Securosis

Research

Security, Metrics, Martial Arts, and Triathlon: a Meandering Friday Summary

Rich here. One of the more fascinating – and unexpected – aspects of migrating from martial arts to triathlon as my primary sport has been importance role of metrics, and how they have changed my views on security. Both sports are pretty darn geeky. On the martial arts side we have intense history, technique, and strategy. Positional errors of a fraction of an inch can mean the difference between success, failure, and injury. But overall there is less emphasis on hard metrics. We use them for conditioning but lack much of the instrumentation needed to collect the kinds of metrics that can make the difference between victory and defeat in competition. For example, very few martial artists could gather hard statistics on how an opponent reacts under specific circumstances, never mind translating that to a specific strategy. Nor do we measure things like speed and power in specific physical configurations. Some martial artists track some fraction of this at a macro level, but generally not with statistical depth. I remember that when training for nationals I knew I would be up against one particular opponent and I studied his strengths, weaknesses, and reactions in certain situations, but I certainly didn’t calculate anything. Besides, some 16 year old kid kicked my ass in the first round and I never went up against the person I planned for (major nutritional failure on my part). Oops. A lot of strategy. Sometimes metrics, but not often and not solid. And a lot of reliance on instinct and core training. Sounds a lot like security. Triathlon is on the opposite end of the spectrum – as are most endurance sports. There is definitely strategy, but even that is defined mostly by raw numbers. I have been tracking my athletic performance metrics fairly intensely since I moved mostly to endurance sports (due to the kids). This started around 10 years ago, although only over the last 3 years have I really focused on it. Additionally, since getting sick last summer I have also started tracking all sorts of other metrics – mostly my daily movements (Jawbone Up, which isn’t available right now), and sleep (Zeo). For the past year I have kept most of this in TrainingPeaks. I’m learning more about myself than I thought possible. I know what paces I can sustain, and what distances, to within a handful of seconds. I know how those are affected by different weather conditions. I know exactly how what I eat affects how I perform different kinds of workouts. I know how food, exercise, and alcohol affect my sleep. I have learned things like how to dial in my diet (no carb no good, but mostly natural with a small amount of processed carbs hits the sweet spot). I know how many days I can go on reduced sleep before I am more likely to get sick. I even figured out just about exactly what will cause one of the stomach incidents that freaked me out so badly last year. I pretty much track myself 24/7. The Jawbone counts how much I move during the day. The Zeo how well I sleep. My Garmin 910XT how well I swim, bike, and run. A Withings scale for weight and body fat. And TrainingPeaks for mood, illness, injury, training stress (mathematically calculated from my workouts), and whatever else I want to put in there. (I have toyed with diet, but don’t really track calories yet). I measure, track over time, and then correlate to make training and lifestyle decisions. These are not theoretical – I use those metrics to change how I live, and then I track my outcomes. I know, for example, that I can optimize my training in the amount of time I have for triathlon, but my single sport performance drops to predictable degrees. All this for someone back-of-pack and over 40. The pros? The levels to which they can tune their lives and training are insane. And it all directly affects performance and their ability to win. But, as with everything, the numbers don’t tell the full story. They can’t precisely predict who will win on race day. Maybe the leader will get caught behind a crash. Maybe they’ll miss just enough sleep, or hit a crosswind at the wrong time, or just have an off day. Maybe someone else will dig deep and blow past everything the numbers predict. But without those numbers, tracked and acted on, for years on end, no pro would ever have a chance of being in the race. Security today is a lot more like martial arts than triathlon, but I’m starting to think the ratio is skewed in the wrong direction. We can track a lot more than we do, and base far more decisions on data than on instinct. Yes, we are battling an opponent, but our race lasts years – not three five-minute rounds. And unlike professional martial artists, we don’t even know our ideal fighting weight, never mind our conditioning level. Believe it or not, I wasn’t always a metrics wonk. I used to think skill and instinct mattered more than anything else. The older I get, the more I realize how very wrong that is. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Mike’s monthly Dark Reading blog: Time to deploy the FUD weapon? Rich quoted by the Macalope: The Macalope Daily: Protesting too much (Subscription required). Favorite Securosis Posts Adrian Lane: Evolving Endpoint Malware Detection: Control Lost. New threats and redefining what ‘endpoint’ actually means are a couple good reasons to follow this series. Mike Rothman: Understanding and Selecting Data Masking: Introduction. Masking is a truly under-appreciated function. Until your production data shows up in an Internet-accessible cloud instance, that is. Adrian’s series should shed some light on this topic. Rich: Continuous Learning. I’m not sure my quote fit here, but I’m sure a fan of people diversifying their knowledge. Other Securosis Posts Our posting volume is down a bit due 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.