Securosis

Research

FireStarter: Policy Wonks and Pests

I’ve spent more hours than I can count studying compliance and governance. Reading and re-reading PCI requirements, Sarbanes-Oxley law, theory, and applied theory. Spent mind-numbing hours combing through BASEL and BASEL II docs. I’ve spent many long weeks with external auditors, internal auditors, assessors, risk management personnel, corporate governance officers, and government officials – trying to understand their jobs, their roles, and how the world functions from their perspectives. I’ve spent months mapping those ideas and processes into policy implementations, process modifications, and the rules that actually enforce policies. I’ve written audit reports for these various compliance and policy management frameworks to demonstrate policy compliance and efficacy. When you sell security and risk management software these efforts are necessary, because compliance drives your company’s revenue. So I feel I understand policy and compliance pretty darn well, but I am bothered by the trend toward policy being the focus – at the expense of the task it was originally designed to govern. I got started on this thread during a review of an instructional “how-to” on the secure-software development lifecycle (SDLC). The more I read of this SDLC description, the more I realized that it was not SDLC at all. It was a risk and management process to gauge the effectiveness of the SDLC program. It contained next to nothing on SDLC itself! There were very few instructions on tools, processes, or things you need to know to actually develop under an SDLC – just management and policy oversight. Don’t get me wrong – risk management and development management policies are very important for SDLC. When we track and monitor we get a better idea of whether what we are doing is having a positive effect, weigh the relative merits of different types of security efforts, and over time learn whether we are getting better. But policy and management are not for the sake of policy and management – they only exist to ensure the core effort (in this case SDLC) is actually working. I find that a lot of this stems from people developing policy when they have never done whatever the policies are meant to govern. And sometimes that’s okay. It’s not a requirement that you have developed code, managed teams of developers, or been responsible for process development to comment on SDLC and SDLC governance. But without that experience in whatever practice you are trying to manage, efforts to improve it rarely work out well – the policy mindset does not mesh well with the development mindset. Agile programming even has a name for these people: chickens! From the parable of Chickens and Pigs, the Chickens have lots of input but are not part of the actual process. And developers make this distinction because chickens can be detrimental to the process of developing software. This particular brand of chicken I usually call “policy wonks”, and I am convinced they do at least as much harm as good. I’m pretty pragmatic. I prefer easy over hard, and when it comes down to it I just want to get my work done and move on. In fact all of us at Securosis are this way – Mike so much that he authored the Pragmatic CSO guide that remains in use and gets downloaded pretty much every week. Developers, if I can be so bold as to generalize on the culture as a whole, are usually anti-bureaucracy and anti-policy. It’s whatever works quickly and effectively. And I have this trait in a big way. But after years spent with policy development and compliance, gathering metrics and measuring outcomes, I know they actually are critical. But I keep running into people who only do policy, who only give us the (to steal a phrase from David Mortman) Utopian Policy Ideal, without any consideration whatsoever for actually getting $#)^! done! Policy is to help us avoid repeating mistakes and guide us on how to get work done the way we want to get it done. But it’s not all about policy. Policy is not the work to get done. Are policy and governance important? Hell, yeah! But if we keep spending 50% of our time on this 5% of the picture, we will suck at the other 95% of the stuff that needs to happen in order to get things done. You know – real work. Note from Rich: Adrian asked me to review this before posting so I thought I’d insert a line. This is my single biggest pet peeve in security today. Especially in cloud. Far too many people seem to want to be policy wonks and focus on GRC to the exclusion of actual security. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Friday Summary: May 4, 2012

My conversation started like this: “Do you know where the recorder is?” she asked. “The what?” I replied. “The tape recorder we bought you!” After a long pause, I replied: “You mean the Panasonic cassette tape recorder you bought me in 1974?” “Yes, that one! I want to record myself playing the piano.” My brain froze momentarily, as I processed the many implications of this statement. After another long pause I asked: “Mom, did you really call me up to ask me about a cassette recorder? From the 70’s? And for the record, no, I’ve not seen it in – uh – three decades. I think we threw it out when the batteries corroded the insides. That would have been in the early 80’s.” “Oh, darn!” “If you don’t mind my asking, why not use the computer? Or one of those dictaphones you’ve got scattered around the house. Or your phone should – wait, don’t you have a smartphone?” “No, your father and I do not have cell phones.” This conversation occurred last month. I literally put down the phone after that comment to think about what that meant. They didn’t go all Amish on me, did they? I consider myself a ‘late’ adopter because my first phone that was more than a basic phone was the iPhone 4. I still use email. I have really just started to appreciate Twitter, placed my entire music library on a computer, and started streaming television over WiFi. But I have owned cell phones for 15 years or so. This is a whole different universe of thought and perception. Other than their DVD player and the ‘recent’ upgrade to Windows XP, it seems my parents stopped advancing with technology a long time ago. My wife has a theory that you can tell someone’s ‘heyday’ when you walk into their home, by looking at the period decor. I have got lots of friends who are 10, 15, even 25 years older than me; and it seems to hold true. For my parents it’s velour, brass, and mauve – you do the math. Some people continue to modernize but most just stop at some point. I think that there is an economic component to the lack of change – it’s expensive to just replace things for the sake of modernization. But this is different. An old couch is a long way from not having a cellphone. I grew up hearing about the generation gap, and I mostly ignored the discussion about the digital divide as – in Berkeley at least – it came across as some socialist rant against what was perceived as a technological caste system. But I am starting to see the point, not in the “technological literacy” sense, but more about humans’ willingness to adapt or sample new things, or just try something different. But damn, this is still shocking. And I’m their offspring – could this happen to me too? Is it because you own a device that already does something similar, so you figure “Why buy a new one?” Do you need a robot vacuum cleaner when the Hoover upright still functions? Do you need voicemail when your answering machine still works? If the Mr. Coffee still cranks out brown water, why invest in a single-cup espresso maker with those fancy foil packs? Why replace the refrigerator that’s been working great for 30 years? If IE6 still browses the Internet, why change? Do you need LED lights when you have an incandescent desk lamp? Mom was more comfortable with a cassette tape recorder than any other recording device invented in the last 40 years. She was headed to the store to see if she could find a new one. I told her that her best bet was [snark]Office Max[/snark]. The good news is that I have figured out the perfect Christmas gift – I’ll send them the Patrick Nagel prints I have stored in the garage. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Rich with Nir Zuk on Coming to Grips with Consumerization. Adrian at Dark Reading: Security Bugs And Proofs Of Concept. Written before the TNS poisoning disclosure. Rich mentioned in Entrepreneur.com. Adrian’s paper on User Activity Monitoring. Mike’s PCI: Dead Man(date) Walking? at Dark Reading. Favorite Securosis Posts Mike Rothman: Friday Summary: TSA Edition. Rich nails the issue with airport security in his intro to last week’s Summary. He’s right – more security theater will be coming to an airport near you. Adrian Lane: Stupid Human Tricks: Security Job Interviews. The LiquidMatrix guys are like family, so this is my favorite ‘inside’ post of the week. Guaranteed to make the most cynical security people laugh out loud! Rich: FireStarter: Policy Wonks and Pests. Have I mentioned how little respect I have for people who want to govern things they don’t understand? Other Securosis Posts Incite 5/2/2012: Refi Madness. Vulnerability Management Evolution: Evolution or Revolution? Favorite Outside Posts Mike Rothman: 8 Things To Expect Shopping At Microsoft’s Non-Apple Apple Store. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And then there is copying. If you’ve never been to a Microsoft store, Conan has it nailed. Especially the Zune meet-ups. Should provide your LOL of the day. Adrian Lane: TNS Poison – straight from the researcher. Fascinating tale of FAIL. Rich: Don’t be an evangelist. Okay, I get mentioned in this one, but there really isn’t any place for religion in tech. You need to be able to adapt to the times. Project Quant Posts Malware Analysis Quant: Index of Posts. Malware Analysis Quant: Metrics–Monitor for Reinfection. Malware Analysis Quant: Metrics–Remediate. Malware Analysis Quant: Metrics–Find Infected Devices. Malware Analysis Quant: Metrics–Define Rules and Search Queries. Malware Analysis Quant: Metrics–The Malware Profile. Malware Analysis Quant: Metrics–Dynamic Analysis. Research Reports and Presentations Watching the Watchers: Guarding the Keys to the Kingdom. Network-Based Malware Detection: Filling the Gaps of AV. Tokenization Guidance Analysis: Jan 2012. Applied Network Security Analysis: Moving from Data to Information. Tokenization Guidance. Security Management 2.0: Time to

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.