FireStarter: In Search of… Solutions

A holy grail of technology marketing is to define a product category. Back in the olden days of 1998, it was all about establishing a new category with interesting technology and going public, usually on nothing more than a crapload of VC money and a few million eyeballs. Then everything changed. The bubble popped, money dried up, and all those companies selling new products in new categories went bust. IT shops became very risk averse – only spending money on established technologies. But that created a problem, in that analysts had to sell more tetragon reports, which requires new product categories. My annoyance with these product categories hit a fever pitch last week when LogLogic announced a price decrease on their SEM (security event management) technology. Huh? Seems they dusted off the SEM acronym after years on the shelf. I thought Gartner had decreed that it was SIEM (security information and event management) when it got too confusing between the folks who did SEM and SIM (security information management) – all really selling the same stuff. Furthermore, log management is now part of that deal. Do they dare argue with the great all-knowing oracles in Stamford? Not that this expanded category definition is controversial. We’ve even posted that log management or SIEM isn’t a stand-alone market – rather it’s the underlying storage platform for a number of applications for security and ops professionals. The lesson most of us forget is that end users don’t care what you call the technology, as long as you solve their problems. Maybe the project is compliance automation or incident investigation. SIEM/Log Management can be used for both. IT-GRC solutions can fit into the first bucket, while forensic toolkits fit into the latter. Which of course confuses the hell out of most end users. What do they buy? And don’t all the vendors say they do everything anyway? The security industry – along with the rest of technology – focuses on products, not solutions. It’s about the latest flashing light in the new version of the magic box. Sure, most of the enterprise companies send their folks to solution selling school. Most tech company websites have a “solution” area, but in reality it’s always an afterthought. Let’s consider the NAC (network access control) market as another example. Lots of folks think Cisco killed the NAC market by making big promises and not delivering. But ultimately, end users didn’t care about NAC – they cared about endpoint assessment and controlling guest access, and they solved those problems through other means. Again, end users need to solve problems. They want answers and solutions, but they get a steady diet of features and spiels on why one box is better than the competitors. They get answers to questions they don’t ask. No wonder most end users turn off their phones and don’t respond to email. Vendors spin their wheels talking about product category leadership. Who cares? Actually, Rich reminded me that the procurement people seem to care. We all know how hard it is to get a vendor in the wrong quadrant (or heaven forbid no quadrant at all) through the procurement gauntlet. Although the users are also to blame for accepting this behavior, and the dumb and lazy ones even like it. They wait for a vendor to come in and tell them what’s important, as opposed to figuring out what problem needs to be solved. From where I sit, the buying dynamic is borked, although it’s probably just as screwy in other sectors. So what to do? That’s a good question, and I’d love your opinion. Should vendors run the risk of not knowing where they fit by not identifying with a set of product categories – and instead focus on solutions and customer problems? Should users stop sending out RFPs for SIEM/Log Management, when what they are really buying is compliance automation? Can vendors stop reacting to competitive speeds and feeds? Can users actually think more strategically, rather than whether to embrace the latest shiny upgrade from the default vendor? I guess what I’m asking is whether it’s possible to change the buying dynamic. Or should I just quiet down, accept the way the game is played, and try to like it? Share:

Read Post

On “Security engineering: broken promises”

Recently Michael Zalewski posted a rant about the state of security engineering in Security engineering: broken promises. I posted my initial response to this on Twitter: “Great explanation of the issue, zero thoughts on solutions. Bored now.” I still stand behind that response. As a manager, problems without potential solutions are useless to me. The solutions don’t need to be deep technical solutions – sometimes the solution is to monitor or audit. Sometimes the solution is to do nothing, accept the risk, and make a note of it in case it comes up in conversation or an audit. But as I’ve mulled over this post over the last two weeks, there is more going on here. There seems to be a prevalent attitude among security practitioners in general, and researchers in particular, that if they can break something it’s completely useless. There’s an old Yiddish saying that loosely translates to: “To a thief there is no lock.” We’re never going to have perfect security, so picking on something for being imperfect is just disingenuous and grandstanding. We need to be asking ourselves a pragmatic question: Does this technology or process make things better? Just about any researcher will tell you that Microsoft’s SDL has made their lives much harder, and they have to work a lot more to break stuff. Is it perfect? No, of course not! But is it a lot better then it used to be for all involved (except the researchers Microsoft created the SDL to impede)? You betcha. Are CWE and CVSS perfect? No! Were they intended to be? No! But again, they’re a lot better than what we had before. Can we improve them? Yes, CVSS continues to go through revisions and will get better. As will the Risk Management frameworks. So really, while bitching is fun and all, if you’re not offering improvements, you’re just making things worse. Share:

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.