Securosis

Research

Incite 5/25/2011: Rapturing the Middle Ground

The sun rose today. As it has every day for a couple billion years. Though plenty of people thought they would not be around on Sunday for the sunrise. Yes, I’m talking about the Rapture. Either it didn’t happen or we all got left behind, which is fine by me – I still have stuff to do. You may think the whole concept is wacky, but I’m the last guy to criticize someone else’s beliefs. What you believe is your business. I’m certainly not going to try to convince you I’m right. Especially about matters of faith. But the Rapture preacher didn’t consider that he could be wrong. He dug in and didn’t leave any wiggle room. That didn’t work out very well. His followers awoke Sunday, confused and flabbergasted. Some haven’t paid their bills. Others took fancy vacations with money they didn’t have, figuring it would be the bank’s problem and they’d be laughing from heaven. These folks didn’t have a contingency plan. But you have to hand it to the preacher. He’s a true believer with a flexible and robust calendar. Some may snicker about the lunacy of the whole thing, but that misses the point. The real lesson is that even if you are a true believer you need to leave your options open. Even if you know you are right, it’s probably a good idea to think through the unfathomable scenario that you could be wrong. I know, it’s hard. None of us want to believe we are wrong, especially folks of conviction and passion. But in the face of overwhelming evidence (like waking up on Sunday) that you are indeed wrong, you need to be able to move forward. This remains a challenge for me too, by the way. I think in a pretty binary fashion. Right and wrong. Good and evil. Black and white, with very little gray. Though the gray area is increasing, which is kind of predictable. When you are young, you haven’t screwed up enough things to believe you could be wrong. Over time, you gradually realize not only your own limitations, but also that right/wrong is an interpretation. Now do a little homework to start using this lesson in practice. Look back to your last 2-3 arguments. Did you leave yourself an out? Did you respond poorly because you had no choice but to defend your position to the bitter end? Did you need to fall on your sword to save face? I’m all for taking a position and defending it passionately, but 20+ years in the salt mines have taught me to find the middle ground. Because most likely the sun will rise tomorrow, and you need to move forward. – Mike Photo credits: “Caught up in the rapture” originally uploaded by Analogick Incite 4 U Target Practice: Life is about relationships. Pretty deep but true. Whether you are talking about family, friends, colleagues, even people you don’t like, your reality is based upon the relationships you have with these folks. That’s true in security as well, as Chris Hayes points out. There is a good quote here: “IT and business executives are craving value-add from information risk management functions.” Which is true, so how can you add this value? By defining success and then delivering it. It’s not your definition of success – you need to agree with other folks on what security can do to further business objectives. Find the target. Hit the target. Then tell folks you hit the target. Easy as pie. – MR Hostage Situation: A Venafi study finds admins could hold data hostage from their employers if they chose to withhold encryption keys and passwords. To which I have to say “Well, duh!” Not everyone in an organization will have control over pieces of critical infrastructure, but you have to trust someone, so place control in the hands of a select few. This variety of insider threat rarely materializes, but is especially damaging when companies over-leverage key management solutions (so, for example, every key in the organization is stored in a single key server) or fail to implement separations of duties for key management. If you are worried about this type of scenario there are several things you can do: keep a master key stored off-premises so you can regenerate and rotate the working keys if an admin goes rogue. Think about separating duties for key management, so no single admin can take control of the key manager functions. Use different key servers for different applications or functions, minimizing the scope of potential damage. Do better background checks on your admins prior to employment, and have better employee departure processes to make sure all credentials and access points are changed as part of the termination process. Or maybe treat your employees better so they don’t get too pissed off – yeah, that last one’s probably not going to happen. – AL There is no control for stupid: A fact that is mostly glossed over by security folks is that all the technical controls in the world can’t protect a stupid user with access. That’s the point of George Hulme’s story, and it’s a good one. Yes, we have to make it hard for user stupidity to bring down valuable systems – hat’s what technical controls are for. But we also need to anticipate some number of self-inflicted wounds, and be able to quickly respond and recover. That’s what Reacting Faster and Better is all about. So whether it’s a human FAIL, technical FAIL, or an attacker that kicks your butt, it’s all the same in the end. You need to handle the issue. – MR Unless you are the lead dog, the scenery never changes: I love that concept. Most folks spend their life looking at someone else’s backside. Which is fine – not everyone can lead. But what does it mean? We all have our own ideas, but Bejtlich’s post defining Five Qualities of Real Leadership clarified a lot of the stuff

Share:
Read Post

End Users, Fill out Our Security Marketing Content Survey

We got great response to our Categorizing FUD post. Obviously many of you are as frustrated with marketing idiocy as we are. So let’s band together to prove to the vendor community that some of their security marketing tactics hurt them more than they help. We put together a little survey to get your opinions on the value of a number of different kinds of marketing content, to help understand how you use these tools and whether these tactics negatively impact your perception of the vendors using them. With this analysis, we can go back to the vendors and poke them in the eye about the stupid stuff they do. If you want your opinion heard, and are an end user, please head over the survey and fill it out. It should take less than 10 minutes. Although we have no way to enforce this, we’d prefer only folks directly involved in buying security products for end user organizations respond to the survey. The questions are structured to help understand how these different content types impact perception of vendors, which is why the survey is more appropriate for end users. Direct link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SecurityMarketingContent Thanks for your help. 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.