Securosis

Menu

Research

State Department Data Theft

Adrian Lane October 31, 2008 No Comments

‘This story has it all … theft of State Department data, forged credit cards, multi-government branch conspiracy, and murdered suspects. Sounds like an afternoon soap opera more than a Stolen Passport Data story from the Washington Post: … On March 25, D.C. police officers on a routine patrol stopped a car on the suspicion that its windows were excessively tinted, an apparent violation of city law. Smelling marijuana, the officers searched the car and discovered that the 24-year-old driver was carrying 21 credit cards not in his name and printouts of eight passport applications – and that four of the names on the passport applications matched the names on four of the credit cards … But the investigation was hampered because Harris was fatally shot while getting into his car in Northeast Washington on April 17, just days after appearing in court on fraud charges and shortly after he agreed to cooperate in the probe … The passport applicant database, given the type, quality and quantity of data contained therein, is like winning the identity theft lottery. The State Department has some ‘splainin to do! Share:

Share:
Read Post

Friday Summary: Happy Halloween!

Rich October 31, 2008 No Comments

Man, I love Halloween; it is the ultimate hacker holiday. When else do we have an excuse to build home animatronics, scare the pants off people, and pretend to be someone else (outside of a penetration test)? Last year I built something I called “The Hanging Man” using a microcontroller, some windshield wiper motors, wireless sensors, my (basic) home automation system, and streaming audio. When trick or treaters walked up to the house it would trigger a sensor, black out the front of the house, spotlight a hooded pirate hanging from a gallows, push out some audio of a screaming guy, drop him 15 feet so he was right over the visitors, and then slowly hoist him back up for the next group. This year Adrian and I were pretty slammed so I not only didn’t build anything new, I barely managed to pull the old stuff out. Heck, both of us have big parties, but due to overlapping travel we can’t even make it to each other’s events. But next year… next year I have plans. Diabolical plans… It was a relatively quiet week on the security front, with no major disasters or announcements. On the election front we’re already hearing reports of various voting machine failures, and some states are looking at pulling them altogether. Personally, I stick with mail in ballots. This year election day will be a bit surreal since I’ll be in Moscow for a speaking engagement, and likely won’t stay up to see who won (or whose lawyers start attacking first). While I’m in Moscow, Adrian will be speaking on the Information Centric Security Lifecycle in Chicago for the Information Security Magazine/TechTarget Information Security Decisions conference. I’m a bit sad I won’t be up there to see everyone, but it was impossible to turn down a trip to Moscow. So don’t forget to vote, please don’t hack the vote, and hopefully I won’t be kidnapped by the Russian Mafia next week… Webcasts, Podcasts, and Conferences: The Network Security Podcast, Episode 125. David Mortman joins us to talk about his new gig at Debix and a recent study they released on identity theft and children. I posted a pre-release draft of my next Dark Reading column The Security Pro’s Guide to Thriving in a Down Economy up on the Hackers for Charity Informer site. This is a subscription site many of us are supporting with exclusive and early content to help generate funds for HFC. And by posting, I helped feed a child in an underdeveloped country for a month… Favorite Securosis Posts: Rich: The Five Stage of Cloud Computing Grief. Seriously, this cloud stuff is getting over the top. Adrian: Seems that the people behind Arizona proposition 200 should be hauled in front of the FTC for misleading advertising; this is the most grotesque example I have seen on a state ballot measure. Favorite Outside Posts: Adrian: The Hoff has been on a roll lately, but the post that caught my attention was his discussion of the security and compliance shell game of avoidance through SaaS and ‘Cloud’ services. I mean, it doesn’t count if my sensitive data is in the cloud, right? Rich: Martin asks a simple and profound question. What the hell are you doing with those credit card numbers in the first place?!? (He used nicer words, but you get the point). Top News: What a shock, there’s a worm taking advantage of last week’s RPC flaw in Microsoft Windows. ICANN is going after a fraud-supporting domain name registrar in Estonia. Heck, I think we should go after criminal hosts more often. Maryland and Virginia are dropping electronic voting and going back to paper. Amrit on the 10th anniversary of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA has done more to stifle our rights than to actually protect content. On the positive side, the DMCA has actually somewhat helped website operators and hosts by offering some protection when they host infringing materials, since they have to respond to takedown notices, but aren’t otherwise penalized. A Facebook worm uses Google to get around Facebook security. Most of these sites are a mess because preventing user generated content from abusing other users is a very hard problem. Even when they bother to try. More voting machine idiocy. And here. Look folks, it isn’t like we don’t know how to manage these things. Walk into any casino and you’ll see highly secure interactive systems. Can you imagine how much fun Vegas would be if they treated the slots like we treat voting machines? Blog Comment of the Week: Dryden on The Five Stages of Cloud Computing Grief: My version: Denial: We can”t secure the cloud. Anger: Why the f&*k is my CIO telling me to secure the cloud? Bargaining: Can you please just tell me how you think we can secure the cloud?Depression: They”re deploying the cloud.Acceptance: We can”t secure the cloud. Disclaimer: “Cloud” can be replace with virtually (pun intended) any technology. See you all in 2 weeks… 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.