Securosis

Research

Incite 12/1/10: Pay It Forward

I used to be a real TV head. Before the kids showed up, the Boss and I would spend a good deal of every Saturday watching the 5 or 10 shows we recorded on the VCR (old school, baby). Comedies, dramas, the whole ball of wax. Then priorities shifted and I had less and less time for TV. The Boss still watches a few shows, but I’m usually along for the ride, catching up on my reading while some drivel is on the boob tube (Praise iPad!). In fact, the only show I religiously watch is The Biggest Loser. I’ve mentioned before that, as someone for whom weight control is a daily battle, I just love to see the transformations – both mental and physical – those contestants undergo in a very short time. Actually this season has been pretty aggravating, but more because the show seems to have become more about the game than about the transformation. I stopped watching Survivor about 8 years ago when it became all about the money. Now I fear The Biggest Loser is similarly jumping the shark. But I do like the theme of the show this year: Pay It Forward. Each eliminated contestant seems to have found a calling educating the masses about the importance of better nutrition and exercise. It’s great to see. We have a similar problem in security. Our security education disconnect is less obvious than watching a 400 pounder move from place to place, but the masses are similarly uneducated about privacy and security issues. And we don’t have a forum like a TV show to help folks understand. So what to do? We need to attack this at the grassroots level. We need to both grow the number of security professionals out there working to protect our flanks, and educate the masses to stop hurting themselves. And McGruff the Cyber-crime dog isn’t going to do it. On the first topic, we need to provide a good career path for technical folks, and help them become successful as security professionals. I’m a bit skeptical of college kids getting out with a degree and/or security certification, thinking they are ready to protect much of anything. But folks with a strong technical/sysadmin background can and should be given a path to the misery that is being a security professional. That’s why I like the InfoSec Mentors program being driven by Marisa Fagan and many others. If you’ve got some cycles (and even if you don’t), working with someone local and helping them get on and stay on the path to security is a worthwhile thing. We also need to teach our community about security. Yes, things like HacKid are one vehicle, but we need to do more faster. And that means working with your community groups and school systems to build some kind of educational program to provide this training. There isn’t a lot of good material out there to base a program on, so that’s the short-term disconnect (and opportunity). But now that it’s time to start thinking about New Year’s Resolutions, maybe some of us can band together and bootstrap a simple curriculum and get to work. Perhaps a model like Khan Academy would work. I don’t know, but every time I hear from a friend that they are having the Geek Squad rebuild their machine because they got pwned, I know I’m not doing enough. It’s time to Pay it Forward, folks. And that will be one of my priorities for 2011. Photo credits: “Pay It Forward” originally uploaded by Adriana Gomez Incite 4 U You can’t outsource innovation: Bejtlich goes on a bit of a tirade in this post, basically begging us to Stop Killing Innovation. He uses an interview with Vinnie Mirchandani to pinpoint issues with CIO reporting structures and the desire to save money now, often at the expense of innovation. What Richard (and Vinnie) are talking about here is a management issue, pure and simple. In the face of economic uncertainty, many teams curl up into the fetal position and wait for the storm to pass. Those folks expect to ride productivity gains from IT automation, and they should. What they don’t expect is new services and/or innovation and/or out-of-the-box thinking. Innovation has nothing to do with outsourcing – it’s about culture. If folks looking to change the system are shot, guess what? They stop trying. So your culture either embraces innovation or it doesn’t. What you do operationally (in terms of automation and saving money) is besides the point. – MR It’s time: It’s time for a new browser. Some of you are thinking “WTF? We have Chrome, Safari, IE, Firefox, and a half dozen other browsers … why do I need or want another one”? Because all those browsers were built with a specific agenda in the minds of their creators. Most want to provide as much functionality as possible, and support as many fancy services as they can. It’s time for an idiot-proof secure browser. When I see stupid S$!& like this, which is basically an attempt to ignore the fundamental issue, I realize that this nonsense needs to stop. We need an unapologetically secure browser. We need a browser that does not have 100% functionality all the time. Sure, it won’t be widely used, because it would piss off most people by breaking the Internet with limited support for the ubiquitous Flash and JavaScript ‘technologies’. But I just want a secure browser to do specific transactions – like on-line banking. Maybe outfitted to corporate security standards (wink-wink). Could we fork Firefox to make this happen? Yeah, maybe. But I am not sure that it could be effectively retrofitted to thwart CSRF and XSS. The team here at Securosis follows Rich’s Macworld Super-safe Web Browsing guide, but keeping separate VMWare partitions for specific tasks is a little beyond the average user. This kind of security must come from the user side – web sites, security tool vendors, and security service

Share:
Read Post

Are You off the Grid?

I got email from friends this week about a web site that creeped them out. It’s called Spokeo, and it provides a Google-like search on personal information. Rather than creeped out, I was fascinated. Not to look for other people, but to see what the search found for me. I hate mentioning it as I am not endorsing the web site or service, but I can’t help my fascination at seeing what personal data has been collected and aggregated on me. I actually have a larger Internet fingerprint than I expected! This tool is kinda like Firesheep for personal information: the data is already out there, this site just shoves in your face how easy it is for anyone to collect basic stuff about you. But the friends who directed me to the site were genuinely worried that criminals would use the site to locate single women in their late 70s in order to create a robbery target list. Seriously … that explicit. I told them they needed counseling as they probably had ‘mommy’ issues. I find this ridiculous because in Arizona we call have ‘Sun City’ – the age-restricted community where everyone seems to be over 70, with some of the lowest crime rates in the county. I make a big deal about personal data because I believe no good deed goes unpunished. Shared personal information will sooner or later be used against you. My personal phobia is that an insurance company will write an automated crawler for personal data, consider something I do ‘risky’, and quadruple my rate for fun. Yeah, I probably need counseling as well. The paranoid part of me wanted to know how much more I had exposed myself. I looked myself up in various states, with and without my middle name. In most cases it’s easy to see where the data came from. Facebook. LinkedIn. Yelp. Some information has to be public because of government regulations. Sometimes it looks like data collected from other people’s contact lists that I never authorized, which is why I found old phone numbers from decades past. In some cases I couldn’t tell – I looked on all of the social media I use and couldn’t find a reference. It’s been a decade or so but I knew I would eventually see a tool like this. What made me laugh is that my years of paranoia have paid off. This shows up in how they get a lot of stuff wrong. Whenever I sign up for anything on line I always use make-believe data: age, race, contact information, etc. Sure, some digital profiles are work-related and so can’t be totally fake, but it’s kinda fun to see that I am a late-40’s hispanic woman to much of the digital world. Still, private as I am, I lost the bet with my wife, who has less public data out there. She is virtually invisible online. “Ha! Take that, Mr. Privacy Expert!” was her comment. Share:

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.