Vulnerability Management Evolution: Introduction

Back when The Pragmatic CSO was published in 2007, I put together a set of tips for being a better CISO. In fact you can still get the tips (sent one per day for five days) if you register on the Pragmatic CSO site. Not to steal any thunder, but Tip #2 is Prioritize Fiercely. Let’s take a look at what I wrote back then. Tip #2 is all about the need to prioritize. The fact is you can’t get everything done. Not by a long shot. So you have a choice. You can just not get to things and hope you don’t end up overly exposed. Or you can think about what’s important to your business and act to protect those systems first. Which do you think is the better approach? The fact is that any exposure can create problems. But you dramatically reduce the odds of a career-limiting incident if you focus most of your time on the highest profile systems. Maybe it’s not good old Pareto’s 80/20 rule, but you should be spending a bulk of your time focused on the systems that are most important to your business. Or hope the bad guys don’t know which is which. 5 years later that tip still makes perfect sense. No organization, including the biggest of the big, has enough resources. Which means you must make tough choices. Things won’t be done when they need to be. Some things won’t get done at all. So how do you choose? Unfortunately most organizations don’t choose at all. They do whatever is next on the list, without much rhyme or reason determining where things land on it. It’s the path of least resistance for a tactically oriented environment. Oil the squeakiest wheel. Keep your job. It’s all very understandable, but not very effective. Optimally, resources are allocated and priorities set based upon value to the business. In a security context, that means the next thing done should reduce the most risk to your organization. Of course calculating that risk is where things get sticky. Regardless of your specific risk quantification religion, we can all agree that you need data to accurately evaluate these risks and answer the prioritization question. Last year we did a project called Fact-Based Network Security: Metrics and the Pursuit of Prioritization which dealt with one aspect of this problem: how to make decisions based on network metrics. But the issue is bigger than that. Network exposure is only one factor in the decision-making process. You need to factor in a lot of other data – including vulnerability scans, device configurations, attack paths, application and database posture, security intelligence, benchmarks, and lots of other stuff – to get a full view of the environment, evaluate the risk, and make appropriate prioritization decisions. Historically, vulnerability scanners haves provided a piece of that data, telling you which devices were vulnerable to what attacks. The scanners didn’t tell you whether the devices were really at risk – only whether they were vulnerable. From Tactical to Strategic Organizations have traditionally viewed vulnerability scanners as a tactical product, largely commoditized, and only providing value around audit time. How useful is a 100-page vulnerability report to an operations person trying to figure out what to fix next? Though the 100-page report did make the auditor smile, as it provides a nice listing of all the audit deficiencies to address in the findings of fact. At the recent RSA Conference 2012, we definitely saw a shift from largely compliance-driven messaging to a more security-centric view. It’s widely acknowledged that compliance provides a low (okay – very low) bar for security, and it just isn’t high enough. So more strategic security organizations need better optics. They need the ability to pull in a lot of threat-related data, reference it with an understanding of what is vulnerable, and figure out what is at risk. Yesterday’s vulnerability scanners are evolving to meet this need, and are emerging as a much more strategic component of an organization’s control set than in the past. So we are starting a new series to tackle this evolution – we call it Vulnerability Management Evolution. As with last year’s SIEM Replacement research, we believe it is now time to revisit your threat management/vulnerability scanning strategy. Not necessarily to swap out products, services, or vendors, but to enssure your capabilities map to what you need now and in the future. We will start by covering the traditional scanning technologies and then quickly go on to some advanced capabilities you will need to start leveraging these platforms for decision support. Yes, decision support is the fancy term for helping you prioritize. Platform Emergence As we’ve discussed, you need more than just a set of tactical scans to generate a huge list of things you’ll never get to. You need information that helps you decide how to allocate resources and prioritize efforts. We believe what used to be called a “vulnerability scanner” is evolving into a threat management platform. Sounds spiffy, eh? When someone says platform, that usually indicates use of a common data model as the foundation, with a number of different applications riding on top, to deliver value to customers. You don’t buy a platform per se. You buy applications that leverage a platform to provide value to solve the problems you have. That’s exactly what we are talking about here. But traditional scanning technology isn’t a platform in any sense of the word. So this vulnerability management evolution requires a definite technology evolution. We are talking about growth from single-purpose product into multi-function platform. This evolved platform encompasses a number of different capabilities. Starting with the tried and true device scanner, to include database and application scanning and risk scoring. But we don’t want to spoil the fun today – we will describe not just the core technology that enables the platform, but the critical enterprise integration points and bundled value-added technologies (such as attack path analysis, automated pen testing, benchmarking, et al) that differentiate between a tactical product decision to a strategic platform deployment. We will also talk about the enterprise features you need from a platform, including

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.