Securosis

Research

Checking out a bootable Windows TPM thumb drive

It’s almost RSA time again. Which means one very important thing: I need to finally post the review of the very slick TPM-based Windows bootable thumb drive Jeff Jones (@securityjones) gave me at RSA 2011. I have been promising him this review since last March, and it would be just too embarrassing to not get it done before RSA 2012. So here we go. As I said above, this slick little device provides a full self-contained Windows install protected by TPM. The entire thing is encrypted. When I was still doing ops, I kept it in my car for when I was out and about without my laptop. It was great for doing quick and dirty troubleshooting using a friend’s computer or library machine without having to worry about what might be on the machine I was using. You know, those public machines can be cesspools of all sorts of badness. Unfortunately it gets less use now that I’m during pure security, but I still pull it out now and again. Pluses Completely encrypted Uses its own memory and disk instead of the host’s Great form factor Ridiculously easy to use Minuses Doesn’t play nice with some laptop video cards Not as fast as using the native hardware by a long shot Can’t boot off a Mac or via a virtual machine What would have made this better? If it completely blocked access to the underlying drives and memory of the host box. Then I would have also used it as a safe browsing environment for conferences and airports and the like. That kind of capability would also be useful for those of you who need research NSFW sites using corporate machines. Admittedly, this would be a substantial feat, especially considering the need to access USB drivers for access to the host. When I used it regularly it was great for confirming that production services were live at my company, and it also allowed me to respond to email using the web gateway. For long emails this was far more efficient then trying to use my phone. If I were buying one, I’d have them preinstall essential security tools such as gpg, 1Password or another password manager, and the appropriate strong authentication software (such as a soft token). You’d also need ssh and VPN clients to make it even more useful. And while I’m putting together a shopping list, how about Skype? That would be really nice to communicate in a pinch. Though I’m not sure if it supports audio devices. Jeff? There are a couple other good use cases. For onsite incident response I would want forensics tools. If I were doing more technical consulting/pen testing I’d want one that booted Linux so I could have tools like BackTrack at my disposal. All in all, even without those tools, it’s a nice form factor for carrying around an emergency OS. I wonder if it’d be possible to get one that dual-booted – that would be even cooler then carrying a couple. You know you have to cut ounces of extra weight when you can. And I know I can get a lot of this functionality from a regular USB thumb drive, which would greatly expand the available options and undoubtedly lower the cost. But for specialized use cases, including toting around ssh and X.509 keys, having a TPM chip and an encrypted drive is very attractive – not to mention the dedicated memory & disk. There are a couple of this type of device out there, and adhering to Securosis’ policy of not being vendor-specific, I won’t mention specific models, but if you have this kind of requirements you should check them out. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 1/11/2012: Spoilsport

The winter holidays aggravate me. They are a consumption binge, and I know we all want a healthier global economy (which includes folks spending money they don’t have on things they don’t need) but it still irks me. I grew up modestly in a single-parent home, and we did stuff, but not a lot. We didn’t have the fancy things, which forced me to go out and earn whatever I’ve gotten. I remember being ecstatic one Hanukkah when I got a plastic briefcase-type thing to bring my books to school. We didn’t get 8 gifts or have a big-ass tree with all sorts of goodies under it. We got one thing and it was fine. I know how hard it was for my Mom to even provide those little things, and how hard she worked. That awareness has always driven me. I’ve been very fortunate, and we can provide plenty of gifts to our kids over the holidays. And we do. And the grandparents do. And they get lots of stuff from their cousins. The list goes on and on. But in the back of my mind is a fear that the kids don’t appreciate what they have. We have had to threaten to take all the stuff out of their room more than once, when they act like spoiled brats. I do try to lead by example. They see that I work a lot, but I’m not sure they understand that just working hard might not be enough. That they’ll have to find their talent, be persistent, and have a little luck, to achieve and earn everything they want. Though at times we get a glimmer of hope that despite their very comfortable lifestyle the kids have some perspective. When we got back from our holiday trip, the Boss sat down with XX2, who had a pretty interesting question. XX2: Mom, am I spoiled? The Boss (TB): You tell me? Do you think you are spoiled? XX2: Yes. I have everything I need, and get pretty much everything I want, so I guess I am spoiled. Win! Of course just because one of three understood, at that moment in time, that she has it pretty good, doesn’t mean she won’t be squealing like a stuck pig the next time we won’t buy something she wants when she wants it. But at least we can remind her of this conversation to introduce some perspective. It’s a fine line, because I work hard and have earned a certain lifestyle. I shouldn’t have to sacrifice having some nice things to make a point to my kids. But ultimately it’s our responsibility as parents to make sure they understand that the world is a tough and unforgiving place. Which means at times I need to be a spoilsport and say no, even when I get the cute pouty face. But that’s a lot better than allowing my kids to be soft, spoiled, and unprepared to deal when they leave the nest. -Mike Photo credits: “spoiled” originally uploaded by Kim ‘n’ Cris Knight Heavy Research We’re plowing through the latest Quant project on Malware Analysis. Here are the posts over the past week: Static Analysis Dynamic Analysis The Malware Profile Defining Rules You can find all the posts on the Project Quant blog. We are also finishing up our Network-based Malware Detection series. You see a trend here? Yep, it’s all malware, all the time. Here are the posts so far in that series, which we will wrap up this week. Introduction Identifying Today’s Malware Where to Detect the Bad Stuff? In case you aren’t interested in our Heavy RSS Feed, where you can get all our content in its unabridged glory. Incite 4 U The Sound of Inevitability: Kevin Mandia says if you are targeted by an advanced attacker, you will be breached (pdf). That’s not when, not if. And he should know – his firm spends a lot of time doing high-end breach response. If the effectiveness of targeted attacks by knowledgable attackers is approximately 100%, do you just accept this as an inevitability? Or do you ratchet up protections to make it harder for attackers? Those are the basic questions – they are the two most common CEO responses to this type of choice. Do you just accept this as part of the business landscape – cost of doing business – or are you determined to be a faster than the other gazelles competitors for the lions attackers to eat focus their intensive and persistent efforts on. Or maybe you can compartmentalize damage – knowing some user will inevitably click an email link with targeted malware – to just the mail server or select employee systems? It’s a worthwhile read: he lists all the data we repeatedly say you should keep – but which companies don’t have, can’t find, or take a week to recover. Breach preparedness drills? Anyone? – AL Brute force still works: King Krebs does some very interesting research into how the bad guys are defeating tests to figure out whether forms, etc. are being filled out by bots or other automated mechanisms. Basically, they’ve built sweatshops where all folks do is fill out CAPTCHAs and respond to other tactics to bypass bot detection tests. Even better, these folks have basically built a multi-level marketing scheme to get other folks to fill out the CAPTCHAs. The folks at the top of the pyramid can make real money, while folks at the bottom might make $3/day. Not unlike other MLM schemes, I guess. It’s just interesting to see tried and true business models applied to computer crime. What’s old is new again… – MR Nothing to see here. Really! Last week I got a call from a reporter at a major publication I have worked with in the past, to ask about some Symantec source code hackers claimed they stole from the Indian government and then posted online. Normally when something like this happens and the vendor denies it’s

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.