Securosis

Research

White Paper: Tokenization vs. Encryption

We are relaunching one of our more popular white papers, Tokenization vs. Encryption: Options for Compliance. The paper was originally written to close some gaps in our existing tokenization research coverage and address common user questions. Specifically, how does tokenization differ from encryption, and how can I decide which to use? We believe tokenization is particularly important, for several reasons. First, in an evolving regulatory landscape, we need a critical examination of tokenization’s suitability for compliance. There are many possible applications of tokenization, and it’s simpler and easier to use than many other security tools. Second, we wanted to dispel the myth that tokenization is a replacement technology for encryption, when in fact it’s a complimentary solution that – in some cases – makes regulatory compliance easier. Finally, not all of the claimed use cases for tokenization are practical at this time. These questions keep popping up, so we feel a relaunch is in order. This paper discusses the use of tokenization for payment data, personal information, and health records. The paper was written to address questions regarding the business applicability of tokenization, and therefore far less technical than most of our research papers. The content has been updated slightly to reflect some of the changes in the PCI Council’s stance on PCI and address some questions which arise when considering tokenization for PHI and PII. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. A special thanks to Intel and Prime Factors for sponsoring this research! Download: Tokenization vs. Encryption: Options for Compliance, version 2. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 2/24/2012: Fruit Salad

Some days I miss when the kids were little. It’s not that I don’t appreciate being able to talk in full sentences, pick apart their arguments and have them understand what I’m talking about, or apply a heavy bit of sarcasm when I respond to some silly request. I don’t think I’d go back to the days of changing diapers, but there was a simplicity to child rearing back then. We don’t really appreciate how quickly time flies – at least I don’t. I blinked and the toddlers are little people. We were too busy making sure all the trains ran on time to appreciate those days. The other day the Boss and I were franticly trying to get dinner ready. Being the helpful guy I am (at times), I asked what was for dinner, so I could get the proper bowls and utensils. I think it was hot dogs, corn, and fruit salad. Once she said, “fruit salad,” I instinctively blurted out “Yummy Yummy.” She started cracking up. Those of you not going through the toddler phase over the past 7 years probably have no idea what I’m talking about. Those who have know I am talking about the Wiggles. I remember back to the days of watching those 4 Australians dance around to silly, catchy songs – and maybe even teach the kids a thing or two. But far more important at that time, the Wiggles kept the kids occupied for 30 minutes and allowed us frantic parents to get a little of our sanity back. So in a strange way, I miss the Wiggles. I don’t miss the time we drove up to Maryland for the holidays and the kids watched all of the Wiggles DVDs we had in a row. After 10 hours of that, if I saw any Wiggles I certainly wouldn’t have been wielding a Feathersword. And now that I think about it, most of the songs were pretty annoying. So I guess I don’t miss the Wiggles after all. But I do miss that stage when the kids were easier. When it was about learning the ABCs, not putting competitive grades on the board to get into a good college. When we could focus on learning T-ball skills, not what sport to specialize in to have any hope of playing in high school. When the biggest issue was the kids not sharing the blocks nicely, rather than the $tween hormonal mayhem we need to manage now. As I look back, the songs may not actually have been yummy, yummy, but those times were. –Mike Photo credits: Ben-Anthony-throw-fruit originally uploaded by OneTigerFan Heavy Research We are 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 get all our content in its unabridged glory. And you can get all our research papers too. Implementing and Managing Patch and Configuration Management Introduction Understanding and Selecting a Key Manager Introduction Defending Against Denial of Service (DoS) Attacks The Process Defense, Part 2: The Applications Understanding and Selecting Identity Management for Cloud Services Introduction Incite 4 U It’s about finding the unknown unknowns: I seem to constantly be talking to enterprises about SIEM, and they seem surprised when I state the obvious. Deploying this technology involves knowing what question you’re trying to answer, right? The idea of finding a targeted attack via correlation rules is pretty much hogwash. Wendy makes a good point in her recent Dark Reading post. She’s exactly right that having a lot of data doesn’t mean you know what to do with it. Data aggregation and simple correlation is only the first wave of the story. Harnessing new data analysis techniques, for those willing to make the investment, enables interesting technologies to identify patterns and indicate activity you don’t know about. Of course you still need some HUMINT (human intelligence) to figure out whether the patterns mean anything to your organization – like that you are under attack – but the current state of the art is finding what you already know, so this makes a nice improvement in the impact of analytics on security operations. – MR Ignorance is bliss: A recent study suggests that small organizations are confident in their security without any real plans. These results are really not surprising, and closely match my own research. Just about every small firm I speak with has no idea about what protections they should have in place. They also have no clue about possible threats. Sure, some are vaguely aware of what could happen, but they generally choose not to take the time or spend the money on security controls that could be ‘better’ spent elsewhere. But I worry more about the dozen or so small merchants I have spoken with, who must comply with PCI-DSS, but don’t understand any of the items described in their self-assessment questionnaires. It might as well be written in a foreign language. And of course they don’t have security policies or procedures to achieve compliance – they have passwords and a firewall, all managed by the same guy! Failure just waiting to happen. – AL 2008 called, and it wants its whitelist back: I read this announcement of new Forrester research calling for increased use of application whitelisting. Wait, what? I thought that battle was over – and we had all agreed that AWL is a good alternative for fixed function devices like kiosks, ATMs, factory floor equipment, and call center devices – but for knowledge workers not so much. At least that’s what Mr. Market says. To be fair, I agree with the concept. If malware can’t execute that’s a good thing. But the collateral user experience damage makes this a non-starter for many enterprises. Especially when there are other alternatives refining the behavioral approaches of the past. – MR Elephant in a box: While it’s not a security related issue, Teradata’s (TD) announcement

Share:
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.