Friday Summary: June 25, 2010

Thursday was totally shot. I wasted the entire day standing around. Eight hours and twenty nine minutes standing in line. I got in line at 5:50 AM and did not get back in my car until 3:00. Yep, it was Apple iPhone day. And I did not have a reservation. If you like people-watching, this is about as much fun as you will ever have. There were some 700 people at the mall by 6:30 AM. Close to me in line were two women with infants, and they were there all day. There were small children with their grandparents. The guy next to me had a shattered foot from a recent car accident. There were people calling their bosses, not to call in sick, but to tell them they were taking the day off to buy iPhones. These people were freakin’ dedicated. I have not stood in line for any length of time since 1983, trying to get a good seat for Return of the Jedi. I have not stood in line without knowing whether I would get what I was there for since the Tutankhamun exhibit in, what, 1979? This is not something I do, but I wanted the phone. And actually I did not want the ‘phone’, but everything else. I wanted a (mostly) secure way to get email on the road. I wanted a mobile device to surf the web. I wanted a way to find Thai food. I wanted a better camera. I wanted a way to get directions when traveling. I wanted to have music with me. I wanted to access files in Dropbox whenever and wherever. And the BlackBerry did none of these thing well, if at all. Plus, as a device, the BlackBerry is a poorly-engineered turd in comparison. I was just done with it, and I wanted the iPhone, and I wanted it before Black Hat. So there I stood, for eight and a half hours, holding a place in line for a guy with a broken foot so he could sit on the mall couch. I have to say the Apple employees were great. Every 30 minutes they brought us water and Starbucks coffee. Every 15 minutes they brought snacks. They sent employees into the line to chat. They brought sample phones and sat with us, in line, to demo the differences. They thanked us for sticking it out. They asked us if we needed anything, holding places in line and bringing food. They took care of every part of the transaction, including dealing with AT&T and their inability to process credit cards without dialing up Equifax. Great products and great service … it’s like I was transported back in time to an age when those things mattered. All in all I am glad I waited it out and got my phone. Camera is amazing. Display is crystal-clear. The phone does not have the hideous ‘pops’ in audio that blow my ears out, or randomly shut off for 20 seconds like the BlackBerry. And the FaceTime feature works really well, for what it’s worth. Would I do it again? Would I stand there for 8.5 hours? Ask me in another 25 years. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Chris Pepper gives us The Sun Also Sets. Time to kick Oracle a little. What a bloody fiasco! Adrian’s Dark Reading post on Open Source Database Security Issues. Rich on the Network Security Podcast, number 202. Favorite Securosis Posts Rich: Understanding and Selecting SIEM/LM: Deployment Models. Adrian and Mike do a great job of diagramming out the different deployment models. Really clear. Mike Rothman: The Open Source Database Security Project. Adrian needs to flex his database security kung-fu, and we aren’t going to get in his way. Help him out – it’s a great project. Adrian Lane: Trustwave Acquires Breach. I have not seen anyone openly discuss the apparent conflicts of interest, nor how this changes PCI compliance, the way Rich has captured it. Other Securosis Posts Understanding and Selecting a Tokenization Solution: Introduction. Are Secure Web Apps Possible? Incite 6/23/2010: Competitive Fire. FireStarter: Is Full Disk Encryption without Pre-Boot Secure?. Return of the Security Start-up? Friday Summary: June 18, 2009. Doing Well by Doing Good (and Protecting the Kids). Favorite Outside Posts Rich: Why the Disclosure Debate Doesn’t Matter. Dennis nails it. Bad guys don’t give a rat’s ass what we think of disclosure, they still have plenty to own us with. Mike Rothman: Security Intelligence: Defining APT Campaigns Good analysis of what’s involved in detecting a multi-faceted complex intrusion from Mike Cloppert. If you have a great forensics person who is good at this, pay them more. Those skills are gold. Adrian Lane: Anti-WAF Software Only Security Zealotry. Only because Jeremiah wrote this before I did. Project Quant Posts DB Quant: Manage Metrics, Part 1, Configuration Management. DB Quant: Protection Metrics, Part 4, Web Application Firewalls. DB Quant: Protect Metrics, Part 3, Masking. DB Quant: Protect Metrics, Part 2, Encryption. DB Quant: Protect Metrics, Part 1, DAM Blocking. NSO Quant: Manage IDS/IPS Process Map. DB Quant: Monitoring Metrics, Part 2, Audit. DB Quant: Monitoring Metrics, Part 1, DAM. NSO Quant: Manage Firewall Process Map. DB Quant: Secure Metrics, Part 4, Shield. DB Quant: Secure Metrics, Part 3, Restrict Access. DB Quant: Secure Metrics, Part 2, Configure. Research Reports and Presentations White Paper: Endpoint Security Fundamentals. Understanding and Selecting a Database Encryption or Tokenization Solution. Low Hanging Fruit: Quick Wins with Data Loss Prevention. Report: Database Assessment. Top News and Posts Firefox & Opera updates. Improving HTTPS Side Channel Attacks Google wins Viacom suit. MS plans 10 new patches. SharePoint and IE are the big ones. Cyber Thieves Rob Treasury Credit Union. Ukrainian arrested in India on TJX data-theft charges. These incidents go on for years, not days or even months. iPhone PIN code worthless. Rich published on this a long time ago, but automounting on Ubuntu is new and disturbing. Previously people believed you had to jailbreak

Read Post

DB Quant: Manage Metrics, Part 3, Change Management

Believe it or not, we are down to our final metrics post! We’re going to close things out today with change management – something that isn’t specific to security, but comes with security implications. Our change management process is: Monitor Schedule and Prepare Alter Verify Document Monitor Variable Notes Time to gather change requests Time to evaluate each change request for security implications Schedule and Prepare Variable Notes Time to map request to specific actions/scripts Time to update change management system Time to schedule downtime/maintenance window and communicate Alter Variable Notes Time to implement change request Verify Variable Notes Time to test and verify changes Document Variable Notes Time to document changes Time to archive scripts or backups Other Posts in Project Quant for Database Security An Open Metrics Model for Database Security: Project Quant for Databases Database Security: Process Framework Database Security: Planning Database Security: Planning, Part 2 Database Security: Discover and Assess Databases, Apps, Data Database Security: Patch Database Security: Configure Database Security: Restrict Access Database Security: Shield Database Security: Database Activity Monitoring Database Security: Audit Database Security: Database Activity Blocking Database Security: Encryption Database Security: Data Masking Database Security: Web App Firewalls Database Security: Configuration Management Database Security: Patch Management Database Security: Change Management DB Quant: Planning Metrics, Part 1 DB Quant: Planning Metrics, Part 2 DB Quant: Planning Metrics, Part 3 DB Quant: Planning Metrics, Part 4 DB Quant: Discovery Metrics, Part 1, Enumerate Databases DB Quant: Discovery Metrics, Part 2, Identify Apps DB Quant: Discovery Metrics, Part 3, Config and Vulnerability Assessment DB Quant: Discovery Metrics, Part 4, Access and Authorization DB Quant: Secure Metrics, Part 1, Patch DB Quant: Secure Metrics, Part 2, Configure DB Quant: Secure Metrics, Part 3, Restrict Access DB Quant: Monitoring Metrics: Part 1, Database Activity Monitoring DB Quant: Monitoring Metrics, Part 2, Audit DB Quant: Protect Metrics, Part 1, DAM Blocking DB Quant: Protect Metrics, Part 2, Encryption DB Quant: Protect Metrics, Part 3, Masking DB Quant: Protect Metrics, Part 4, WAF 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.