Securosis

Research

New White Paper: Tokenization vs. Encryption

I am proud to announce the availability of our newest white paper, Tokenization vs. Encryption: Options for Compliance. The paper was written to close some gaps in our existing tokenization research coverage. I believe it is particularly important for two reasons. First, I was unable to find a critical examination of tokenization’s suitability for compliance. There are many possible applications of tokenization, but some of the claimed uses are not practical. Second, I wanted to dispel the myth that tokenization is a replacement technology for encryption, when in fact it’s a complimentary solution that – in some cases – makes regulatory compliance easier. While I was writing the paper, the PCI council did not officially accept tokenization. As of August 12, 2011, the Council does offer guidance (if not full acceptance) on using tokenization as a suitable control for payment data. However, the guidance casts doubt on the suitability of hashing and format preserving encryption as methods to improve security and reduce the scope of an audit – which is consistent with this paper. Please review the PCI official announcement (PDF) for additional information. The paper discusses the use of tokenization for payment data, personal information, and health records. This paper was written to address questions regarding the business applicability of tokenization, and is thus less technical than most of our research papers. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. A special thanks to Prime Factors for sponsoring this research! Download: Tokenization vs. Encryption: Options for Compliance (PDF) Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 8/17/2011: Back to School

What would you do if you could go back to school? Seriously. If you could turn back the clock and go back to grade school or even high school? No real responsibility. No one depending on you for food and/or shelter. Gosh, I’d do so many things differently. I’d buy a few shares of Microsoft when they went public (and I’d also send a note to my 1999 self to sell it). Ah, the magic of hindsight. What I wouldn’t do is bitch about it. It’s funny that my kids were actually excited to go back to school. We figured they’d be bitching a lot more, especially given how much fun they have over the summer. Thankfully, they aren’t at the stage where they dread the end of summer vacation and the return to the structure and routine of the school year. The Boss is clearly doing something right because the girls jumped right in. The Boy not so much. Not because he doesn’t like school, but more because time he’s working is time he’s not outside playing ball with his buddies. The biggest thing we try to get across every year is the importance of a strong work ethic. Unless there is an activity right after school, the kids grab a snack and jump right into their homework, which must be done, to The Boss’s satisfaction, before they can do anything else. We’re constantly harping on the fact that hard work can overcome a lot of mistakes and issues. Also that it’s okay to get something wrong and to make mistakes. But it’s not okay not to give it proper effort. The most gratifying thing about it all? Seeing one of the kids “get it.” Last year XX1 spent countless hours preparing for a big test, and she aced it. She saw the direct correlation between hard work and positive results. Rich and I were joking the other day that we both did the bare minimum as long as we could throughout public school. We got by on our charming personalities. Okay, maybe not… All the same, if we applied our current work ethic to our school endeavors? Who knows what we’d accomplish. But we would also miss out on a number of great parties and save some liver damage. Okay, a lot of liver damage. Oh yeah, the balance discussion. That’s one secret we won’t share until the kids graduate from college. So don’t ruin it for us, okay? -Mike Note: Yes, I’m kidding. All work and no play is not the way to go through childhood. Photo credits: “Back to School Bong Sale” originally uploaded by designwallah Incite 4 U Fixing is the hard part: I’m kind of surprised at the tepid response to Microsoft’s $250k prize for advancement of exploit mitigation. Imagine that, folks get paid a bit for finding a bug and being able to exploit it, but now can get paid a lot for actually fixing the issue. I think this is great and we should all applaud Microsoft. First for finally understanding that for the price of one engineer (fully loaded), they could put in place a meaningful economic incentive for a researcher. But also to start driving toward a culture of fixing things instead of just breaking them. Stormy did a great job of making that case as well. – MR And you thought your network was tough…: We often call the DefCon network “The World’s Most Hostile Network” since you can assume at least a few hundred – possibly thousands – of hackers are on it eating their latest software toys. What not everyone knows is that there are actually multiple networks at DefCon, some of which are probably reasonably secure, but that isn’t what I’m going to talk about today. Ryan Barnett over at Tactical Web Application Security wrote a great post on what web apps can learn from casino surveillance. I’m a huge fan of monitoring at all levels, and when it comes to web apps we definitely aren’t doing enough (in most cases). Ryan’s post does a good job of keying in on the main difference between apps and networks (spoiler – is has to do with who is allowed in). As a side note, back in Gartner days Ray Wagner (still there) and myself were proponents of using slot machine security standards for voting machines. But it seems the price of democracy doesn’t won’t cover the same security used for nickel slots. Then again the payout of the voting machines usually isn’t 97% either. – RM DAM market maturing: The Database Activity Monitoring market continues to see activity, with GreenSQL receiving another $2.2 million in venture funding from Atlantic Capital partners. Like children, most startups are not very interesting until they are a couple years old. Companies need to mature both product functionality and vision. GreenSQL is reaching that point: their first product was an open source reverse proxy for SQL statements. Now they offer core SQL statement blocking function like other DAM vendors, but they also offer a performance boost through a database caching service as well. Like the rest of the DAM players, they are morphing into something else – with the addition of masking, usage profiles, and application specific rule sets. Integrating a number of previously separate functions into a more integrated offering. Yet another sign of an increasingly mature market. DAM(n) funny how that happens. With Imperva slated for IPO and lots of interest in the basic monitoring capabilities, expect continued M&A activity. I expect we’ll need to change the way we think about DAM into a larger database security context by this time next year. – AL A different kind of hacking: Most of us were taught that two wrongs don’t make a right. The consistent attacks on law enforcement do nothing but endanger folks who make significant sacrifices. Our own Adrian provided some context about the situation in Arizona for this story about the continued posting of personal information about law

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.