Friday Summary- December 4, 2009

I had one of those weird moments today where I found an unrelated part of my life unexpectedly influenced by my martial arts background. I was asked to critique a research paper by someone I haven’t worked with before. Without going into details, this particular paper had a fatal flaw. It opened with a negative position, then attempted to justify the positive. It started defensively, and in the process lent credence to the opposing view, as opposed to strengthening the author’s position. In other words, it started with, “here’s what you say about X, and why I think Y” as opposed to, “here is position Y, and why it is correct and X is wrong”. In advising the author, I remembered a lesson I learned when I first started teaching martial arts (traditional taekwondo). I was giving a class on unarmed restraint techniques, which adapted some experiences in physical security to martial arts. They’re similar to police restraint techniques, but adjusted for not having a firearm (police techniques involve protecting the firearm so the bad guy can’t grab it while being restrained) or handcuffs. In the class were two of my instructors, helping me learn to teach. I started by saying something like, “I’m no expert”, and one of them walked off right then and there. At a break he came back and asked if I knew why he had left. He told me to never start a lesson or debate by disqualifying myself as an authority. I essentially told the class they shouldn’t listen to me, because I didn’t know what the frack I was talking about. Self-deprecating humor, applied appropriately, is fine – but never start from a position of weakness. I was trying to be humble, but instead destroyed any reason someone would want to learn from me. Over time I expanded this lesson to “Never start with a negative when your goal is to prove a positive.” Essentially, that places the opposing view ahead of yours and forces you into a defensive position. If I’m writing research to show the value of DLP, I sure as heck better not start it with all the criticisms against DLP. It’s kind of like a fight. If you allow the opponent to control the ring and dictate the pace, your odds of winning are much lower. You can never win on defense alone. One important corollary is that you also shouldn’t expect someone to agree with your position based on your credentials alone. I get seriously annoyed by other analysts/pundits who make pronouncements, yet never back them with evidence. Start from a position of strength (assuming you are the expert), but also lead the reader, with evidence and logic, to reach your conclusions for themselves. Most black belts are crappy martial artists and teachers… if their techniques suck, find another one. Respect still needs to be earned. Enough with the preachy stuff… On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian’s Dark Reading article on What IBM’s Acquisition of Guardium Really Means. Rich was quoted on Scottrade regarding Rapid7. Adrian was quoted by Information Security Magazine, PC Magazine, The Boston Globe, Network World, and Dark Reading on IBM’s acquisition of Guardium. Rich was picked up a bunch on the security additions, including this mention at eWeek. Episode 175 of The Network Security Podcast. Favorite Securosis Posts Rich: Adrian on Top Questions Regarding Guardium Acquisition Adrian: Rich’s post on Coming Soon: Adding Real Time Security Scanning for All Links. Mort: Quick Thoughts on the Point of Sale Security Fail Lawsuit Meier: Quick Thoughts on the Point of Sale Security Fail Lawsuit – I’ve personally found a few PoS with card readers wide open at Mom ‘n’ Pop shops. Other Securosis Posts Sign Up To Drop Comment Moderation Cloud Risk Thoughts: Deciding What, When, and How to Move to the Cloud Serious Flaw in Clientless SSL VPNs & Clientless SSL VPN Redux Christmas Wish Guardium Acquired by IBM We Give Thanks M86 Acquires Finjan Microsoft IE Issues Reported Health Net Asked to Explain Disclosure Delay Project Quant for Databases: Project Quant: Database Security Planning, Part 2 (part 3) Project Quant: Database Security Planning (part 2) Project Quant: Database Security Process Framework (part 1) Favorite Outside Posts Rich: What the Black Screen of Death Story Says About Journalism. Serious fail on the part of PrevX – they should be ashamed, and have just destroyed any reason for people to trust them. Adrian: It’s Homeric in length for a blog post, but Hoff’s post The Cloud in Context is a great overview of Cloud computing. Mort: Real Security Is Threat-Centric. Not seeing this change anytime soon, alas. Meier: Used ATM Machines for sale on Craigslist. My new weekend hobby! Pepper: Recommendation: Disable Invisible Flash. Flash cookies are evil. Rich #2: This is a must-read article on how few breaches really get reported. The winning quote: “Of the thousands of cases that we’ve investigated, the public knows about a handful,” said Shawn Henry, assistant director for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Cyber Division. “There are million-dollar cases that nobody knows about.” Top News and Posts Google launches public DNS resolvers. I use EasyDNS for this myself, being a bit paranoid about the power Google is accumulating. But they do have an excellent privacy policy for this service. Researcher busts into Twitter via SSL reneg hole And they said it couldn’t be done! 79 million records exposed in government breaches. We were named one of the top analyst blogs. Two security tools for analyzing relationships in social networks. More on the Rybolov Information Security Management Model. Layer8: BSOFH: the roar of the packets, the smell of the cloud. True stupidity: woman calls in a fake bomb threat to delay a plane. From the TSA blog. Ray Wagner from Gartner on personal security at work. Hackers attempt to take $1.3M from small business account. If you are in security, and don’t understand the ACH system, it’s time to educate yourself. Users aren’t the weakest link if your security sucks. Cool password research from Microsoft. Blog Comment of the Week This week’s best comment comes from David in response to Quick Thoughts on the Point of Sale

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.