Securosis

Research

Incite 12/6/11: Stinky

I have a younger brother. It was just the two of us (and Mom) growing up, so I find myself ill suited to dealing with girl stuff. Thankfully the Boss is wonderful at working with the girls on how to deal with bullies/mean girls, and this physical maturation process that seems to happen to girls. One day they are all cute, young and innocent; the next day you’re shopping for bras. Thankfully the Boss handles that duty as well. I’d favor the model that is bolted onto their respective rib cages, and don’t get me started on chastity belts… But when it comes to the Boy, I’m all over that. He’s a pretty active kid. Most days he likes to head outside with his buddies in the cul-de-sac, and plays some kind of sport. For years he came back in, washed his hands and was good to go. Not so much any more. Over the summer we had a few situations where you could smell him way before he got back into the house. That’s when we realized our little boy is growing up, and after enough activity he smells like a locker room. So we had a little chat. I started with the importance of smelling good because the girls don’t like stinky boys. He blurted something out about cooties, so maybe that didn’t resonate as well as I hoped. Next I tried to explain about being considerate to the rest of his family, who shouldn’t be subjected to stink-o-rama. Yeah, that didn’t go over well either – he’s still enamored with the pull my finger game. Then I realized that most boys want to emulate their Dads. I took a quick run into my bathroom and emerged with the prize: a new stick of deodorant. He was very excited to use my deodorant and was pretty consistent about using it. In fact, the Boy was sitting next to the adult sister of one of our friends (no, this isn’t some Penn State story) and she noticed he smelled pretty OK, especially for an 8 year old. So she asked him why he smelled good, and he deadpanned, “Because I wear deodorant.” Then he went right back to his video game. Out of the mouths of babes. I thought he was in a good place regarding hygiene, until this past weekend. I took him over to a friend’s house to watch the football games on Sunday. He literally played football outside for about 4 hours, and by the time he got back inside he smelled like a compost pile. I was a little surprised, and asked whether he put his deodorant on. Of course, he gave me the 8-year old “oh well” shrug. I reminded him of the importance of not smelling like crap, and figured he was ready for the next step in his man training. Yup, I taught him the arm pit sniff. Now he should be able to tell, proactively, when it’s time for a deodorant refresh. But I’m not teaching him everything yet. I’ll wait a little while to introduce the underwear sniff test. That’s only for advanced students. -Mike Photo credits: “Warning: Politician Ahead!!!” originally uploaded by The Rocketeer Incite 4 U Security company does (some) good: As a skeptic it’s hard to find anything good in security, but let’s tip our hats to Barracuda. They are running a campaign to donate meals for children during the holiday season. Working with the United Nations World Food Programme to fight hunger, Barracuda will donate meals for every user that participates. How do you get involved? Follow @BarracudaLabs on Twitter, ‘Like’ them on Facebook, or just install their free Profile Protector, and they will donate a meal to the UN programme. It’s a no-cost way to donate food through the holidays! – AL The APT who shall not be named: Kudos to Bob Bragdon for slaying the sacred cow of political correctness and making (in print) the connection between the ‘APT’ and China. We have actually been saying for a while that many of the persistent attackers out there are state-sponsored, and that state is China, all while comparing them to Voldemort. What’s funny to me is the folks who use APT to justify a logical evolution of security. Like Jon Oltsik, who jumped on the APT hype train and did a survey. Magically enough, users told him existing tools aren’t working very well. And in terms of the future view, what end-user doing anything today wouldn’t say “Security tools need to be smart enough to detect and react to suspicious behavior, anomalous activities, and attacks in progress.” That’s ground-breaking! But here’s the newsflash: this evolution has nothing to do with APT. Simple detection has been ineffective for years. And even if we get to this so-called ‘smart’ security tool, I’ll take the Red Army every day of the week. All they have is time and money, so they will get in. Though maybe Bob B should try out this SkyNet contraption on his home network, since Voldemort is no doubt coming for a visit. – MR Coding conundrum: IBM is using a developer scorecard to measure the productivity of its developers. That’s good. And it sucks. As pointed out by Neil McAllister on his blog metrics typically devolve into measuring lines of code, which does more harm than good. But here’s the conundrum: all metrics suck, but you you need them regardless. Any individual metric only shows a fragment of the truth, and there is no ‘best’ metric. By themselves, most development metrics I have used were misleading to some degree, so I used different collections to show trends and warning flags. I used them as a cue to dig deeper and understand why some metrics were skewing in a certain direction. Use metrics, but don’t assume what they indicate without some digging. I applaud IBM for quantifying productivity, but warn users to be careful how they use any metrics in practice. – AL Don’t

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

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.