Securosis

Menu

Research

Dark Reading Column: Cloud Security

Rich July 8, 2009 No Comments

I’ve been a bit erratic with my Dark Reading posts, but finally have a new one up. This one is dedicated to the topic du jour – cloud computing security. The article is The Only Two Reliable Cloud Security Controls and here’s an excerpt: It seems that we in the information technology profession are just as fickle as the fashionistas strutting around Milan or New York. While we aren’t quite as locked to a seasonal schedule, we do have a tendency to fawn over the latest technology advances as if they were changing colors or hem lengths. Some are new, some are old, some are incredibly useful, and others are completely frivolous, but we can’t deny their ability to enter and steer our collective consciousness – at least until the next spring. Take cloud computing. But definitional maturity doesn’t necessarily mean technological maturity, and is always a far cry from security maturity. While we now understand the different flavors and components of the cloud, and even have some relatively good ideas of potential security controls, the diversity of real world offerings and the traditional lack of security prioritization bring all the usual security challenges. The cloud is a collection of various proprietary technologies (mostly) from diverse vendors (mostly), all with different ways of doing things (mostly). Not that I’m complaining: if you work in security and don’t enjoy these kinds of challenges, you should probably consider a different career path. There are really only two reliable security controls – our service level agreements (SLAs) and personal education and knowledge of the cloud implementation. Share:

Share:
Read Post

The Network Security Podcast, Episode 157

Rich July 8, 2009 No Comments

I can’t entirely promise tonight’s episode makes a lot of sense. Martin is back from Kyoto, and seriously jetlagged, and I don’t think I was a whole lot better. Sure, we cover the usual collection of security news, but the episode is filled with non-sequitors and other dissociated transitions. On the other hand, we do stick fairly closely to security related topics. In other words, listen at your own risk. Network Security Podcast, Episode 157, duration: 25:08 Show Notes Microsoft 0day being exploited in the wild. China is as scared of us as we are of them. See? Your mom was right. iPhones are vulnerable over SMS. I highly doubt the iPhone is the only phone with this problem. A “security guard” hacks a hospital’s HVAC system. Then goes to jail for additional stupidity. Good thing most bad guys are dumb, or we’d really be in trouble. More nails in the coffin that holds your Social Security Number. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Data Labels Suck

Rich July 8, 2009 10 Comments

I had a weird discussion with someone who was firmly convinced that you couldn’t possibly have data security without starting with classification and labels. Maybe they read it in a book or something. The thing is, the longer I research and talk to people about data security, the more I think labels and classification are little more than a way to waste time or spend a lot of money on consulting. Here’s why: By the time you manually classify something, it’s something (or someplace) else. Labels aren’t necessarily accurate. Labels don’t change as the data changes. Labels don’t reflect changing value in different business contexts. Labels rarely transfer with data as it moves into different formats. Labels are fine in completely static environments, but how often do you have one of those? The only time I find them remotely useful is in certain databases, as part of the schema. Any data of value moves, transforms, and changes so often that there’s no possible way any static label can be effective as a security control. It stuns me that people still think they can run around and add something to document metadata to properly protect it. That’s why I’m a big fan of DLP, as flawed as it may be. It makes way more sense to me to look inside the box and figure out what something is, instead of assuming the label on the outside is correct. Even the DoD crowd struggles mightily with accurate labels, and it’s deeply embedded into their culture. Never trust a label. It’s a rough guide, not a security control. 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.