Securosis

Menu

Research

Friday Summary: September 21, 2012

Adrian Lane September 21, 2012 No Comments

Adrian here … I had a few surgical procedures over the past few weeks. They corrected some vascular defects that were causing several problems, some of which had been coming on for such a long time I was unaware that there was an issue. The whole boiling frog in a beaker concept. And with the slow progression I was ignorant of the extent of the damage it was causing. The good news is that procedures were successful and their positive benefit was far greater than I anticipated. This whole series of events hammered home a concept that I have been intellectually aware of for a long time, but not lived out to this degree. Many people have blogged about how and why people make bad security tradeoffs. Instinct, fear, lower brain functions, and other ways we are wired to make some decisions and not others. Bruce Schneier has been talking about this for 10 years or more. But I think for the first time I really understand it at a basic level. When I was a kid I had a very strong vasovagal response. I get the lightheadedness, nausea, feeling of being extremely hot, and sweating. I don’t get the fuzziness, inability to speak, or weakness. But I only ever got it when I went to the eye doctor and they administered the glaucoma test. Nothing else has ever bugged me – until this recent surgery. For the first time I saw it in slow motion, with the internal conversation going something like this: The upper, rational part of my brain says: “I’m really looking forward to getting this stuff fixed and moving on with my life.” The lower part that’s wired into all critical infrastructure say: “Something’s wrong. Something bad is happening to your leg. Fix it!” The upper brain: “It’s okay, the doctor’s just fixing some veins. Don’t …” Lower brain: “NO, it’s not! Kick that F**ker in the head! Kick him then run like hell!” Lower brain wins. And all these years I just thought I hated my eye doctor. Who knew? But getting that very strange sensation again was both odd and educational. Being aware of the condition and watching yourself react as an adult is a whole different experience; you consciously witness two parts of your brain at odds. And I know how to work through it without passing out, but it involves the same stomach compression techniques jet pilots learn to combat G-forces. A great way to creep out the hospital staff too, but it kept me alert through the physical manifestations of the conflict to ‘witness’ the internal debate. No wonder we’re so flawed when if comes to making judgements when threats or fear are involved. I can be aware of it and still do very little about it. You body would rather shut down than deal with it. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian’s Dark Reading post on Encrypted Query Processing. Favorite Securosis Posts Mike Rothman: Inflection. Rich provides some food for thought on what the future of security looks like. Read it. Think about it. See what makes sense to you. Adrian Lane: It’s Time for Enterprises to Support a “Backup” Browser. No way to be secure with just one. And don’t get me started on browsing from mobile devices! Other Securosis Posts Incite 9/20/2012: Scabs. Securing Big Data: Security Issues with Hadoop Environments. Attend Gunnar’s Kick-A Mobile Security and Development Class. Friday Summary: September 14, 2012. Favorite Outside Posts Mike Rothman: Antivirus programs often poorly configured, study finds. In a “master of the obvious” research finding, the OPSWAT guys tell us that even if AV worked (which it doesn’t), most folks misconfigure their controls anyway and don’t have the right stuff turned on. And you wonder why the busiest guys in the industry are the folks tracking all the breaches? Adrian Lane: Looking Inside Your Screenshots. So many good posts this week, but I thought this was the most interesting. I have never been a big fan of digital watermarking – it’s too easy to detect and evade for images and music files, and we know it degrades content. But in this case it’s more difficult to detect and does not degrade the content – and it gives Blizzard a hammer to use in legal cases as they have solid user/client identity. Sneaky, and if you give it some thought, there are other practical applications of this approach. Rich: Compliance lessons from Lance at EmergentChaos. As the resident Securosis cycling fan there’s no way I wasn’t going to pick this one. Only difference is Lance previously, clearly, stated he didn’t dope… which isn’t the same as his recent comments more focused on ‘compliance’. 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. 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. Top News and Posts OWASP ZAP – the Firefox of web security tools Coders Behind the Flame Malware Left Incriminating Clues on Control Servers. A fun read. And if most code received this level of scrutiny, we would have much better code! Attack Easily Cracks Oracle Database Passwords Internet Explorer Fix is available now Media Manipulation and Social Engineering Mobile Pwn2Own ownage Hacker Steals $140k From Lock Poker Account RSnake donated XSS filter cheat sheet to OWASP BSIMM 4 Released Petco Releases Coupon On Internet, Forgets How Internet Works Majority of companies suffered a web application security breach Massachusetts group to pay $1.5M HIPAA settlement. I would love to see the “corrective plan of action”. Web Cryptography API draft published Java zero-day leads to Internet Explorer zero-day Blog Comment of the Week Remember, for every comment selected, Securosis makes a $25 donation to Hackers for Charity. This week’s best

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.