Securosis

Menu

Research

The Security Mindset

Rich November 29, 2006 3 Comments

A few months ago I picked up a Western Digital external hard drive at Costco since my MacBook’s internal drive was a bit stuffed with digital photos. The WD drive is a pretty nice USB drive and really portable. The problem? I started having some intermittent failures on the drive. Since this is where I now keep my wedding photos (backed up somewhere else, of course) I decided to return it before it totally died on me. I got the replacement drive, packed up the original, and heading to the shipping store… … where I realized I hadn’t wiped the drive. While it’s just photos, and none of them are of an embarrassing nature, I still don’t relish the idea of seeing them “enhanced” and posted on MySpace. Lucky for me I use a Mac and safe erasing is an integral part of Disk Utility. I ran the program, clicked the security options button, and chose the 7 times overwrite option. 7x might be overkill for some non-sensitive photos, but I figured it would be a good test to see how long it takes. The answer is about 7 hours for a 120 GB USB 2.0 external drive. For the record. Oh well, I guess it isn’t going out today. But I’m darn glad I remembered to wipe the drive before shipping it back. I’d really hate to see any pictures of our cat show up on some sick kitty-porn site. And I’m really glad Apple makes it so easy. Microsoft also has secure formatting options, but generally you need a third party tool (or write your own script) to get the same degree of security. Unless the data is encrypted, without overwriting it’s pretty likely someone can recover it. Then again, smashing is probably faster. But Western Digital might not appreciate a smashed return. I’d probably lose my deposit. (edited 9/10 to add disk size of 120 GB) Share:

Share:
Read Post

Security Mindset: You Won’t Think of Everything

Rich November 29, 2006 No Comments

I’m out on the road this week, right now spending two days at a strategic planning session with a large energy company. This is the kind of trip I actually enjoy- working with an end-user on strategic issues at the executive level where they really want to solve the problem. The theme of the day is major disruptions- how to stay in business in the face of massive disasters that go well beyond disaster recovery. I’m just one of about a dozen outsiders brought in to try and get people thinking in new directions. Someone saw one of my presentations on responding to Katrina (I’m a reservist on a federal team) and thought a little on the ground experience might liven the discussions. I’m more than happy to stay at a nice hotel and tell rescue war stories while drinking fine wine (as opposed to pissing off my friends telling the same damn story for the 50th time after too many drinks). One of the presentations on crisis communications was particularly interesting. No, not ham radios, but how do governments and organizations communicate with the public during a disaster? The academic they brought in had some very compelling examples ranging from nuclear power accidents, to the air quality in lower Manhattan after 9/11, to chemical spills, to product recalls. One message emerged load and clear- liars always get caught… eventually. But they’ll probably get away with it in the short term. I asked him directly if he knows of any successful cases where a corporation or government attempted to spin a situation through obfuscation or outright deception and actually got away with it. His answer? In the long term- no. In the short term- yes, but the long term impact is usually magnified when the truth emerges. The most successful crisis communications? Honesty, transparency, and openness (even if spun a little). Seems like a pretty valuable lesson to us in security. Any security professional will eventually deal with a breach, or on the vendor side with a bad vulnerability. The more we try and cover something up the worse it is for us in the long run. A few quick examples? Look at Cisco and the Mike Lynn situation. I hear there are some job openings at Ohio State. Choicepoint swapped CISOs after their breach, even though it wasn’t an IT security failure. We can go on and on- can anyone think of a single security breach or vulnerability disclosure where the organization involved didn’t get caught in a lie or cover up? Same goes for vendors exaggerating product capabilities. I know one that recently changed their entire management team because the old CEO thought he could fool the market just long enough to get bought. Too bad the board didn’t buy it. He’s out of a job (but I’m sure he got a nice package). The bad news is you can get away with it in the short term, but I’m not sure how that really helps you as an individual, or your company, if eventually you’ll get fired. You see lying is like crack- a short term high, but in the end you’ll end up naked in front of a dumpster with a crack pipe in an uncomfortable orifice. I suppose that’s okay if it’s what you’re into. Personally, I’ll stick to the truth and head downstairs for some free wine. (P.S.- the exception to all of this, of course, is politicians. I think it’s either because we’re lazy as voters, or because they all eventually smell the same. Probably a little of both) Share:

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Research

view all

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

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.