Securosis

Menu

Research

Incite 6/13/2012: Tweeting Idiocy

Mike Rothman June 13, 2012 1 Comment

It’s easy to think that the main contribution of social media tools like Twitter and Facebook is to connect you more tightly to your friends, colleagues, and family. Which is true. But don’t underestimate the immediacy of using networks like Twitter to interact directly with the companies you do business with. I have two recent examples which highlight this trend. Those of you who follow me on the Tweeter (@securityincite) know I don’t tweet a lot. I’m not going to tell you where I am. Most of the time I’m not going to tell you what I’m doing. But I lurk, ready to pounce when an interesting discussion presents itself, or to whore out something we’ve written or a speaking gig. As the boy told me this week when I asked him why he was uncharacteristically quiet earlier this week, “I only talk when I have something to say.” I’m like that on Twitter. So when I had a pretty negative experience on a recent flight, my first thought was to Tweet. I did, and got an almost immediate response from Delta, apologizing for the issue. Wait, what? Because anyone bitching on Twitter isn’t just having a one-on-one conversation – they are venting to all their followers, and anyone searching for the terms (hashtags) mentioned in the tweet. So many companies have become much more responsive to customers venting, and those Tweets get higher visibility. You have heard the stories of high-profile CEOs responding directly to nasty tweets about their companies. Delta had a good response. It didn’t take the sting out of my crappy experience with their gate agent but at least I knew someone was listening. On the other hand, Barnes and Noble had a total #FAIL Monday, a stark example of how some companies are unlikely to make it in this age of Internet commerce. We were packing the kids up for sleepaway camp, and wanted to send them with a bunch of books to not read while they are away. Normally I buy from Amazon, but they had one of the Big Nate books backordered. B&N had it in stock for the same price. There is a store right where I was, so I figured I’d just pick it up at the store. But when I got the confirmation, the price listed was different than the online price. Huh? I figured maybe it was just some idiotic system problem and they’d honor the price they offered me online. That’s what every other retailer with stores and an online presence does, right? Evidently not – B&N charges full price for books you buy at the store, even if you can get them at 40% off on their website. They also provide free shipping on website orders. And you wonder why that company is struggling. I figured if I cannot avoid being inconvenienced to order online, I’ll just order two of the books from Amazon. Voting with my dollars, as I should. I did need the other book (backordered at Amazon), so I ordered that from B&N and took advantage of their free shipping. Of course I was perplexed, so I tweeted my frustration at B&N. They would respond and try to explain their idiotic policy, right? They couldn’t have their heads up their asses that badly, right? Wrong. Crickets in my timeline. So when you hear about B&N following Borders into bankruptcy don’t be surprised. Companies that don’t understand the direct feedback customers expect through social media nowadays aren’t long for this world anyway. –Mike Photo credits: B&N tombstone created by Mike Rothman with the help of Tombstone Builder Heavy Research We’re back at work on a variety of blog series, so here is a list of the research currently underway. Remember you can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, where you can see all our content in its unabridged glory. And you can get all our research papers too. Understanding and Selecting Data Masking Management and Advanced Features Technical Architecture Pragmatic Key Management Understanding Data Encryption Systems Introduction Evolving Endpoint Malware Detection Behavioral Indicators Control Lost Understanding and Selecting a Database Security Platform Final Paper Available Malware Analysis Quant Final Paper Incite 4 U Which came first: the chicken or the Flame? Evidently the folks at Kaspersky have definitively proven that Flame was a pre-cursor to Stuxnet. Bully for them. What came first isn’t really important, rather highlighting what you already know. Adversaries are very good, if you are their target. They use advanced crypto and pretty much any other tactics to achieve their mission. The interesting thing about Flame, regardless of when it appeared, is how it gamed Windows Update. Most folks, even if they do harden detection, give patching a free pass, as patches update and change executables, config settings, and registry values. But if you can’t trust the patches? Ruh-roh. I’m doing a lot of research into evolving endpoint malware detection, as with attacks like Flame you don’t know what the malware looks like, so you need to watch what it does and block bad behavior. – MR LinkedOut: I’m not going to pick on LinkedIn for losing a bunch of passwords and then mishandling their public response. That’s pretty much par for the course with this sorts of breach, and considering how often they happen it’s obvious no one listens to us anyway. I won’t even slam them for neglecting to make clear to users that if they allowed the iPhone app to read their calendar, LinkedIn would grab their data. While it is incredibly obvious to anyone with an understanding of technology that linking your calendar to a social networking app might, you know, leak the data, folks seem to enjoy being shocked more than thinking for themselves. But I will suggest that these privacy issues are starting to really grow in the public consciousness as the overlap of cloud, mobility, and services begins to enhance the personal connection people have with things they stuff in their pants every day. If

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Research

view all

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

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.