Securosis

Research

Who comes up with this stuff?

Galaxy Note II security flaw lets intruders gain full device access. Confirmed: iOS 6.1.3 Has Another Passcode Security Flaw The iOS one in particular is very limited, but I am continuously astounded by the creativity of some of these passcode flaws. Give me SQL injection or heap sprays any day… Share:

Share:
Read Post

DHS raises the deflector shields

All you IT professionals out there who want to divert attention, give your exec’s a warm and fuzzy feeling you’re saving money and making you’re users experience better, just do what the DHS did. Margaret Graves, DHS deputy CIO, pulled a page from Star Trek and flummoxed Congress with some Techno-Babble. From [Network World](http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/032013-dhs-shifting-to-cloud-agile-267910.html): > At a hearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security on Tuesday, a DHS IT official gave lawmakers an overview of agile development methodologies, one of the tools that the department is using to fix its IT project management. Agile came up after U.S. Rep Ron Barber (D-Ariz.), a former staffer in Rep. Gabrielle Gifford’s office who won that seat after Giffords resigned, asked what DHS was doing to ensure that its IT systems met user needs. Margaret Graves, DHS deputy CIO, said the department is using agile methodologies to create user stories to help shape the systems. In agile development, user stories can be short and informal descriptions of some of the functions users would like to see. She blinded him with science! Throw out a ‘solution’ that sounds good, which lots of people ‘in the know’ approve of, but it too esoteric or complex for critics to understand. In this case it’s Agile development on Cloud resources tuned by User Stories. It’s a red-herring trifecta! I’d be a hypocrite if I said I’d not used this IT-Judo technique before. It works! It always worked on Star Trek. Get in trouble and just re-phase the shield generators and send out a broad spectrum particle beam to detect cloaked vessels. Just so happens the technique works in real life too. All kidding aside – Agile is a great development _process_ as the approach forces simplification of grand projects into simple tasks. And it intrinsically offers the benefits that you are always be working on the most important part of the project – or at least a portion that can be delivered within the coming sprint. But Agile pushes a lot of the burden of successful implementation onto the project manager. PM’s take more control over product and service enhancements, really steering the course of development through prioritization. But _if your product management already sucks, you’ll still fall off the tracks with Agile_. You’ll just do it faster. Dare I say faster than an anti-matter explosion from a warp core breach. And if you don’t understand what that means, fear not, neither does U.S. Representative Ron Barber (D-Ariz.). Chalk one up for Ms. Graves of the DHS. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 3/20/2013: Falling down

I read a profile of Spanx’s Sara Blakely in Forbes Billionaires issue, and the tip that really resonated was that at dinner each night, her father would ask each child what they failed that day. Wait, what? He would be disappointed if the kids didn’t fail something because it meant they weren’t stretching far enough out of their comfort zone. Damn, I wish I thought of that. There is an unnecessary stigma about failure and it’s counter-productive. This is programmed into our heads from a young age. “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” Hyper-competitive helicopter parents screaming at their kids to win their 4-year-old T-ball game. I have to say the Boy competes in both lacrosse and tennis, but he doesn’t much care whether he wins or loses. He just moves on. He certainly didn’t get that trait from me – I was very competitive growing up and hated to lose at anything. But I admire it in him. As a result of my unwillingness to screw up, I didn’t really try enough new things. I would compete when I knew I had a very good chance to win. Looking back, it would have served me much better to have tried stuff and made mistakes and realized that I could fall down, and it would be okay. Think about it – we fail every day at all sorts of things, both little and big. Entrepreneurs talk about failing fast and pivoting to the next idea quickly. They fall down but reload and move on. I love the guys who breathe their own exhaust and think they are all who because they joined a company like Google or Facebook early enough to make some money, but not so early that they had much to do with the company’s success. These folks think it was them, while in reality they were lucky. To be fair, these lucky few do learn from being around success. Some can parlay that into success in their next venture. But most don’t. The folks who got blown out are more interesting. As one of them I can tell you that I learned a lot more from failing. In the security world a breach occurs when something fails. Some of the small-minded clean up the mess and move on. They don’t spend enough time trying to figure out what went wrong. They hope the problem will go away. It won’t. It never does. They should do a post-mortem. They need to identify what didn’t work and fix it. An organization’s culture must allow for mistakes, though it’s realistic to expect employees not to make the same mistake twice. I am pretty good about telling my kids that it’s okay to make mistakes. As long as they learn from them. So when they have a no good, horrible, very bad day, messing everything up, I always ask what they have learned. Usually they can tell me, but if not I’ll use it as a teaching moment to explain what they could do differently next time. Ultimately I try to make it clear to them that it’s okay to fail. Really, it’s okay. As long as they get back up and jump into the mix. –Mike Photo credits: Oops! “This Was NOT What I Intended!” originally uploaded by Bridget Coila Upcoming Cloud Security Training Interested in Cloud Security? Are you in EMEA (or do you have a ton of frequent flyer miles)? Mike will be teaching the CCSK Training class in Reading UK on April 8-10. Sign up now. 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. Email-based Threat Intelligence Quick Wins Analyzing the Phishing Food Chain Industrial Phishing Tactics Understanding Identity Management for Cloud Services Buyers Guide Architecture and Design Integration Newly Published Papers Network-based Threat Intelligence: Searching for the Smoking Gun Understanding and Selecting a Key Management Solution Building an Early Warning System Implementing and Managing Patch and Configuration Management Defending Against Denial of Service Attacks Incite 4 U Vulnerability scoring snoring: I have to admit I have never been a fan of generic vulnerability scoring because it doesn’t take into account the context required to understand the impact of the issue on your network. It’s nice to see Tyler Reguly of nCircle make the same point. He says it pretty bluntly: “The current state of vulnerability scoring is useless. With the frequency of vulnerability disclosure and the number of vulnerabilities patched in products, a bucket consisting of High, Medium, and Low tells me nothing.” Back in Vulnerability Management Evolution I talked a lot about how prioritizing what to do is the key value of these platforms. Tyler then goes on to talk about risk scoring, which adds a few key attributes like exploit availability and access to the system. Right – if you can’t exploit the vulnerability or get to the system, your urgency score needs to drop. Period. – MR SCADA chum: Even today we still run into far too many Operational Technology (OT, as opposed to IT) people who like to pretend they are still safe behind their firewalls. Or that their systems are too specialized for Internet attackers to do anything with, even if they do get in. New research by Trend Micro shatters those misconceptions. The research team put up 3 honeypot networks designed to emulate real utility company networks, and watched as they were hit with 39 attacks from 14 nations (guess who came first?). This is merely one more in a series of wake-up calls, and you can bet that these sorts of results are driving more of the cybersecurity activity in DC than the more-public IP theft. – RM Right idea, wrong direction: This attacks to critical infrastructure story is making the rounds as news. But this is the same story we heard for years about SCADA; vulnerable – we know. But why is it an issue now, and why is it any

Share:
Read Post

The World’s Most Targeted Critical Infrastructure

Microsoft confirms ‘high-profile’ employee Xbox Live accounts hacked Major vulnerability in EA’s Origin platform lets hackers overtake PCs Anyone surprised? Games made an estimated $25.1B in 2010 in the US alone. This is an industry under constant attack – just ask Sony. I’d love to learn more security lessons from them. Share:

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.