Securosis

Menu

Research

Adrian Lane Joining Securosis

Rich June 11, 2008 6 Comments

Earlier today I had a bit of a shock when our fearless editor Chris Pepper congratulated me on our 500th post. I started this blog just under two years ago to test the waters of this whole new media thing. Much to my surprise, almost exactly a year after that I took the plunge, quit a heck of a good job, and turned Securosis into a company, not just a place for my random rants. Over that time Chris joined me as editor, and David Mortman as an occasional contributor. Today we’re taking the next big step as Adrian Lane joins me on the business side of Securosis, L.L.C. as our Senior Security Strategist. That’s right, I just officially doubled the size of our full time staff. Adrian is the former CTO of IPLocks and has a long history in the security industry as both a CTO and VP of Engineering for various companies. We met about four years ago on one of my analyst gigs, and it didn’t take long to realize that despite our different backgrounds, we shared many elements of a common vision of information centric security. Adrian’s been a frequent commenter on this blog since the start, and lives only a few miles from me just outside of Phoenix. When I found out he was on the market and thinking of moving into consulting, there was no way in heck I was going to pass on the opportunity. He has deep technical skills and an intuitive understanding of markets, product development, and the big picture. For our existing clients, Adrian is available as a resource on current contracts and for new engagements. He’ll be a regular contributor to the blog and we’re working on some new, exciting content. He previously blogged over here if you’d like to check out his other content. Prepare yourselves for the flood of juicy information-centric goodness! And did I mention he’s friends with Hoff? Yeah, we should probably hold that against him. Share:

Share:
Read Post

There Are No Safe Web Sites

Rich June 11, 2008 1 Comment

I spend a reasonable amount of time writing security articles for the consumer audience over at TidBITS, never mind this site. When I talk about browser security, one of my top tips is to avoid risky behavior and “those” sites. Although that’s pretty standard advice, it’s become a load of bollocks, and I can no longer give it in good conscience. I spend a lot of time these days focusing on web application security and talking with some of the leading web app researchers like Rnake and Jeremiah Grossman. It’s increasingly obvious that a combination of cross site scripting and some more nefarious web app attacks are destroying the concept of “safe” websites. We’ve seen everything from banks, to security vendors, to advertising servers, to major providers like Google and Yahoo, fall victim to attacks where malicious content is embedded or executed in the context of the trusted sites. PayPal may make a big deal about extended validation digital certificates and colorful anti-phishing banners, yet an EV cert doesn’t do squat if the bad guy sneaks in a little malicious JavaScript and you’ve now run the nasty code in a trusted context. Today, Dark Reading ran an article on some major security sites with cross site scripting vulnerabilities. Combined with a few beers with Rsnake last week, it pushed me over the edge. These days, it’s hard to call any site trusted. Thats one reason I’ve shifted to my multi-browser/multi-operating system strategy. Realistically, I can’t tell everyone in the world to adopt my level of paranoia. In part because as bad as things are, most people aren’t suffering real damage because of it. That said, it strongly emphasizes the need not only to keep your system up to date, but to at least split browsers for financial vs. regular sites. It also strongly points to the need to change the fundamental trust model of browsers, and to push us in the security industry towards solutions like ADMP and browser session virtualization (or better yet, a combination of both). This isn’t a “the world is ending” post. It’s merely a recognition that “safe” browsing is only a partial security control these days, and one that’s losing effectiveness. We need to think about adopting new strategies before we start seeing more mass exploitation leveraging commonly trusted sites. One that transcends current browser trust models, which do little but make life easier for the smart attackers who take advantage of them. Oh yeah, and stop wasting money on EV certs. Share:

Share:
Read Post

The Rumor Is True … I’m Joining Rich At Securosis.

Adrian Lane June 11, 2008 5 Comments

Believe it or not, I’m going to work with Rich Mogull at Securosis. Worse yet, I’m excited about it! On the outside looking in, Rich and I have dissimilar backgrounds. I have been working in product development and IT over the last ten years, and Rich has been an analyst and market strategist. But during the four years I have known Rich, we have shown an uncanny similarity in our views on data security across the board. We are both tech guys at the core, and have independently arrived at the same ideas and conclusions about security and what it will look like in the years to come. As our backgrounds are both diverse and complementary, my joining Securosis will facilitate taking on additional clients and slowly expand the types of services provided. I will contribute to strategy, evaluations, architecture, and end-user guidance, as well as projects that involve more “hands-on” assistance. I will also be making contributions to the Blog on a regular basis as well. Anyway, I am really looking forward to working with Rich on a daily basis. And yes, before Amrit Williams has a chance to ask, I am a card carrying NAHMLA (North American Hoff-Mogull Love Association) member. We may even sell Polo Shirts on the web site. 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.