Index of Posts: Security Management 2.0

We have finished and put a little bow around our Security Management 2.0: Time to Replace Your SIEM? paper. So it’s time to post the series index, as well as a link to the completed paper. As always, we couldn’t provide content like this without support from our sponsors. For this project, we would like to thank Dell SecureWorks, Nitro Security, Q1 Labs, and Tenable Network Security. Check out the paper in our research library, or you can download it directly: Security Management 2.0: Time to Replace Your SIEM? Index of Posts Time to Replace Your SIEM? (new series) Platform Evolution Revisiting Requirements Platform Evaluation, Part 1 Platform Evaluation, Part 2 Vendor Evaluation – Culling the Short List Vendor Evaluation – Driving the PoC Security Management 2.0: Making the Decision Security Management 2.0: Negotiation Security Management 2.0: Migration Managed Services in a Security Management 2.0 World Share:

Read Post

Incite 11/16/11: Blockage

Most of the time, the words flow. I have a thought, and the next thing I know there are hundreds (if not thousands) of words on the screen. I’m a writer, so that shouldn’t be surprising. What may be surprising is that there are times I get writer’s block. Like now. At some point in the early part of the week, I get a flash of inspiration and bang out the Incite. It’s usually the easiest part of my job, but not this week. Now (Tuesday night) is not the time to be blocked. Tuesday nights I work late. XX1 is at dance until 8pm, and when I’m in town I pick her up at the studio. The Boss and I have an arrangement where I can catch up on some of my writing and she handles getting the twins ready for bed, since she takes a class Tuesday nights – so I take over when we get home. So I’m sitting here needing to bang out the Incite, but the words just aren’t flowing. I consult my ongoing list of Incite topics. Nothing strikes my fancy. It’s like taking a look in a full refrigerator, but nothing is appealing. Sure there is food there, but it’s not the right food. I hate that. You probably do as well. So I check Twitter. I move on to another project and make some progress on that. I read some NFL news. But in the back of my mind, I know the Incite still awaits me. It’s not going anywhere, and if it’s not done by the time I have to get XX1, it’s going to be a long night. Sometimes panic sets in. I get anxious when the words aren’t there. That doesn’t help them come any easier, of course. If anything it compounds the issue. Still blocked. I walk around a bit. I stretch. I grab another coffee, so now I’m hyper-caffeinated. That’s not helpful either. Oy, I wish I had some writer’s Drano. That would clear up the blockage, even if it hurts the environment. I start writing (again). I get about two paragraphs in and I hate it. I try to rework the concept. I still hate it. So I delete it. Back to square 1. More anxiety. More checking Twitter. More NFL news. No more progress towards where I need to be. I feel the window starting to close, and know that the Boss will be disappointed, since I’ll be working when we’d normally be catching up and enjoying each other’s company. More anxiety and the cycle starts again. Then it happens. Inspiration strikes. I think, why don’t I write about being blocked? Maybe that topic is only interesting to me, but I have always written the Incite for me, documenting what’s in my mind at any given time. Sometimes it’s even useful to someone else, which is a bonus. I start writing. And the words come. The coffee shop disappears. There is no noise. The rest of the world goes away. And before I know it, I’m done. I should have known the words would come. The words always come. I’m lucky that way. But sometimes my impatience gets the better of me. This was one of those times. And the next time I get blocked, I’ll forget that the words come as my anxiety increases. But now I’ll have this post to remind me. How about that? -Mike Photo credits: “Blockage” originally uploaded by Martin Whitmore Incite 4 U Fresh crop of hackers: Brandjacking is the “web site defacement” news item of the decade. The struggle for ownership of the Internet is fascinating – big corporations respond to threats with the tools they know best: lawsuits, marketing campaigns, and lobbying the government. Pressuring the government to get rid of net neutrality, suing customers who have bad experiences, and attempting to outlaw anonymity are prime examples. But this is a losing fight; both because corporations are targeting their customers and because their lame responses show the weakness of their various positions. For example, Google+ not allowing anonymity in their corner of the Internet is effectively forcing people to wear ID cards – and we know how that story ends. Claiming they won’t allow anonymity because attribution promotes civility is crap – it’s because these firms are pissed off that they can’t control their brand image like they did with TV, radio, and magazine media. Rather than accept criticism – or have faith in the majority of people to understand that many negative comments came from psych patients hopped up on Fruit Loops and pharmaceuticals – they threaten legal action. Then we get firms like because business owners need someone to hold their hands when “The Internet” calls them A-holes. Given anti-corporate sentiment; I think we will see a lot more defacement, hacking, and DoS attacks because we are teaching a generation of kids that hacking gives them control they otherwise lack. China may sponsor and educate hackers, but we’re growing them organically. – AL Congressional insanity: The Stop Online Piracy Act is so crazy that it’s hard to imagine anyone taking it seriously. Which is why it seems to have bipartisan support. It is basically a tool for government and media industry censorship. I’m not exaggerating – I don’t support piracy and I pay for the content I consume, but this bill literally forces software developers to add censorship mechanisms to any proxy software. You know, like VPNs and ssh. It also allows the US government to muck with DNS in ways that have broad potential effects beyond merely targeting “file sharing” sites. Take a look and make your own decision, but this is bad for security… completely aside from free speech. – RM FundamentaLiu sound advice: Sometimes folks turn their noses up when I go through my Endpoint or Network Fundamentals pitch. You mean secure configurations, default deny, and patching? Boooooooring. But as Vinnie Liu points out at Dark Reading, these boring tactics actually

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.