Intel’s Red Herring

It’s time for a good old fashion beatdown. Personally I’m working hard on not overreacting to stuff and letting most annoyances (which would normally set me off) pass on by. But sometimes, you know, a purge is required. It kind of reminds me of that great scene in 48 Hours, where Nick Nolte tells Eddie Murphy to be cool when they enter a bar to question someone. Nolte then proceeds to tear the place apart and when Murphy says “I thought you said to be cool,” the response is “That was cool.” Sometimes it’s cool to swing the clue bat. The target of my Louisville Slugger is this nonsense from Justin Rattner of Intel about a new technology that will be able to stop 0-day attacks. There are lots of smart people at Intel, who very well may have come up with something novel. But don’t waste our time until you can talk about it. Why? Because it’s useless to dangle yet another carrot in front of a disillusioned and frustrated security community. You don’t look smart – you look like an ass to us security folks. You read the article and thought the same thing: Another damn vendor is going to ride in on yet another horse and make our problems go away. Let’s just say security folks have heard this story before. Pretty much every year there is a new shiny object positioned as the answer to all our problems. There is a whole lot of security technology roadkill, now swept under the carpets, that made the same claim. Sorry, Intel. Your technology is not the answer. Unless it involves disconnecting all those PCs or phones or tablets or smart TVs from the network. Your suppositions and empty claims are insulting to all the folks who work their asses off every day to keep the attackers out of the crap that you and Microsoft have been shoving up our asses for the last twenty years. And one other thing, Intel: you are in the process of trying to acquire McAfee. One widespread concern is that an Intel + McAfee combination would provide an unfair advantage in the security market by bundling security into chips. So to go out and say you’ve got some new technology that you can’t talk about, which may or may not involve McAfee’s stuff, a few months before the deal closes, seems pretty stupid to me. Good thing I’m not an EU anti-trust official, eh? Let’s just say that if the deal closes, I hope our friends at McAfee teach you Intel folks a little bit about the security mindset. We security folks don’t believe you. Show us, don’t tell us. Prove that it can stop 0-day attacks. Let smart folks try to break it. Until then, you are just the latest in a long line of posers that have promised the world and ultimately delivered nothing. Share:

Read Post

Friday Summary: January 28, 2011

At Cal, even though my major was software, I had to take several electronics courses. When I got to college I had programming experience, but not the first clue about electronics. Resistors, LEDs, logic gates, karnaugh maps, and EPROMs were well outside my understanding. But within the first few weeks of classes they had us building digital alarm clocks and television remote controls from scatch. The first iterations were all resistors on breadboards, then we moved to chips and EEPROMs… which certainly made the breadboards neater. Things got much more complex a couple semesters in, when we had to design and implement CPUs – and the design not only had to work, but it actually had to meet design specifications for low power, low chip count, and high clock rates. Regardless, I loved the hardware classes, and I gave serious consideration to changing my major from software to hardware. But that pretty well died when I left college. Over the last couple months I have been picking up some basic projects for fun. Little stuff like replacing light bulbs with LEDs in an old stereo receiver, putting automated light switches into some of the wall plates, and making my own interconnect cables. A new multimeter and soldering iron, and I was off to the races. Pretty simple stuff, but then I wanted to do something a little more complex. I had a couple ideas but wanted to see if other people had already done something similar. As with most projects, I consulted The Google, and that’s when I stumbled on the world of Arduino. This little device keeps coming up on chat boards for all the projects I was looking at. I start doing my research I found the Arduino documentary which resulted in one of those “Oh, holy $#^!” moments. As long as I have been around software and participated in open source software projects, I had never considered the possibility of open source hardware. About 1/3 of the way into the documentary, they talk about physically creating objects from open source plans, using Arduino as the controller, and creating complex electronic control systems by assembling simple circuits other people have posted on the net. There are all sorts of how-tos on digital audio converters and, since Arduino offers the basic infrastructure to communicate with the computer through a USB port, it provides a common controller interface. Technically I have been aware of Arduino for a couple years now, as I see them at DEFCON, but I never really thought about owning one. My impression was that it was a toy for instructional purposes. That assessment is way off the mark. I mean, screwdrivers and hammers are incredibly simple tools, but essential when working on your home improvement/car/whatever. This thing is a simple-to-use but very powerful tool for interfacing computers and other logic controllers with just about any electronic device. I am sure those of you who have been playing with these for a few years are saying “Well, duh!”, so I acknowledge I am late to the party. But if you are not aware of this little device, it’s a cool tool with hundreds of easy examples for learning about electronics. So I just placed my order for a starter set, and am now looking for plans to build my own DAC for my iMac. I am hopeful it will sound better than the standard ones you can buy. Playing with malicious USB drives sounds interesting as well. And don’t forget our Cloud Security Alliance training February 13th in San Francisco! On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Mike Rothman: Firewalls are Evolving. Adrian’s DB2 Security Overview white paper. Nice mention by Schwartz Communications. Favorite Securosis Posts Mike Rothman: The Greenfield Project. I know it’s lame to vote for yourself. But this is a great thought experiment. Rich: Microsoft, Oracle, or Other. Not really about security, but Adrian does a great job explaining the current database market drivers. Adrian Lane & David Mortman: Intel’s Red Herring. Other Securosis Posts React Faster and Better: Organizing for Response. Register for Our Cloud Security Training Class at RSA. Incite 1/25/2011: The Real-Time Peanut Gallery. Rich at Macworld. Friday Summary: January 21, 2010. Favorite Outside Posts Mike Rothman: He Who is Not Busy Being Born is Busy Dying. What Gunnar said. Yes, we do security, but we need to get smarter about the business. Period. Rich: The New School on the Ponemon data breach study. While Larry’s methodology has improved significantly, I think the cost-per-record-lost metric is one of the most misleading in our industry. There is no way it will accurately reflect your own losses with such wide variation between organizations. Adrian Lane: Russell eviscerates the Ponemon study. Pepper: Android Trojan details. Multiple very clever and very naughty bits combine to ‘hear’ and exfiltrate spoken or punched-in credit card data. David Mortman: Seven Dirty Words of Cloud Security. 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. Top News and Posts Apple Taps Former Navy Information Warrior David Rice for Global Director of Security. Five men arrested on a charge of launcing pro-WikiLeaks DDoS attacks. Facebook hack apparently an API bug. Accounts were not hijacked. Exclusive: Q&A with hacker “srblche srblchez”. Android Trojan Collects Credit Card Details. “White Space” tracking database. Not security news, but an interesting look at some of behind-the-scene details on reuse of TV spectrum and Google’s thirst for data. Opera Security Flaw Fixed. Goatse Security Site Hacked. DHS to End Color-Coded ‘Threat Level’ Advisories. I know many of you are crying in a corner, asking how you can conduct yourselves without the big colorful fear-o-meter.

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.