Securosis

Research

Friday Summary, RSA Edition: March 1, 2012

Rich here, I need to apologize a bit for sending the Summary out a day late. As most of you know, this week is the big annual RSA Conference and we, Securosis, were busy as heck with conference activities. Between e10+, the Security Blogger’s Meetup, the Securosis Disaster Recovery Breakfast, and tons of conference meetings, it is the busiest week of our year. Well, except for me. As many of you know I spent the week here in Phoenix waiting for the birth of my next child. The due date was Monday, and there was no way in hell I was going to take the risk of missing that for a conference. But as you might guess based on the tone of this post, the kid is a no show. It was weird to miss RSA for the first time in many years. I was prepared to miss the social side of the show; as much as I enjoy seeing everyone, a conference is for work and I frequently dodge parties for meetings, to finish slides, or to stay rested. On the business development front I’m the first to admit Mike is a lot better at BD, and he probably closed more business for me than I could have closed myself. It was really nice to sit back and wait for the text messages of people I need to follow up with (thanks Mike!). What I didn’t expect was how much I miss the energy boost. You see, one thing about the nature of our business is that we often work in a vacuum. We advise users and vendors, and maybe get to see the outcomes someday, but we don’t get a lot of direct feedback on our work. This is important not only to ensure we that are on the right track, but it also helps keep us motivated. I don’t get a performance evaluation and bonus at the end of the year if I did well. I am extremely internally motivated. Anyone who works at home, for themselves, has to be or they don’t survive very long. But I’m also human, and we are social creatures. At RSA we get to engage with a much wider range of people than we do in our day-to-day work, and we get face-to-face feedback from people who use our research but don’t necessarily leave comments or feedback. Based on reports from the guys who were out there we are definitely on track, but hearing it isn’t the same as shaking the person’s hand or having breakfast with them. I can’t lie – I really missed that this year. I missed the feedback, good and bad, instead of talking to a blank screen or a captive audience before running to catch a plane. I don’t regret my decision in the slightest – my family is far more important than any of what i just talked about. I like the way Chris Hoff put it during the session we would have presented together had the baby come early, “the cost of missing RSA is a lot less than the cost of a divorce”. And one advantage is that I was here to get the Cloud Security Alliance Nexus launched. The CSA Nexus is a branded version of the Nexus platform we have been developing for two years. We launched with the CSA first because, at our annual internal planning meeting, we decided we needed to rework our content a bit before we go live for Securosis customers. It’s exciting to have actual, paying customers, and to get this thing out of the lab. It’s also weird to be a product manager, not just an analyst. We are going to open up our beta test again after we get a little more server work done, and we are still working out the dates for our official Securosis Nexus launch, but it should be soon. We are making a big bet on this platform, and I suspect getting actual customers in there will more than compensate for missing a few handshakes, head nods, and spilled beers. Note: since everyone was out this week and I was focused on the Nexus launch, this week’s Summary is missing most of the usual sections. Securosis in the news Rich on passwords in Digital Trends. Securosis posts Shattered Windows – the Impact of Attack Automation. Go buy Take Control of Your Passwords. Bit9 Details Breach. About the Security Blogger’s Meetup. Looky here. Adaptive Authentication works… When is a Hack a Breach? The Nexus Is Live with the Cloud Security Alliance! Everything I need to know about security, I learned in kindergarten. The end of MDM (as we know it). Or not. Attribution Meh. Indicators YEAH! Other news More Java 0-day. We are now adding this to the Summary with a weekly script. Botnet shut down live at RSA. AirWatch grabs $200M in funding. We don’t normally cover these things, but that is an insane amount of money. An interview with a ski patroller. Because I really miss ski patrol. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Shattered Windows: the Impact of Attack Automation

In 2011, our friend Josh Corman codified “HD Moore’s Law”: Casual Attacker power grows at the rate of Metasploit For those who don’t know, Metasploit, created by HD Moore, is a free penetration testing framework (it is now owned by Rapid7, who also sells a commercial version). Metasploit allows an attacker to rapidly combine an exploit with a payload and initiate attacks, dramatically reducing the complexity compared to hand-coding an attack yourself. Unlike other commercial tools such as Immunity Canvas and Core Impact, Metasploit has a large community, and when new vulnerabilities or exploits become public they are typically converted into Metasploit modules extremely quickly (sometimes within hours). Once a module is published, anyone using Metasploit can leverage that attack. But Metasploit isn’t the only automated attack tool. Criminals have their own toolsets and markets, some of which advertise inclusion of 0-day vulnerabilities (for a price) and include better support than most of the security tools on the market. Being profitable, they fund their own research teams or acquire new exploits on the open market. Some software vendors have started talking about this in public, as Microsoft outlined in their RSA talk on their response to Flame. Brad Arkin from Adobe has also talked about this and presented hard data on their patch times and public disclosures and exploits. In the article Microsoft didn’t call out Metasploit or the criminal attack tools, but the inference is clear. There is no longer a window to patch when a vulnerability or exploit is discovered, in public or private.* If it isn’t public, it has already been used in attacks or – thanks to changes in the exploit market – sold to someone who intends to use it in attacks. If it is public, it will be included in attack tools (good and bad) faster than most vendors can create and distribute a patch, or most users can deploy even if the patch is available. Some vulnerabilities are still reported privately to vendors, but we can no longer assume this is the norm, especially for some of the most serious vulnerabilities with high market value. Cloud computing also affects this in both good and bad ways, but the core principle is the same. If a cloud service is a target they have nearly no time to patch, but when they do they can patch for all users at once (for public clouds). To be clear, I don’t consider Metasploit or other penetration testing tools ‘bad’. They are extremely important for security professionals to understand and use, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be misused. Share:

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

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.