Securosis

Research

Incite 3/28/2012: Gone Tomorrow

A recent Tweet from Shack was pretty jarring. Old friend from college died today. Got some insane rare lung disease out of nowhere, destroyed them. Terrifying. 37 years old. :/ Here today. Gone tomorrow. It’s been a while since I have ranted about the importance of enjoying (most) every day. About spending time with the people who matter to you. People who make you better, not break you down. Working at something you like, not something you tolerate. Basically making the most of each day, which most of us don’t do very well. Myself included. This requires a change in perspective. Enjoying not just the good days but also the bad ones. I know the idea of enjoying a bad day sounds weird. It’s kind of like sales. Great sales folks have convinced themselves that every no is one step closer to a yes. Are they right? Inevitably, at some point they will sell something to someone, so they are in fact closer to a ‘yes’ with every ‘no’. So a bad day means you are closer to a good day. That little change in perspective can have a huge impact on your morale. The challenge is that you have to live through bad days to appreciate good days. It takes a few cycles thorugh the ebbs and flows to realize that this too shall pass. Whatever it is. It’s hard to have that patience when you are young. Everything is magnified. The highs are really high. And the lows, well, you know. You tend to remember the lows a lot longer than the highs. So a decade passes and you wonder what happened? You question all the time you wasted. The decisions you made. The decisions you didn’t. How did you turn 30? Where did the time go? The time is gone. And it gets worse. My 30s were a blur. 3 kids. Multiple jobs. A relocation. I was so busy chasing things I didn’t have, I forgot to enjoy the things I did. I’m only now starting to appreciate the path I’m on. To realize I needed the hard times. And to enjoy the small victories and have a short memory about the minor defeats. I was a guest speaker at Kennesaw State yesterday, talking to a bunch of students studying security. There were some older folks there. You know, like 30. But mostly I saw kids, just starting out. I didn’t spend a lot of time talking about perspective because kids don’t appreciate experience. They still think they know it all. Most kids anyway. These kids need to screw up a lot of things. And soon. They need to get on with bungling anything and everything. I didn’t say that, but I should have. Because actually all these kids have is time. Time to gain the experience they’ll need to realize they don’t know everything. Dave’s college friend doesn’t have any more time. He’s gone. If you are reading this you are not. Enjoy today, even if it’s a crappy day. Because the crappy days make you appreciate the good days to come. –Mike Photo credits: “Free Beer Tomorrow Neon Sign” originally uploaded by Lore SR Heavy Research We’re back at work on a variety of our blog series. So here is a list of the research currently underway. Remember you can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, where you can access all of our content in it’s unabridged glory. Defending iOS Data Securing Data on Partially-Managed Devices Watching the Watchers (Privileged User Management) The Privileged User Lifecycle Restrict Access Understanding and Selecting DSP Technical Architecture Incite 4 U This sounds strangely familiar… It seems our friend Richard Bejtlich spent some time on Capital Hill recently, and had a Groundhog Day experience. You know, the new regime asking him questions he answered back in 2007. Like politicians are going to remember anything from 2007. Ha! They can’t even remember their campaign promises from two years ago (yup, I’ll be here all week). So he went back into the archives to remind everyone what he’s been saying for years. You know, reduce attack surface by identifying all egress points and figure out which ones need to be protected. And monitor both those egress paths and allegedly friendly networks. Though I think over the past 5 years we have learned that no networks are friendly. Not for long, anyway. Finally, Richard also recommended a Federal I/R team be established. All novel ideas. None really implemented. But on the good news front, the US Government spends a lot of money each year on security products. – MR Perverse economics: I’m going to go out on a limb and make a statement about vulnerability disclosure. After years of watching, and sometimes participating, in the debate, I finally think I have the answer. There is only one kind of responsible disclosure, and the economics are so screwed up that it might as well be a cruddy plot device in a bad science fiction novel. Researchers should disclose vulnerabilities privately to vendors. Vendors are then responsible for creating timely patches. Users are then responsible for patching their systems within a reasonable period. Pretty much anything else screws at minimum users, and likely plenty of other folks. (And this doesn’t apply if something is already in the wild). But as Dennis Fisher highlights, the real world never works that way. Today it’s more economically viable for researchers to sell their exploits to governments, which will use them against some other country, if not their own citizens. It’s more economically viable for vendors to keep vulnerabilities quiet so they don’t have to patch. And users? Well, no one seems to care much about them, but scrambling to patch sure isn’t in their economic interest. It seems ‘responsible’ means ‘altruistic’, and we all know where human nature takes us from there. – RM Scoring credit: Hackers have been stealing credit reports and financial data from – where else? – credit scoring agencies and selling the data to the highest bidder. Shocking, I know. Seems they are abusing the sooper-secure credit score user validation system; asking “which bank holds

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.