Securosis

Menu

Research

Mildly Off Topic: How I Use Social Media

Rich June 24, 2009 3 Comments

This post doesn’t have a whole heck of a lot to do with security, but it’s a topic I suspect all of us think about from time to time. With the continuing explosion of social media outlets, I’ve noticed myself (and most of you) bouncing around from app to app as we figure out which ones work best in which contexts, and which are even worth our time. The biggest challenge I’ve found is compartmentalization – which tools to use for which jobs, and how to manage my personal and professional online lives. Again, I think it’s something we all struggle with, but for those of us who use social media heavily as part of our jobs it’s probably a little more challenging. Here’s my perspective as an industry analyst. I really believe I’d manage these differently if I were in a different line of work (or with a different analyst firm), so I won’t claim my approach is the right one for anyone else. Blogs: As an analyst, I use the Securosis blog as my primary mechanism for publishing research. I also think it’s important to develop a relationship (platonic, of course) with readers, which is why I mix a little personal content and context in with the straighter security posts. For blogging I deliberately use an informal tone which I strip out of content that is later incorporated into research reports and such. Our informal guidelines are that while not everything needs to be directly security related, over 90% of the content should be dedicated to our coverage areas. Of our research content, 80% should be focused on helping practitioners get their jobs done, with the remaining 20% split between news and more forward-looking thought leadership. We strive for a minimum of 1 post a day, with 3 “meaty” content posts each week, a handful of “drive-by” quick responses/news items a week, and our Friday summary. Yes, we really do think about this stuff that much. I don’t currently have a personal blog outside of the site due to time, and (as we’ll get to) Twitter takes care of a lot of that. I also read a ton of other blogs, and try to comment and link to them as much as possible. I also consider the blog the most powerful peer-review mechanism for our research on the face of the planet. It’s the best way to be open and transparent about what we do, while getting important feedback and perspectives we never could otherwise. As an analyst, it’s absolutely invaluable. Podcasts: My primary podcast is co-hosting The Network Security Podcast with Martin McKeay. This isn’t a Securosis-specific thing, and I try not to drag too much of my work onto the show. Adrian and I plan on doing some more podcasts/webcasts, but those will be oriented towards specific topics and filling out our other content. Running a regular podcast is darn hard. I like the NetSecPodcast since it’s more informal and we get to talk about any off the wall topic (generally in the security realm) that comes to mind. Twitter: After the blog, this is my single biggest outlet. I initially started using Twitter to communicate with a small community of friends and colleagues in the Mac and security communities, but as Twitter exploded I’ve had to change how I approach it. Initially I described Twitter as a water cooler where I could hang out and chat informally with friends, but with over 1200 followers (many of them PR, AR, and other marketing types) I’ve had to be a little more careful about what I say. Generally, I’m still very informal on Twitter and fully mix in professional and personal content. I use it to share and interact with friends, highlight some content (but not too much, I hate people who use Twitter only to spam their blog posts), and push out my half-baked ideas. I’ve also found Twitter especially powerful to get instant feedback on things, or to rally people towards something interesting. I really enjoy being so informal on Twitter, and hope I don’t have to tighten things down any more because too many professional types are watching. It’s my favorite way to participate in the wider online community, develop new collaboration, toss out random ideas, and just stay connected with the outside world as I hide in my home office day after day. The bad side is I’ve had to reduce using it to organize meeting up with people (too many random followers in any given area), and some PR types use it to spy on my personal life (not too many; some of them are also in the friends category, but it’s happened). The @Securosis Twitter account is designed for the corporate “voice”, while the @rmogull account is my personal one. I tend to follow people I either know or who contribute positively to the community dialog. I only follow a few corporate accounts, and I can’t possibly follow everyone who follows me. I follow people who are interesting and I want to read, rather than using it as a mass-networking tool. With @rmogull there’s absolutely no split between my personal and professional lives; it’s for whatever I’m doing at the moment, but I’m always aware of who is watching. LinkedIn: I keep going back and forth on how I use LinkedIn, and recently decided to use it as my main business networking tool. To keep the network under control I generally only accept invitations from people I’ve directly connected with at some point. I feel bad turning down all the random connections, but I see social networks as having power based on quality rather than quantity (that’s what groups are for). Thus I tend to turn down connections from people who randomly saw a presentation or listened to a podcast. It isn’t an ego thing; it’s that, for me, this is a tool to keep track of my professional network, and I’ve never been one of those business card collectors. Facebook:

Share:
Read Post

Database Patches, Ad Nauseum

Adrian Lane June 24, 2009 3 Comments

When I lived in the Bay Area, each Spring we had the same news repeat. Like clockwork, every year, year after year, and often by the same reporter. The story was the huge, looming danger of forest or grass fires. And the basis for the story was either because the rainfall totals were above normal and had created lots of fuel, or that the below-average rainfall had dried everything out. For Northern California, there really are no other outcomes. Pretty much they were saying you’re screwed no matter what. And no one on their editorial staff considered this contradiction because there it was, every spring, and I guess they had nothing else all that interesting to report. I am reminded of this every time I read posts about how Oracle databases remain un-patched for one, or *gasp* two whole patch cycles. Every few months I read this story, and every few months I shake my head. Sure, as a security practitioner I know it’s important to patch, and bad things may happen if I don’t. But any DBA who has been around for more than a couple years has gone through the experience of applying a patch and causing the database to crash hard. Now you get to spend the next 24-48 sleepless hours rolling back the patches, restoring the data, and trying to get the entire system working again. And it only cost you a few days of your time, a few thousand lost hours of employee productivity, and professional ridicule. Try telling a database admin how urgent it is to apply a security patch when they have gone through that personal hell! A dead database tells no tales, and patching it becomes a moot point. And yet the story every year is the same: you’re really in danger if you don’t patch your databases. But practitioners know they could be just as screwed if they do patch. Most don’t need tools to tell them how screwed they are – they know. Dead databases are a real, live (well, not so ‘live’), noisy threat, whereas hackers and data theft are considerably more abstract concepts. DBA’s and IT will demand that database patches, urgent or otherwise, are tested prior to deployment. That means a one or two cycle lag in most cases. If the company is really worried about security, they will implement DAM or firewalls; not because it is necessarily the right choice, but so they don’t have to change the patching cycles and increase the risk of IT instability. It’s not that we will never see a change in the patch process, but in all likelihood we will continue to see this story every year, year after year, ad nauseum. 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.