Securosis

Research

Friday Summary, January 14, 2011

Apparently I got out of New York just in time. The entire eastern seaboard got “Snowmageddon II, the Blanketing” a few hours after I left. Despite a four-legged return flight, I did actually make it back to Phoenix. And Phoenix was just about the only place in the US where it was not snowing, as I heard there was snow in 48 states simultaneously. I was in NYC for the National Retail Federation’s 100th anniversary show. It was my first. I was happy to be invited, as my wife and her family have been in retail for decades, and I was eager to speak at a retail show. And this was the retail show. I have listened to my family about retail security for 20 years, and it used to be that their only security challenge was shrinkage. Now they face just about every security problem imaginable, as they leverage technology in every facet of operations. Supply chain, RFID, POS, BI systems, CRM, inventory management, and web interfaces are all at risk. On the panel were Robert McMillion of RSA and Peter Engert of Rooms to Go. We were worried about filling an hour and a half slot, and doubly anxious about whether anyone would show up to talk about security on a Sunday morning. But the turnout was excellent, with a little over 150 people, and we ended up running long. Peter provided a pragmatic view of security challenges in retail, and Robert provided a survey of security technologies retail merchants should consider. It was no surprise that most of the questions from the audience were on tokenization and removal of credit cards. I get the feeling that every merchant who can get rid of credit cards – those who have tied the credit card numbers to their database primary keys – will explore tokenization. Oddly enough, I ended up talking with tons of people at the hotel and its bar, more than I did at the conference itself. People were happy to be there. I guess they they were there for the entire week of the show, and very chatty. Lots of marketing people interested in talking about security, which surprised me. And they had heard about tokenization and wanted to know more. My prodding questions about POS and card swipe readers – basically: when will you upgrade them so they are actually secure – fell on deaf ears. Win some, lose some, but I think it’s healthy that data security is a topic of interest in the retail space. One last note: as you can probably tell, the number of blog entries is down this week. That’s because we are working on the Cloud Security Alliance Training Course. And fitting both the stuff you need to know and the stuff you need to pass the certification test into one day is quite a challenge. Like all things Securosis, we are applying our transparent research model to this effort as well! So we ask that you please provide feedback or ask questions about any content that does not make sense. I advise against asking for answers to the certification test – Rich will give you some. The wrong ones, but you’ll get them. Regardless, we’ll post the outlines over the next few days. Check it out! On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian’s DR post on Vodafone’s breach. Rich quoted in the Wall Street Journal. Adrian at the National Retail Federation Show, telling the audience they suck at security. Did I say that? Mike, talkin’ to Shimmy about Dell, brand damage, and the Security Bloggers meet-up Favorite Securosis Posts Rich: The Data Breach Triangle. We didn’t push out a lot of content this week so I’m highlighting an older post. In line with Gunnar’s post on where we spend, I find it interesting that the vast majority of our security spending focuses on ingress… which in many ways is the toughest problem to solve. Mike Rothman: What do you want to see in the first CSA Training Course? Yes, we have a murder’s row of trainers. And you should go. But first tell us what needs to be in the training… David Mortman: What Do You Want to See in the First Cloud Security Alliance Training Course? Gunnar Peterson: What Do You Want to See in the First Cloud Security Alliance Training Course? Sensing a theme here? Adrian Lane: Mobile Device Security: 5 Tactics to Protect Those Buggers. Other Securosis Posts Funding Security and Playing God. Incite 1/12/2011: Trapped. Favorite Outside Posts Rich: Gunnar’s back of the envelope. Okay, I almost didn’t pick this one because I wish he wrote it for us. But although the numbers aren’t perfect, it’s hard to argue with the conclusion. Mike Rothman: Top 10 Things Your Log Managment Vendor Won’t Tell You. Clearly there is a difference between what you hear from a vendor and what they mean. This explains it (sort of)… David Mortman: Incomplete Thought: Why Security Doesn’t Scale…Yet.. Damn you @Beaker! I had a section on this very need in the upcoming CSA training. And, of course, you said it far better…. Adrian Lane: Can’t decide between this simple explanation of the different types of cloud databases, and this pragmatic look at cloud threats. Gunnar Peterson: Application Security Conundrum by Jeremiah Grossman, with honorable mention to The Virtues of Monitoring. Project Quant Posts NSO Quant: Index of Posts. NSO Quant: Health Metrics–Device Health. NSO Quant: Manage Metrics–Monitor Issues/Tune IDS/IPS. NSO Quant: Manage Metrics–Deploy and Audit/Validate. NSO Quant: Manage Metrics–Process Change Request and Test/Approve. Research Reports and Presentations The Securosis 2010 Data Security Survey. Monitoring up the Stack: Adding Value to SIEM. Network Security Operations Quant Metrics Model. Network Security Operations Quant Report. Understanding and Selecting a DLP Solution. White Paper: Understanding and Selecting an Enterprise Firewall. Understanding and Selecting a Tokenization Solution. Top News and Posts China CERT: We Missed Report On SCADA Hole . SAP buying SECUDE. TSA Worker Gets 2 Years for Planting

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.