, but you’d better not drop them into some BS ROI formula. Share:

Read Post

Things Not To Do If You’re A Security Company

Guidance Software sells one of the best computer forensics tools on the market. Their largest client base is law enforcement and other types who perform investigations. According to Security Fix, they were hacked and the FTC found them negligent. Something about not taking basic security precautions, and keeping data they shouldn’t have. I don’t know, I get lost in details. Customers should now feel confident, since Guidance has to undergo two years of mandatory security audits. Oops. Too bad, it’s a cool product. At least, once they detected the breach a few weeks after it happened, they had trained investigators and appropriate tools to realize they were screwed. 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.