Incite 4/24/2013: F Perfect

Perfect is my least favorite word in the English language. Nothing is perfect. There are always things that can be improved upon, no matter how good they are. And striving for perfection is an express train to disappointment and unhappiness. I’m a card-carrying disciple of “good enough”. It doesn’t need to be perfect to add value. So I don’t obsess about typos, misplaced pixels, or any other such nonsense. Which can irritate certain business partners [and editors] at times. But I’m not going to change it. If I do work (or anything else), I get it to a point where I’m happy with it and move on. That doesn’t mean I strive to be mediocre. Or that I accept subpar effort from myself or anyone else. I do my best. I focus on consistent effort, not super-human perfection. Some folks believe you need to push beyond your self-imposed mental limits to achieve truly great things. I get that. I have tried that. It made me unhappy because I found I had a high bar for what I expected to achieve. I have the hyper self-motivation gene. I didn’t need an external party to push me. What I needed was to get comfortable with good enough. In hindsight, it’s sad that I felt failure even in the face of significant accomplishment. That’s no way to go through life. At least not for me – you can do what you want. This is a hard lesson to teach your kids, especially when the bar is set by someone else. The Boss and I expect our kids to work hard and achieve to their level of ability. XX2 has a large personality. She is passionate and talented and has tremendous potential. We see that potential and so do her teachers. Unfortunately her teacher this year is a perfectionist who thinks all the kids should be perfect. A few months ago her teacher had beaten her down and we saw it. She stopped trying because she knew she couldn’t achieve the perfection her teacher expected. Her behavior and grades went down a little because she didn’t care anymore. It was time to intervene. So the Boss sat down with the teacher and they worked out a set of criteria that represents a good day for XX2. We thought some of the criteria were stupid but they were based on stuff that irritates the teacher. She gets check marks every day based on the criteria and we sign off daily. She gets a prize from the teacher at the end of the week if she got all positive check marks. Right, she needs to be perfect to get her prize from the teacher. Back to Square 1. Clearly we weren’t going to move the teacher off her perfection fixation. So we went around the teacher. We made it clear to XX2 that we don’t expect perfection. F Perfect. F that teacher too. We put an alternative incentive plan in place. If XX2 gets 5 of 6 checks every day for the week, she gets something from us. And her success criteria is now how she did in our eyes, not the teacher’s. Win! Of course we also talk about what she did that day and what she can do better the next day. We push her to be her best. But not to be perfect. To be human – perfectly imperfect – and we want her to be comfortable with that. –Mike Photo credits: 19. originally uploaded by silangel 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. Security Analytics with Big Data Introduction The CISO’s Guide to Advanced Attackers Verify the Alert Mining for Indicators Intelligence, the Crystal Ball of Security Sizing up the Adversary Newly Published Papers Email-based Threat Intelligence: To Catch a Phish 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 Incite 4 U You! Yes, you! You’re a target: Most folks who are compromised spend their days blissfully unaware. They figure who would be interested what they have? As this post on DealBook shows, every company with any kind of intellectual property is a target for these cyber attacks. DRINK! Yeah, the article gets a 15-yard penalty for excessive use of ‘cyber’. But their point is reasonable: start-up tech companies, who may think they know everything, have no specific mandate or requirement to do security. The authors put the impetus on investors to make sure the management team is challenged to ensure proper intellectual property protections are in place. But good luck with that. That’s like the blind asking the blind whether the moon is out. – MR Break the abuse cycle: It is well known that human behavior favors certainty over novelty. It varies based on our genes, but in general we like things to stay the same – it’s an inertia thing. That makes sense, considering that for many years changes signified impending death, so you might as well sprinkle a few red shirts with the explorer gene, but keep the rest of us safe at home (and no, I promise I didn’t learn all this watching The Croods with my kids). So it comes as no surprise that, almost 13 years on, Windows XP is still used in many organizations. To be honest, I think Gartner’s 10% estimate is low, especially if you count the entire retail and hospitality industry that runs their point of sale systems on XP. Really. Not only is it time to get off XP, because security support ends next year, but it is time to break the abuse cycle. We can’t afford to lock ourselves into 10+-year-old operating systems in today’s threat environment. We need to architect systems and operational processes (such as user training) to allow more frequent upgrades.

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.