Securosis

Menu

Research

Friday Summary: May 27, 2011

Rich May 26, 2011 No Comments

In the 4 years since I started Securosis, this is absolutely the most bat-sh** crazy time I have experienced. Between cramming for the cloud security training class, managing a software development project, keeping our infrastructure up and running, hitting writing deadlines, and keeping up with prospects and clients, I barely have time to breathe. Add in a couple young kids who have done their best to ensure I don’t get a good night’s sleep at home for the past 6 months… and it’s no wonder I finished last week alternating between passing out and participating in commode-based religion. But I’m loving it. Right now I have the exact same feeling as when I hit the last couple miles in a triathlon. It’s painful. Oh so painful. But the endorphins kick in and you start thinking about life after the race. But now isn’t the time to lose focus. So time to bang this out and move on to the next item on the list. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Rich contributed Mac Defender: Pay attention but don’t panic to Macworld. Oracle 11G Available On Amazon AWS: Adrian’s Dark Reading post. Favorite Securosis Posts Mike Rothman: Cloud Security Training: June 8-9 in San Jose. If you need to know about cloud security, we’ll teach you. A few spots remain. The curriculum kicks ass. Adrian Lane: Planning vs. Acting. Rich: Sowing the Seeds of Token Panic. Other Securosis Posts End Users, Fill out Our Security Marketing Content Survey. Incite 5/25/2011: Rapturing the Middle Ground. Favorite Outside Posts Mike Rothman: Mac Defender: Pay attention but don’t panic. Love it when a post Rich writes is highlighted on Techmeme and Daring Fireball. Especially when it’s posted on MacWorld. 🙁 But the traffic is well deserved – great perspectives on the next wave of Mac attacks. Adrian Lane: Siemens Downplaying Serious SCADA Holes. Thought they would have taken a lesson from Oracle and Microsoft – I guess not. Chris Pepper: Dilbert deals with [firewall] managment. “Keep me informed.” Research Reports and Presentations React Faster and Better: New Approaches for Advanced Incident Response. Measuring and Optimizing Database Security Operations (DBQuant). Network Security in the Age of Any Computing. 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 New version of Mac malware doesn’t require password. Siemens Working On Fix For ‘Security Gaps’ In Logic Controllers. Keys to the cloud castle. The rise of the chaotic actor: Understanding Anonymous and ourselves. 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 Shack, in response to Planning vs. Acting. Except that i’m not. I’ve been there, and appreciate the whole “water cooler” thing. However, i see way too many security managers who wrap themselves in “governance” and rhetoric. C’mon. I’m not ignorant to understanding the risk and threat landscape. But all talk, and reciting the latest incedible “news story” does … What? Ours is a discipline technical in nature, and relies on technical acumen to fully understand and articulate risk. If your career is built on “water cooler” topics, i’ll likely be reading about your organization in the news in the future. I for one have had enough of the “strategists” with no tactical knowledge or understanding. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Sowing the Seeds of Token Panic

Mike Rothman May 26, 2011 No Comments

It was just a matter of time. After the EMC/RSA breach in March, the clock started ticking relative to the seeds being used to gain access to something important. According to Bob Cringely, that has now happened with a very large US defense contractor having their remote access network compromised. Since it had been a pretty slow news week (how long can we talk about the LinkedIn IPO?), now every beat reporter will write 10 articles on the impact of this new attack. It’s just a matter of time before we see picketing at RSA HQ, demanding new tokens for all. We’ll see the old timers talk about the good old days to time sharing. Security folks will be called before the executive team to discuss the exposure and whether the tokens are still worth a damn. Wash, rinse, repeat. We’ve seen this movie before. Now I don’t have any inside information about this new attack. But the reality of two factor authentication means you need both something you have and something you know. If 2FA is based on an RSA token (and the seeds were stolen), then the attackers have the token. But they don’t have the code (something you have) required to gain access. Unless the device was compromised separately using a different attack, mostly likely a key logger to capture the passcode. The loss of the seed does not compromise your network. But the loss of the seed and the passcode will. That’s an important distinction. Is the inevitable panic justified? Of course not. We are presumably dealing with APT, which means they will get into a network by whatever means necessary. Advanced or not. They got the seeds, and then compromised a device with remote access. Game over. They are in. Let’s just say a company tossed all their RSA tokens and brought in someone else. Guess what? Then the attackers would compromise a device already on the network, taking the 2FA out of play. And that’s really the point. Remember the words by any means necessary. Sure, RSA will likely have to stamp out millions of new tokens. Customers will demand no less. Yes, it will cost them money, but it’s a drop in the bucket for a company like EMC. Yes, issuing new tokens will stop this specific attack vector. But it will not stop this specific attacker. So panic all you want. They are still going to get in. Which underlines the key point in Cringely’s article. “The good news here is that the contractor was able to detect an intrusion then did the right things to deal with it.” We’ve been talking about reacting faster and better for years. Significant network and system monitoring, and if you are specifically a targeted organization, network full packet captures are not options anymore. What should you do? Use the panic to your advantage. These are some pretty good data points to push through the funding for that full packet capture gear or a new network/systems monitoring service, eh? Or maybe the application white listing technology for those devices with access to critical stuff. Whatever the specific controls you need to add, strike while panic is cresting. Now that’s what I call making lemonade out of a bunch of lemons. Photo credits: “Panic!” originally uploaded by Memphis CVB Share:

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.