Securosis

Menu

Research

The Future Of Information-Centric Security: From Data Loss Prevention to Content Monitoring and Prot

Rich March 3, 2008 6 Comments

Over the past couple of weeks Mike Rothman has been posting his Security Incites, a series of predictions for 2008. Prediction number 9 was titled, “Get the Jumper Cables for DLP”, and I, of course, have to disagree with at least some of it. There are three reasons I spend a lot of time talking about DLP so much here on the blog. First, I think it’s one of the least understood security technologies on the market, yet one with high value when used properly. There’s a lot of confusion out there, and I think I provide more value by clearing that up than by talking about more established technologies. Second, DLP was one of the first technologies I covered as an analyst, long before there was an established market. I have something like 6 years invested in it, which is longer than most of the people working at most of the vendors. Can’t let that go to waste. Finally, it’s because I do believe that what we now call DLP with form the core of a significant chunk of our information-centric (data) security moving forward. Rather than pick through Mike’s prediction I’m going to take this opportunity to start laying out the evolution of DLP so you can make your own decisions as to where we’re headed. Since I’m still recovering from my shoulder surgery and only running at about 60-70%, this series will consists of a bunch of shorter posts rather than my usual long-winded Hoffesque diatribes. Sidebar: Why DLP is a bad name: When I first started covering this market we had a hard time deciding what to call it. I even once had a conference call with the two leading competitors to try and hash out a term. I picked Content Monitoring and Filtering, which I now use to describe the second phase of the technology, While it wasn’t sexy, I felt that the tools offered a lot more than just “data leak prevention”, and that such a generic term could be easily co-opted by other data protection technologies, like encryption. For once I was right- everything from USB port blockers to digital rights management calls itself DLP these days, confusing customers, while the “DLP” solutions have added discovery, classification, and other capabilities well beyond mere leak prevention. A Three Phase Evolution I believe we’ll see three phases in the evolution of this technology over the next 5-7 years. While the technology itself will evolve more quickly than that, the realities of the market, new technology adoption, and deployment practicalities mean we won’t see complete, mainstream deployments until the latter part of that timeframe. Don’t read that the wrong way- most, probably all of you will deploy much of DLP/CMP over the next 5 years, but only the early mainstream will achieve the full vision I’m describing by then. At that point your organization will be more of a limiting factor than the technology. If you want it. it will be there. The three phases we’re seeing are: Data Loss Prevention: Although most people call today’s solutions DLP, the leading solutions have all moved well beyond this phase of the market. I still have to use the term so people know what I’m talking about, but the top solutions are already in the next phase. DLP solutions are characterized by protecting predominantly data in motion (including USB transfers). These are true “leak/loss prevention” only solutions. Content analysis techniques tend to be more basic, sometimes limited to just regular expressions/rules combined with a little context. Content Monitoring and Filtering: In this phase we see more robust solutions; with protection for data in motion, at rest, and in use. The tools are more widespread, covering all major channels from network, to endpoints and storage. Content analysis techniques are more advanced, with (at a minimum) regular expressions/rules, partial document matching, and database fingerprinting (exact data matching). Content Monitoring and Protection: In this final phase (okay, it’s just as far out as I’m comfortable predicting) the technology becomes ubiquitous is user productivity applications and communications. Enterprise DRM is integrated and content is classified at the point of creation. Advanced content analysis techniques become more effective, better allowing us to classify more complex data, taking into account business context. Data is protected through its lifecycle. Here’s an easier way to think about it: DLP is about preventing basic leaks of easy to identify sensitive content. With CMF, we start protecting a wider range of content, and putting controls in place before it’s already trying to fly out the door. With CMP, we have cradle to grave content classification and protection. This is just a top level overview. Over the next several posts I’ll detail more of the specifics of each phase. I consider this complementary to my series and paper on Understanding and Selecting a DLP Solution. That series focused on helping you pick and deploy a tool today, while this series will help you navigate the waters as the tools and market evolve and you make upgrade and deployment decisions. Hmm… I smell another paper coming… < p style=”text-align:right;font-size:10px;”>Technorati Tags: CMP, Data Loss Prevention, Database Security, DLP, Content Monitoring and Protection 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.