You Don’t Own Yourself

Gee, is anyone out there surprised by this? Out of business, Clear may sell customer data. Here’s the thing – when you share your information with a company – any company, they view that information as one of their assets. As far as they are concerned, they own it, not you. This also includes any information any company can collect on you through legal means. Our laws (in the U.S. – it isn’t as bad in Europe and a few other regions) fully support this business model. Think you are protected by a customer agreement or privacy policy? Odds are you aren’t – the vast majority are written carefully so the company can change them pretty much whenever they want. Amazon’s done it, as have most major sites/organizations. If you don’t have a signed contract saying you own your own data, you don’t. This is especially true when companies go out of business – one of the key assets sold to recoup investor losses is customer data. In the case of Clear, this includes biometrics (fingerprint and iris scan) – never mind all the financial data and the background checks they ran. But don’t worry; they’ll only sell it to another registered traveler company. Trust them. Share:

Read Post

Friday Summary, July 10, 2009

************intro*********** And one more time, in case you wanted to take the Project Quant survey and just have not had time: Stop what you are doing and hit the SurveyMonkey. We are at over 70 responses, and will release the raw data when we hit 100. -author******* And now for the week in review: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Favorite Securosis Posts Other Securosis Posts Project Quant Posts Favorite Outside Posts Adrian: Rich: Top News and Posts Wow. This is bad. Who exactly thought it was a good idea to let SMS run as root, exactly? Black Hat presentation on ATM hacking on hold. The evolution of click-fraud on SecurityFix. InfoWorld article highlights the need to review WAF traffic. Cracking a 200 year old cipher. Blog Comment of the Week This week’s best comment comes from x in response to y: Share:

Read Post

Friday Summary: June 26, 2009

Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak at a joint ISSA and ISACA event on cloud computing security down in Austin (for the record, when I travel I never expect it to be hotter AND more humid than Phoenix). I’ll avoid my snarky comments on the development and use of the term “cloud”, since I think we are finally hitting a coherent consensus on what it means (thanks in large part to Chris Hoff). I’ve always thought the fundamental technologies now being lumped into the generic term are extremely important advances, but the marketing just kills me some days. Since I flew in and out the same day, I missed a big chunk of the event before I hopped on stage to host a panel of cloud providers – all of whom are also cloud consumers (mostly on the infrastructure side). One of the most fascinating conclusions of the panel was that if the data or application is critical, don’t send it to a public cloud (private may be okay). Keep in mind, every one of these panelists sells external and/or public cloud services, and not a single one recommended sending something critical to the cloud (hopefully they’re all still employed on Monday). By the end of a good Q&A session, we seemed to come to the following consensus, which aligns with a lot of the other work published on cloud computing security: In general, the cloud is immature. Internal virtualization and SaaS are higher on the maturity end, with PaaS and IaaS (especially public/external) on the bottom. This is consistent with what other groups, like the Cloud Security Alliance, have published. Treat external clouds like any other kind of outsourcing – your SLAs and contracts are your first line of defense. Start with less-critical applications/uses to dip your toes in the water and learn the technologies. Everyone wants standards, especially for interoperability, but you’ll be in the cloud long before the standards are standard. The market forces don’t support independent development of standards, and you should expect standards-by-default to emerge from the larger vendors. If you can easily move from cloud to cloud it forces the providers to compete almost completely on price, so they’ll be dragged in kicking and screaming. What you can expect is that once someone like Amazon becomes the de facto leader in a certain area, competitors will emulate their APIs to steal business, thus creating a standard of sorts. As much as we talk SLAs, a lot of users want some starting templates. Might be some opportunities for some open projects here. I followed the panel with a presentation – “Everything You Need to Know About Cloud Security in 30 Minutes or Less”. Nothing Earth-shattering in it, but the attendees told me it was a good, practical summary for the day. It’s no Hoff’s Frogs, and is more at the tadpole level. I’ll try and get it posted on Monday. And one more time, in case you wanted to take the Project Quant survey and just have not had time: Stop what you are doing and hit the SurveyMonkey. We are over 70 responses, and will release the raw data when we hit 100. -Rich And now for the week in review: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Rich provides a quote on his use of AV for CSO magazine Rich & Martin on the Network Security Podcast #155. Rich hosted a panel and gave a talk at the Austin ISSA/ISACA meeting. Rich was quoted on database security over at Network Computing. Favorite Securosis Posts Rich: Cyberskeptic: Cynicism vs. Skepticism. I’ve been addicted to The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast for a while now, and am looking for more ways to apply scientific principles to the practice of security. Adrian: Rich’s post on How I Use Social Media. I wish I could say I understood my own stance towards these media as well as Rich does. Appropriate use was the very subject Martin McKeay and I discussed one evening during RSA, and neither of us were totally comfortable for various reasons of privacy and paranoia. Good post! Other Securosis Posts You Don’t Own Yourself Database Patches, Ad Nauseum Mike Andrews Releases Free Web and Application Security Series SIEM, Today and Tomorrow Kindle and DRM Content Database Encryption: Fact vs. Fiction Project Quant Posts Project Quant: Deploy Phase Project Quant: Create and Test Deployment Package Project Quant: Test and Approve Phase Favorite Outside Posts Adrian: Adam’s comment in The emergent chaos of fingerprinting at airports post: ‘… additional layers of “no” will expose conditions unimagined by their designers’. This statement describes most software and a great number of the processes I encounter. Brilliantly captured! Rich: Jack Daniel nails one of the biggest problems with security metrics. Remember, the answer is always 42-ish. Top News and Posts TJX down another $9.75M in breach costs. Too bad they grew, like, a few billion dollars after the breach. I think they can pull $9.75M from the “need a penny/leave a penny” trays at the stores. Boaz talks about how Nevada mandates PCI – even for non-credit-card data. I suppose it’s a start, but we’ll have to see the enforcement mechanism. Does this mean companies that collect private data, but not credit card data, have to use PCI assessors? The return of the all-powerful L0pht Heavy Industries. Microsoft releases a Beta of Morro– their free AV. I talked about this once before. Lori MacVittie on clickjacking protection using x-frame-options in Firefox. Once we put up something worth protecting, we’ll have to enable that. German police totally freak out and clear off a street after finding a “nuke” made by two 6-year-olds. Critical Security Patch for Shockwave. Spam ‘King’ pleads guilty. Microsoft AntiVirus Beta Software was announced, and informally reviewed over at Digital Soapbox. Clear out of business, and they’re selling all that biometric data. Blog Comment of the Week This week’s best comment comes from Andrew in response to Science, Skepticism, and Security: I’d love to see skepticism

Read Post

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.