Securosis

Research

Friday Summary: January 21, 2010

Quick note: Don’t forget to RSVP to the RSA Disaster Recovery Breakfast, and sign up for the Inagural Cloud Security Alliance training class we are building & running. I had one of those awesome, weird, enlightening experiences today… and it’s actually relevant to technology and security. Probably. The thing that initially got me hooked on blogging was how it enabled a persistent community discussion. We could all debate issues out in the open, asynchronously (since some of us spend a lot of time trapped on planes), and everything becomes part of the public record. It was like the internal peer review process we had at Gartner (which is far better than most outsiders realize) burst open and spewed all over the Internet. Sure, some blogs really sucked, and there was no shortage of trolls, but it’s how I got to meet people like Rothman, Hoff, Martin McKeay, and many many others. It also led directly to how we handle review and our Totally Transparent Research process. But over the past year we have noticed a serious decline in blogging in general and comments on our site specifically. It’s actually a lot harder to come up with all these Summary links, because the initial idea was to share link love, but we mostly refer to the same people or link to news stories. This isn’t unique to us – a lot of our blogging friends have mentioned it (the few who blog). We all know Twitter is the culprit. I love Twitter, but it makes me sad that we lose the asynchronous conversations and persistence (come on, no one really reads old Tweets). Even when I’m sitting at my desk I can’t keep up with everyone I want to follow. Earlier today I tweeted that I needed some review on a couple incident response posts I’m working on. This was for a series we have been working on for a couple months. What did I learn? We have very few comments on the posts, but I got a ton of response over Twitter and some amazing feedback via email. Maybe I’m old, but although I still prefer having these discussions through the blog, I realize it’s time to start moving them more to Twitter. The problem will be finding the delicate between getting valuable feedback and contributing back to the community without ‘abusing’ the medium. We pump out way too much content for me to toss everything out to Twitter… and I’m not even comfortable tweeting links to all my posts. Any suggestions appreciated. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences The Network Security Podcast, Episode 228. Had my sick daughter on my lap while recording this one, so it might be amusing. We are building the official Cloud Security Alliance CCSK training class, and running the first class at RSA. It’s $400, but you get a $295 voucher to take the CCSK certification test. DB2 Security Overview. Adrian’s white paper on DB2 security features. Favorite Securosis Posts Adrian Lane: The Appearance Myth. This is so spot on. I stopped carrying Star Wars paperbacks in my back pocket and brushed my hair – suddenly nobody believed I was a UNIX Admin. Get my first CTO job and started wearing a collared shirt, and suddenly I must not understand the abstract factory design-pattern or IPC. Wear the wrong garb and you are shunned. Mike Rothman: APT Defeated by Marketure. And here I thought Oswald killed the APT. Rich: Mogull’s Law. Yet another old post, but I picked this one because for some reason when I Google my name (for news alerts) this is the top link. Can’t argue with Google. Other Securosis Posts Dueling Security Reports: Cisco vs. Intego. Incite 1/19/2011: Posturing Alpha Males. SMB isn’t ready for disaster. Are you? The 2011 Securosis Disaster Recovery Breakfast. Fighting the Good Fight. Favorite Outside Posts Adrian Lane: Security fail: When trusted IT people go bad. I hate to foster the fear of ‘The Insider Threat”, but this sort of thing does happen on occasion. What’s surprising is a firm this large did not spot the problem sooner through other IT personnel. Mike Rothman: In defense of FUD. Jack kills it: “…a little bit of discomfort and uncertainty can drive us to question our preparedness, and rethink the challenges we face.” Love that. Rich: A Day of Reckoning is Coming. New School on breach outcomes. It isn’t what you think. Chris Pepper: Understanding Targeted Attacks: Two Questions. Gunnar Peterson: Three Types of IT Leaders. 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. Top News and Posts Oracle CPU for Q1. There was a super critical database issue with Audit Vault, but with only 2 companies using the product, the overall risk is pretty low. GSM (cellphone) security in deep trouble. Hackers responding to job postings with malware. ENISA releases report on security for government clouds. Errata Security has a run-in with an infamous security fraudster. Twitter worm. AT&T hacker’s chats turned in by anonymous source. I have a hard time believing the feds would build a case based on anonymous IRC logs. Blog Comment of the Week Remember, for every comment selected, Securosis makes a $25 donation to Hackers for Charity. This week’s best comment goes to shrdlu, in response to Funding Security and Playing God… Your experience has shown you that finding a bug THAT YOU INTEND TO FIX is cheaper to fix early on. That’s great. But fixing is a choice, based on risk assessment. Businesses make that choice every day. And we’re not providing good arguments for them to choose something when we use circular logic to tell them they should fix it simply because we found it, and that finding it makes it certain to be a problem that will affect them. 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.