Identifying vs. Understanding Your Adversaries

You read stories about badasses tracking down trolls and showing up at their houses, and you get fired up about attribution. The revenge gene is strong in humans and there is nothing like taking that Twitter gladiator out the woodshed for a little good old fashioned medieval treatment. Now, payback daydreams aside, Keith Gilbert asks a pretty important question about attribution. Do you really need to know exactly who the attacker is? The question: Do you or your organization need to know the PERSON sitting behind the keyboard at the other end of the attack? I still believe that the answer, in most situations, is no. The exceptions I see are localized (physical tampering, skimming, etc) types of crime, or for organizations that are serious about prosecuting (which usually means a financial motivation) the perpetrator. That’s right. It may make you feel better to know the perpetrator was brought to justice, but in most cases doing the work to pinpoint the person is well past the point of diminishing returns. That being said, though it’s not critical to identify the actual attacker, you need to understand the tactics and profile of the adversaries. The idea is that knowing the tactics that the adversary is likely to use can be immensely valuable in prioritizing defenses and focusing employees. While understanding tactics is part of knowing your adversary, it also helps to understand the motivations behind your attackers. Why are you a target? What data are they going after (or prevent others from reaching)? How will they attempt to reach their goal? This is really no different than any other business intelligence function. If you don’t have a clear profile of your adversaries, how can you figure out how to protect yourself? As long as you understand that the profile is dynamic (meaning the attackers are always changing) and that you’re using the intelligence to make educated guesses about the controls that will protect your environment, it’s all good. Photo credit: “Caught red handed?” originally uploaded by Will Cowan Share:

Read Post

How Cloud Computing (Sometimes) Changes Disclosure

When writing about the flaw in Apple’s account recovery process last week, something set my spidey sense tingling. Something about it seemed different than other similar situations, even though exploitation was blocked quickly and the flaw fixed within about 8 hours. At first I wanted to blame The Verge for reporting on an unpatched flaw without getting a response from Apple. But I can’t, because the flaw was already public on the Internet, they didn’t link to it directly, and users were at active risk. Then I realized that it is the nature of cloud attacks and disclosures in general. With old-style software vulnerabilities when a flaw is disclosed, whatever the means, attackers need to find and target victims. Sometimes this is very easy and sometimes it’s hard, but attacks are distributed by nature. With a cloud provider flaw, especially against a SaaS provider, the nature of the target and flaw give attackers a centralized target. Full disclosure can be riskier for users of the service, depending on the degree of research or effort required to attack the service. All users are immediately at risk, all exploits are 0-days, and users may have no defensive recourse. This places new responsibilities on both cloud providers and security researchers. I suspect we will see this play out in some interesting ways over the next few years. And I am neither equating all cloud-based vulnerabilities, nor making a blanket statement on the morality of disclosure. I am just saying this smells different, and that’s worth thinking about. 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.