Securosis

Menu

Research

Prepping for RSA

Rich March 28, 2008 No Comments

There’s only one week left until RSA and it’s looking to be a doozy this year. For me that is, not really sure about the entire information security market. I wanted to highlight a couple of things. First, of course, is the Security Blogger’s Meetup. This once private event is now open to any security blogger out there, although if you haven’t signed up by now it’s a little too late. Martin and I will be recording and streaming live audio and video from the event, so stand by for more on that. I’m giving a few talks at RSA, both as a conference speaker and at some outside events. The first is Tuesday morning where I’m presenting on “Understanding and Preventing Data Breaches” at a breakfast sponsored by Vericept. I update this presentation every time I give it, so even if you’ve seen it before there will be some new content in there. I believe that event is totally booked out already. Twice each day (at 11 and 2 on Wednesday/Thursday, still TBD for Tuesday) I’ll be giving a short overview on data breaches and encryption at the WinMagic booth. The title is, “Encryption and Data Breaches, Why, When, and How” although we’re still tweaking it. Encryption is really misused a lot more than we like to admit, so I’ll use some statistics and analysis to help provide direct implementation guidance. As always, it’s my regular objective content you read here day to day, no matter where I’m presenting it. I’m speaking in two track sessions this year, both panels. The first, on Tuesday is “Analyst Anarchy: Wall Street Mashes it up With the Pundits” in Red Room 301 at 1:30 PM. It’s a few industry analysts and myself on a panel moderated by a Wall Street analyst. I did this last year, and never know what to expect; hopefully we’ll have some hard hitting questions to answer. The second session, Thursday morning in the same room, is with many of my colleagues from the Security Catalyst Community, including Big Bad Mike Rothman, Securosis Contributor David Mortman, Ron Woe er, and my Network Security Podcast co-host Martin McKeay. Here’s the description: Avoiding the Security “Groundhog Day” It’s deja vu all over again. As an industry, we’re rolling out widgets to solve the same old problems – and it’s not working. In this session, a panel of experts debates the history of security for clues on building tomorrow’s defenses. Together, we’ll learn from the past how to build a safer tomorrow. Given the stakes, no security practitioner can afford to make the same mistakes again. We plan on killing some sacred cows- the description might seem bland, but no way will Rothman and I let you fall asleep. Other than that I’ll be at all the usual social events. My schedule is pretty much booked up with clients, but feel free to track me down anyway, especially if you like to pay for drinks (you know us cheap-ass consultants). Email is best, rmogull@securosis.com. I do have some time reserved to wander the show floor and see what’s going on out there that I don’t know about. It should be fun, and I’ll be posting as much as I can. Martin and I will be posting short podcasts every day up at NetSecPodcast.com with our summary of events. Hope to see you there… 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.