DLP/ILP/Extrusion Prevention < CMF < CMP < SILM: A Short Evolution of Data Loss Prevention

As I mentioned just a couple days ago, there’s a bit of debate and confusion surrounding leak/loss prevention technologies and what the heck to call these things. I did some thinking on the problem and here’s one way of looking at things. This is just a bit of brainstorming in public and I’m sure it will change over time. Today we have Data Leak/Loss Prevention (DLP)/Information Leak/Loss Prevention (ILP)/Extrusion Prevention all describing essentially the same technology. I used to call this CMF: Content Monitoring and Filtering, but I realized that’s probably a better description for stage two of these products. Data Loss Prevention (DLP) product are predominantly network based, or at least have their roots as network products, although a few endpoint products have appeared lately. They monitor communications traffic for policy violations and generate alerts or (in some cases) block inappropriate use of content. Detection techniques are content-aware; meaning the actual content is scanned using a variety of techniques such as rules-based (regex for credit card numbers) or partial document matching. DLP can easily be a feature of other products, as Hoff constantly likes to emphasize. The key to DLP is this content awareness and some sort of central policies. Content Monitoring and Filtering (CMF) is where the leading products are today, and where the rest are headed. It includes what I described as DLP but goes further. CMF products include data at rest features, like content discovery, and may include an endpoint agent. You have to have full network capabilities to be a CMF product. Endpoint only products aren’t able to protect both managed and unmanaged systems, since you can’t guarantee that everyone has the agent. CMF integrates with email for filtering/quarantine/encryption/etc., and at a minimum can block email and web/FTP traffic, while monitoring all communications channels. There is a dedicated policy management and workflow interface; it can’t just be an extra widget on a UTM box or endpoint suite. Content Monitoring and Protection (CMP), which I shamelessly stole from Hoff, is where leading products should be within 1-2 years, 3 on the outside. It’s the full expression of where this is headed- in the middle sits a dedicated policy, management, and workflow server with agents or some other integration to fully protect data in motion, at rest, and in use. All components are fully content aware using advanced techniques that are more than just regular expressions or basic cyclical hashing (for partial document matching). The CMP product doesn’t need to “own” any of the monitoring and enforcement points; it’s the central management for protecting content and we should expect to see a lot of partnership and maybe even an open standard or two that will get ignored. Endpoint agents are integrated with Enterprise Digital Rights Management (EDRM), finally helping that boondoggle of a technology actually work in the real world. It also bridges some of the protections applied from structured to unstructured data. There’s a lot more to say on this, but for space’s sake we’ll save it for another day. Secure Information Lifecycle Management (SILM) is probably nothing more than a fantasy. It would be the ultimate integration of CMP with ILM; bridging security and information management seamlessly. It’s a security plane layered with ILM. The level of complexity to pull this off is astounding, and while it might happen in the distant future I’m not holding my breath. I just don’t see the security guys and the data management folks getting together tightly enough to present a unified buying center, thus no unified product. These are just some thoughts I’m playing with, but I see this as a way of distinguishing DLP “features” from dedicated solutions, while showing how the technology will evolve. It’s the content awareness that’s really key, and if that can’t keep up with our needs none of this will go anywhere. Share:

Read Post

Sorry Cutaway, Hacking is Still For Fun

In a recent post at Security Ripcord, Cutaway says: Let me elaborate on the second topic a little more. The days of hacking for fun are over. I think it is safe to say that nearly everybody has come to that realization (there may be a few holdouts in upper management but they will not last long). This means that the stakes are higher for the good guys and the bad guys. Sure, the stakes might be higher, but don’t always equate hacking with security research. Hacking is fun. Research is work. Sometimes they overlap. Let’s not take the sense of wonder out of hacking, which is an exercise in exploration, just because the term also applies to the occasional transgressions of bad guys. Of course I know Cutaway knows this (Mystery Challenge and all), but like any good blogger I’m taking something out of context to have a little fun and make a point. 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.