Should EMC Buy Neoscale?

Uh Oh. According to this article in CRN, encryption vendor Neoscale is insolvent and no longer selling maintenance contracts. NeoScale has stopped selling maintenance contracts for its data encryption appliance, effectively killing the line, while exploring “strategic alternatives” in the wake of the bankruptcy of storage VAR MTI, one of its largest solution providers. That “strategic alternative” could be an acquisition of all or part of the company by storage and security giant EMC (NYSE:EMC), or even Hewlett-Packard (NYSE:HPQ), according to former employees. While the encryption market isn’t nearly as big as most of the world wants you to believe, there should be plenty of business to support a company like Neoscale. My only conclusion is that there were serious execution errors, especially an apparently misplaced reliance on a single channel partner. I’ve heard nothing but good things about the Neoscale product line, but upcoming challenges would have forced them to sell to a larger platform vendor within 2 years. Most users I’ve talked with want their tape encryption integrated into their backup infrastructure (preferably at the drive level). The tape vendors have been quite vocal about their future plans, even if current implementations are extremely limited and harder to implement than Neoscale or Decru. Many mid-sized organizations also have difficulty in justifying the cost of an inline appliance. On the SAN/NAS front, where they also have products, there’s basically no market for inline encryption. The security benefits of encrypting a SAN are minimal; it’s only something you want to do if you’re worried about physical loss of the drives (a real risk, but not one all organizations face). That leaves key management- the mystical market all sorts of pundits and vendors are betting on as the next big thing, yet no one is, you know, actually buying. Neoscale’s key management appliance looks extremely interesting but it’s not something most organizations are interested in today. I’m very skeptical that there will ever be a stand-alone market for uber-key management to rule over everything from backup tape encryption to email encryption. I do, however, strongly believe that there are great opportunities for key management, just not as a stand-alone product. We’ll need key management for all that tape encryption, email encryption, database encryption, and even the occasional SAN or NAS encryption, but it needs to be integrated into that product line. Each kind of encryption solves a different business and security problem, and the key management needs to melt into the infrastructure and be tuned for that specific infrastructure. You’ll use one box to manage your storage encryption, another to manage database encryption, and another for email (or whatever). Some larger organizations might have another box hanging out on the back end for key archiving, but that’s about it. No one wants to manage keys, they just want it built into whatever encryption they’re doing at the time. The best opportunities for external key management will be in areas like database encryption, where the encryption engine is built into the various database products but there are no provisions for central management in a heterogenous environment. In those cases the external product will manage both the keys and the encryption implementation, leaving only the raw encryption to the native engine. But back to Neoscale. The Decru acquisition by NetApp hurt Neoscale badly, since large organizations prefer to work with a more established vendor when product functionality is close enough (which it is). Neoscale needed to sell, but either asked for too much or couldn’t find an interested partner. I’ve heard it was a combination of both. As moderate as the storage encryption market is today, Neoscale clearly screwed up execution so significantly that they are effectively out of business, if CRN is accurate. I’m not sure how they could do that and it raises material questions for any acquirer. EMC, HP, and a few others could clearly benefit from the Neoscale technology and integrate the key management across their product lines. It’s better than RSA’s key management (unless RSA has updated it) and well suited for integrating with their current offerings. EMC gains the added benefit of off the shelf datacenter encryption. I’d also consider Cisco, Seagate, IBM, and a few others as potential buyers. But the real question isn’t the technology, it’s the company. Neoscale’s prospects for rescue now depend entirely on the books- such a sudden demise raises very serious concerns for any buyer. If the financial side makes sense, I think EMC could do well to buy Neoscale and their recent acquisition string shows they have a strong interest in data security. I hope the technology survives- it’s good stuff, but it’s up to the accountants and Neoscale’s Board now… (Rob Newby alerted me to this development, but since he’s a nice guy and a competitor he didn’t feel it appropriate to comment himself). Share:

Read Post

Follow Up: DBAs Should *Not* Own Database Activity Monitoring

Based on the comments in my last post on DAM, especially the one from Mike Spiers, I want to make it clear that if you are performing Database Activity Monitoring it should be owned and managed by security. It’s fine for DBAs to manage regular database auditing (unless they’re the auditing target), but DAM is a security-specific tool whose primary benefits are to create separation of duties (from the DBAs) and to give security insight into the database. You might need DBAs to get it integrated with the database and confirm performance, but that’s where their involvement stops. 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.