Securosis

Menu

Research

Vormetric Encrypts IBM Databases. Sort Of.

Rich October 19, 2007 2 Comments

IBM and Vormetric announces a deal yesterday where… well, I’ll let them say it: LAS VEGAS, NV – (MARKET WIRE) – 10/18/2007 – Vormetric, Inc. today announced that it has partnered with IBM to deliver database encryption capabilities for DB2 on Windows, Linux and Unix. IBM will offer Vormetric’s highly acclaimed data security solution as part of its data server portfolio, addressing customer demand for increased protection of sensitive data. This new capability is delivered in IBM Database Encryption Expert, initially available for the new DB2 9.5 “Viper 2” data server. First of all, I need to say I’m a big fan of Vormetric. They were the first distributed encryption product on the market and watching what they’ve done has really helped me evolve my thinking on enterprise class encryption. That said, I have a huge nit to pick with them over database encryption. Mostly because they don’t do it, at least as most think about database encryption. Vormetric is a file encryption product. A good one, with some cool additional features like user and application level access and encryption controls. but they don’t do field-level database encryption. Remember, I think encrypting the database files, especially when used with Database Activity Monitoring, is an extremely effective security control. But it doesn’t replace field level encryption, not in the long run. The role of file level encryption for databases is media protection first, with a little separation of duties second. It protects that database on disk and in backups. It also limits who can access the raw database files, but offers no protection for authorized users and administrators in the database. The role of field (column) level encryption is to provide separation of duties within the database. You can protect sensitive fields from those who have database access, including protection against database administrators. Two kinds of encryption. Two different roles. Two different problems solved. This is where I get annoyed with Vormetric’s (and now IBM’s) marketing. It confuses customers and tries to position file level encryption for databases as superior, instead of admitting that it solves a different problem. They seem to refuse to admit that field-level encryption plays a valid role in protecting database data. I realize it’s the job of their marketing to best position their product, but it’s my job to cut through the marketing and give you practical advice. Here it is: Vormetric does file encryption, which is a good option for media protection. Field level encryption is better for enforcing separation of duties, but since it’s hard to implement on certain systems you may need to start with file-level (preferably used with DAM) to buy you the time to migrate to field level. If you don’t need separation of duties, you don’t need field-level encryption, and file encryption is fine. I don’t like marketing that could place customers at risk or is designed to confuse the market, even when I like the product being marketed. 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.