Securosis

Menu

Research

Incite 5/18/2011: Trophies

Mike Rothman May 18, 2011 3 Comments

As mentioned last week, I’ve been mired in the twins’ baseball/softball playoffs the past 2 weeks. That ended Saturday, with the Rothman clan going 1-1 in championship games. XX2’s team lost a close game and took the runner-up trophy. The Boy’s team eked out a win after dominating the league most of the year to take home the victory. It’s funny, you’d think there would be angst and disappointment coming from the girl, and happiness emanating from the boy. But that wasn’t exactly the case. Both reacted pretty similarly: they loved their trophies and were a little disappointed the season was over, so they won’t be playing any more. I get that they are only 7, and the very American need to win hasn’t yet taken root. And I hope it never does. Both teams made it to the championship game, so they got extra trophies. The Boy’s championship trophy had maybe 3 inches on the runner-up trophy. But they were both very proud to get the extra hardware, and so were we. It’s funny – both games went down to the wire. Both were somewhat impacted by poor officiating. And both games had parents or coaches (or both) in an uproar about mistakes made by 14-15 year-old kids making about $15 per game to umpire. The kids couldn’t care less. Sure they had a little trouble understanding why they were called out or why a run was allowed to score when it didn’t make sense. But they got over it within seconds. Some parents were still stewing two innings later. Part of me feels like I’m getting soft, and that focusing on just doing well, as opposed to winning and beating the competition, will hurt my kids later on. Plenty of kids are being trained by their folks to step on the throat. Maybe those kids will win the game of life, whatever that means. I just know how unsatisfied my quest for victory left me. And it wasn’t like my parents pushed me to win at all costs. I was born with that drive and have had to spend years slowly retraining myself to focus less on winning and more on doing what I love, which will likely always be a work in progress. So far it seems my kids are happy to focus on the trophy and not the win. Maybe that will change and then I’ll have a decision to make. Do I discourage that behavior? I’m not sure, but I doubt I would actively interfere with their desire to win. I had to learn the lesson myself the hard way, and I suspect my kids will likewise need to figure it out themselves. I am not bashful about sharing my experiences, so when they ask I’ll provide my opinion. But ultimately they’ve got to figure out whether the trophy will be enough. Photo credits: “Trophies” originally uploaded by TexKap Incite 4 U Are devices or (lack of) performance killing AV? I’ll preface this entire discussion with the disclaimer that the rumors of AV’s demise are wildly premature. But we in the know all understand that AV isn’t the way to deal with today’s threats. Which is why I chuckled when I read about how Google’s Chromebook may finally kill AV. Ha! Unless some smart Google engineer has figured out how to stop corporate inertia in their 20% unstructured time, or to remove AV from all the compliance mandates, I don’t see Chromebooks killing off AV. To be clear the Chromebook is more a mobile device than a conventional computer. And if they allow plug-ins or other persistent software to run (and I don’t know how they could avoid it), malicious code will still threaten to them. But like iOS devices and even Android (to a point), it’s tough to do this in a weaponized, self-propagating fashion. So it gets back to a point we have been making for quite a while. The issues arising from the increasing mobility and consumerization of the workforce are more system and device management issues than security issues. – MR Lasso the SaaSo: Many organizations want to move various operations to SaaS providers, but balk both at the complexity of managing users and at giving up control of their data. We see two types of solutions appear. Some help manage user credentials and integrate accounts with internal directories, and others are inline proxies to encrypt/tokenize data or limit functionality. Hoff talks a bit about VMware’s move into this area. I suspect the money is on the user management side, and have very mixed feelings on the data protection/encryption products. Sure, you can encrypt customer info and store the token or encrypted value in Salesforce.com, but the more data you block Salesforce.com from processing the less useful it is. And these things are inline proxies which reduce mobility. Back to the VPN, everyone! Seems like the sort of thing people will buy and discard. – RM Compliance Rolling: I got a kick out of Dejan Kosutic’s Management’s view of information security – he captures the essence of the issue. It’s just that his clean prose presents a politically correct version that misses the semi-hostile management displeasure for anything security. Kinda like your defeated resolve when finding you have an incurable disease. In management discussions, I find “Is it really necessary?” really means something more like “Are you sure legal said there was no loophole?” I translate “Does it fit into our company strategy?” to “If we can’t get rid of it, then let’s market it as an advantage.” And I hear “How can we decrease costs?” as “Where can we cut corners and still be compliant?” He’s right that management does not want to invest in security, and Dejan has the right discussion points, but the language is never this civil. It’s more like wrestling with a hostile adversary. – AL There is no answer (singular): I sat in on my friend Ron Woerner’s leadership presentation at Secure360 last week, and

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Research

view all

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

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.