New Paper: Email-based Threat Intelligence

The next chapter in our Threat Intelligence arc, which started with Building an Early Warning System and then delved down to the network in Network-based Threat Intelligence, now moves on to the content layer. Or at least one layer. Email continues to be the predominant initial attack mechanism. Whether it is to deliver a link to a malware site or a highly targeted spear phishing email, many attacks begin in the inbox. So we thought it would be useful to look at how a large aggregation of email can be analyzed to identify attackers and prioritize action based on the adversaries’ mission. In Email-based Threat Intelligence we use phishing as the jumping-off point for a discussion of how email security analytics can be harnessed to continue shortening the window between attack and detection. This excerpt captures what we are doing with this paper: So this paper will dig into the seedy underbelly of the phishing trade, starting with an explanation of how large-scale phishers operate. Then we will jump into threat intelligence on phishing – basically determining what kinds of trails phishers leave – which provides data to pump into the Early Warning system. Finally we will cover how to get Quick Wins with email-based threat intelligence. If you can stop an attack, go after the attackers, and ultimately disrupt attempts to steal personal data you will, right? We wrote this paper to show you how. You can see the landing page in the research library or download Email-based Threat Intelligence (PDF) directly. We would like to thank Malcovery Security for licensing the content in this paper. Obviously we wouldn’t be able to do the research we do, or offer it to you folks for this most excellent price, without sponsors licensing our content. Share:

Read Post

Services are a startup’s friend

I try to read a variety of different non-security resources each week, to stay in touch with both technology and startup culture. Of course, we at Securosis are kind of a startup. We are small and we’re investing significantly in software (which is late and over budget, like all software projects). But we choose not to deal with outside investors and to have reasonable growth expectations, since ultimately we do this job because we love it. Not because we’re trying to retire any time soon. It is instructive to read stuff from former operating folks who find themselves advising other startups. Mark Suster, who is now a VC, has a good post on TechCrunch about One of the Biggest Mistakes Enterprise Startups Make. He’s talking about the hazards of trying to introduce an enterprise product without a professional services capability. Ultimately any startup must be focused on customer success, and drop shipping a box (or having them download software) may not be enough. The line of reasoning goes, “Services businesses are not scalable and the market won’t reward this revenue so make sure that third-parties do your implementation or clients do it themselves. We only want software revenue.” This is a huge mistake. If you’re an early-stage enterprise startup services revenue is exactly what you need. In the security business this is a pretty acute fear. Let’s call this ArcSight-itis. Customers can be very resistant to technology that requires more investment in services than in software. The old ERP model of paying X for software and 4X for services to make it work is pretty much dead. Thus the drive to make things easier to use, requiring less services. And they don’t want to revisit their experience with early SIEM offerings. But as with everything, there is nuance. Ultimately customers want to be successful which is why they bought the product in the first place. So if customers left to their own devices can’t get quick value from any technology investment, then who’s the loser? Everyone, that’s who. Mark’s point is that for startups in emerging markets, customers don’t know what to do with the technology. They haven’t done the integration to provide a whole product (yes, break out Crossing the Chasm if you don’t know what I’m talking about). And the channel doesn’t have the expertise to really support the customer. So the startup needs to provide that expertise. Even better, services can goose revenues to partially cover costs while the software business matures. Over time, license revenues (or increasingly services/SaaS revenues) are far more highly valued. But Mark’s point is that if smaller companies selling an enterprise product don’t have the capability to integrate and service the product, they may not be around long enough for the software to mature. Of course there are exceptions, and that is why he prefaced everything with the ‘enterprise’ term. If a mid-market focused offering requires significant services it’s a epic fail. But if the Global 2000 is the target market, recruit good services folks early and often. 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.