Securosis

Menu

Research

Friday Summary: August 31, 2012

Rich August 30, 2012 No Comments

Rich here. Yesterday I published an article over at Macworld on the New Java exploits, and why Mac users likely aren’t at risk. As with many previous articles on Mac security, I’m getting really positive feedback. Heck, I have even had people tell me that I’m currently writing the best stuff out there on Apple security overall. (Probably not true, but I’ll take it.) When I asked some people privately about this, they told me they like my articles because they are accurate, hype free, and practical. The thing is, there really isn’t anything special about how I write this stuff up. Some days I feel like it’s some of the easiest prose I put on the screen. I think there is one compelling reason there are so many bad security articles out there in general (when we write about attacks), and even more crap about Apple products. Page views. Anytime anything remotely related to security and Apple comes up, there is a bum rush to snag as many mouse clicks as possible, which forces those writers to break pretty much every rule I have when writing on the issue. Here’s how I approach these pieces: Know the platform. Don’t hype. Research, and don’t single source. Accurately assess the risk. Accurately report the facts. This isn’t hard. It really comes down to understanding the facts and writing without unnecessary hype. From what I can tell, this also results in solid page views. I don’t see my Macworld or TidBITS stats, but from what they tell me the articles do pretty well, even if they come a day after everyone else. Why? Because many of the other articles suck, but also because users will seek out information that helps them understand an issue, rather than an article that just scares them. These are the articles that last, as opposed to the crap that’s merely thinly-disguised plagiarizing from a blog post. I get it. If it bleeds, it leads. But I would rather have a reputation for accuracy than for page views. There are also a bunch of articles (especially from AV vendors) that are technically accurate but grossly exaggerate the risk. Take all the calls for the impending Mac Malware Epidemic… by my count there have only been two large infections in the past two years, neither of which resulted in financial losses to consumers. I really don’t care how much Elbonian porn is back-doored with trojans. (I have been waiting 5 years to write that sentence). Anyway, for those of you who read these articles rather than writing them, here are a few warning signs that should raise your skepticism: Are all the quotes from representatives of security companies with something to gain from scaring you? Does the headline end in a question mark? Is it cross-platform, but ‘Mac’ or ‘iPhone’ got shoehorned into the headline to snag page views? Is more than one source cited? Multiple blog posts which all refer back to the same original source don’t count. Does the article provide a risk assessment in the lead or only in the conclusion? Does it use phrases like “naive Apple users”? Then again, I don’t get paid by hit counts. Or maybe I just underestimate how many people download Elbonian porn. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Mike quoted in this Silicon Angle series on CyberWars. Probably too much hype and overuse of buzzwords, but decent perspectives on the attackers. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 Mike’s Dark Reading column on making tough choices. Rich covered the Java exploit for Macworld. Favorite Securosis Posts Adrian Lane: Ur C0de Sux. Seeing as we have not been able to blog much lately, I pulled out an old favorite. Mike Rothman: Always on the Run. When I read my intro to this week’s Incite again, I realized it’s pretty good advice. To me. So I’ll bookmark it and get back to it every time I start dragging a bit. Just keep running and good things happen. David Mortman: Pragmatic WAF Management – Securing the WAF. Other Securosis Posts Slow week – and to be honest, next week will also be slow thanks to way too much travel. We promise to get back to annoying you more consistently soon. Maybe. Favorite Outside Posts Mike Rothman: How to set up two step verification on Dropbox. You probably use Dropbox. You probably don’t want anyone else in that file store. You probably should use two-step authentication. If it works as cleanly and easily as Gmail 2FA this is a no-brainer. I’ll be testing it over the weekend. Adrian Lane: Schneier on Security Engineering. “‘Security’ is now a catch-all excuse for all sorts of authoritarianism, as well as for boondoggles and corporate profiteering.” Excellent post. Dave Lewis: Identity is Center Stage in Mobile Security Venn. David Mortman: Don’t build a database of ruin. Rich: The rise of data-driven security. Scott Crawford is A Very Smart Dude and has been tracking this issue longer than any other analyst. The report is for-pay only, but there is a lot of good info in the long (and free) intro post. Research Reports and Presentations Understanding and Selecting Data Masking Solutions. Evolving Endpoint Malware Detection: Dealing with Advanced and Targeted Attacks. Implementing and Managing a Data Loss Prevention Solution. Defending Data on iOS. Malware Analysis Quant Report. Report: Understanding and Selecting a Database Security Platform. Vulnerability Management Evolution: From Tactical Scanner to Strategic Platform. Top News and Posts New Java 0day With Maynor statements like “This is as about a bad a bug as I’ve ever seen,” and “This exploit is awesome,” you know it’s good. German police buy stolen data, accuse Swiss of aiding tax evaders. It sounds like German investigators not only sought out stolen financial data, but will continue to do so. New Trojan Discovered. Chrome: Blocked Plug-ins. For those who want a little more granularity than ‘On’ or ‘Off’. ISC(2) Board Petition Snafu. Oh, why am I not surprised? Project Viglio

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.