Friday Summary: October 5, 2012

Gunnar Peterson posted a presentation a while back on how being an investor makes him better at security, and conversely how being in security makes him better at investing. It’s a great concept, and my recent research on different investment techniques has made me realize how amazing his concept is. Gunnar’s presentation gets a handful of the big ideas (including defensive mindset, using data rather than anecdotes to make decisions, and understanding the difference between what is and what should be) right, but actually under-serves his concept – there are many other comparisons that make his point. That crossed my mind when reading An Investor’s Guide to Famous Last Words. Black Swan author Nassim Taleb: “People focus on role models; it is more effective to find antimodels – people you don’t want to resemble when you grow up.” The point in the Fool article is to learn from others’ mistakes. With investing mistakes are often very public, and we share them as examples of what not to do. In security, not so much. Marcus Ranum does a great presentation called the Anatomy of The Security Disaster, pointing out that problem identification is ignored during the pursuit of great ideas, and blame-casting past the point of no return is the norm. I have lived through this sequence of events myself. And I am not arrogant enough to think I always get things right – I know I had to screw things up more than once just to have a decent chance of not screwing up security again in the future. And that’s because I know many things that don’t work, which – theoretically anyway – gives me better odds at success. This is exactly the case with investing, and it took a tech collapse in 2001 to teach me what not to do. We teach famous investment failures but we don’t share security failures. Nobody wants the shame of the blame in security. There is another way investing makes me better at security and it has to do with investment styles, such as meta-trending, day trading, efficient market theory, cyclic investing, hedging, shorting, value investing, and so on. When you employ a specific style you need to collect specific types of data to fuel your model, which in turn helps you make investment choices. You might look at different aspects of a company’s financials, industry trends, market trends, political trends, social trends, cyclic patterns, the management team, or even disasters and social upheaval as information catalysts. Your model defines which data is needed. You quickly realize that mainstream media only caters to certain styles of investing – data for other styles is only a tiny fraction of what the media covers. Under some investment styles all mainstream investment news is misleading BS. The data you don’t want is sprayed at you like a fire hose because those stories interest many people. We hear about simple and sexy investment styles endlessly – boring, safe, and effective investment is ignored. Security practitioners, do you see where I am going with this? It is very hard to filter out the noise. Worse, when noise is all you hear, it’s really easy to fall into the “crap trap”. Getting good data to base decisions on is hard, but bad data is free and easy. The result is to track outside of your model, your style, and your decision process. You react to the BS and slide toward popular or sexy security models or products – that don’t work. It’s frightfully easy to do when all anyone talks about are red herrings. Back to Gunnar’s quote… Know what you don’t want your security model to be. This is a great way to sanity check the controls and processes you put into place to ensure you are not going down the wrong path, or worrying about the wrong threats. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian’s Dark Reading post: What’s the threat? Rich’s Dark Reading post: Security Losses Remain Within Range of Acceptable Adrian’s research paper: Securing Small Databases. Mike’s upcoming webcast: I just got my WAF, Now What? Favorite Securosis Posts Mike Rothman: Securing Big Data: Operational Security Issues. This stuff looks a lot like the issues you face on pretty much everything else. But a little different. That’s the point I take away from this post and the series. Yes it’s a bit different, and a lot of the fundamentals and other disciplines used through the years may not map exactly, but they are still useful. Adrian Lane: Incite: Cash is King. How many startups have I been at that hung on the fax machine at the end of every quarter? How many sales teams have I been with where “the Bell” only rang the last three days of a quarter? Good stuff. Rich I’m picking my Dark Reading post this week. It stirred up a bit of a Twitter debate, and I think I need to write more on this topic because I couldn’t get enough nuance into the initial piece. Other Securosis Posts New Series: Understanding and Selecting Identity Management for Cloud Services. Endpoint Security Management Buyer’s Guide Published (with the Index of Posts). Securing Big Data: Operational Security Issues. Favorite Outside Posts Mike Rothman: DDoS hitmen for hire. You can get anything as a service nowadays. Even a distributed denial of service (DDoS). I guess this is DDoSaaS, eh? Adrian Lane: Think differently about database hacking. Lazlo Toth and Ferenc Spala’s DerbyCon presentation shows how to grab encryption keys and passwords from OCI clients. A bit long, but a look at hacking Oracle databases without SQL injection. Yes, there are non-SQL injection attacks, in case you forgot. Will we see this in the wild? I don’t know. Rich: Antibiotic Resistant security by Valsmith. What he’s really driving at is an expansion of monoculture and our reliance on signature-based AV, combined with a few other factors. It’s a very worthwhile read. The TL;DR version is that we have created

Read Post

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.