Data And Application Security Will Drive Most Security Growth For The Next 3-5 Years

I’m working on a project where I’m having to codify some of my thoughts on the rise of the data security markets, and I’m lumping in application security since I consider the line between those two disciplines far grayer than we usually admit. This is one of those great projects where I get to reuse a lot of material I’ve already posted (like the Data Security Lifecycle), and finally codify some things I’ve been talking and thinking about that I haven’t had the time to post yet. Here’s the introduction; designed to explain the rising importance of data security markets to a business audience. The last line is a prediction I’ll highlight for the attention-deficit crowd: Data and business application security will drive most of the new growth of the security market over the next 3-5 years. Nothing Earth-shattering, and probably common sense to many of you, but you might find this good fodder to help explain the rise of data security to your non-security folks. At some point I need to convert some of this into real numbers, if I can. The Rise Of Data Security Over the past few years we”ve seen a dramatic shift in the electronic threats faced by business and government, but only minor shifts in how organizations protect themselves. In the early days of the Internet, most attackers were mere experimenters or vandals, exploring connected systems and leaving behind the virtual equivalent of graffiti. The most damaging attacks tended to be worms or viruses that disrupted the ability to do business without materially affecting enterprise assets on the back end. The information security industry responded with tools focused on easing this immediate pain, securing the electronic perimeter and filtering out this bad traffic. The practice of “Information security” degraded to mere “network security” with a dash of “host security”. Products such as firewalls, IDS, and antivirus came to dominate the security market. This was a logical response to the disruptive risks at the time- attackers focused on damage and disruption using the network as the primary avenue of attack, and the industry responded with tools and technologies to keep systems running and carry out business. Beginning around five years ago the main threats began developing away from the attacks of the 1990s and focusing on profitable crime as opposed to mindless vandalism, but our approach to security failed to respond in kind. True, profitable cybercrime always existed, but it only became more common than experimentation and vandalism relatively recently. This is a natural evolution driven by three factors: Increased skill among attackers and a sufficient talent pool of technically proficient individuals willing to break the law. A growing volume of financially valuable data online- primarily personal data and corporate intellectual property. Development of criminal markets to facilitate conversion of this data to money. Bad guys now have effective skills, something to steal, and a place to sell it. Most of this crime occurs under the covers, outside the public eye. In many cases it’s because enterprises lack the fundamental capability to detect these attacks. In other cases, as opposed to a business outage that”s difficult to hide, organizations see no reason to publicize that they”ve become victims of crime, potentially putting their partners and customers at risk. Network security is very successful at limiting the risks it was developed for, but the environment has changed, and new tools and techniques are needed. These failures have been highlighted over the past 2 years by a combination of regulatory changes and a series of dramatic breaches. Since the passing of the California breach notification law in 2003 (SB 1386) there have been hundreds of reported disclosures of private information- over 500 in 2006 and 2007. The Sarbanes-Oxley act in the United States and similar laws in other nations have highlighted the importance of securing corporate financial data. The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) requires companies to better protect credit card data to limit financial fraud. Over 34 U.S. states and Japan have passed breach notification laws similar to California’s, with more nations expected to follow (Australia is in active debate). Other notable laws (mostly in the US) include HIPAA for healthcare, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act for financial services. On the breach front, companies such as SAP and Oracle are ensnared in major industrial espionage lawsuits (Oracle vs. SAP) and nary a day passes without a new headline of supposed Chinese hackers stealing state and industrial secrets from western nations. The combination of the increase in cybercrime, changing regulations, and public exposures is increasing the attention and resources dedicated to data security. Over the next three years it’s expected that data security issues (and the related application security) will account for over 60% of new enterprise security spending- this includes spending on new technologies, and excludes maintenance of existing technologies such as firewalls and antivirus, which account for most current security costs. Data and business application security will drive most of the new growth of the security market over the next 3-5 years. 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.