Securosis

Research

McAfee Gets Some NGFW Stones

In hindsight we should have seen this coming. I mean it’s not like McAfee even showed up for the most recent NSS Labs next-generation firewall (NGFW) test. They made noise about evolving their IPS, I mean Network Security Platform, to offer integrated firewall capabilities. But evidently it was either too hard or would have taken too long (or both) to provide a competitive product. So McAfee solved the problem by writing a $389MM check for Stonesoft. You haven’t heard of Stonesoft? They weren’t a household name but they have had a competitive firewall product for years. Decent distribution in Europe and a very small presence in the US. They did about $50MM in revenues last year and are publicly traded in Finland. I guess what’s surprising is that it wasn’t Cisco, Juniper, IBM, or HP. What about Cisco’s blank check to regain competitiveness in the security business? If it’s not connected to an SDN apparently Juniper isn’t interested. I guess IBM and HP hope that if they continue to ignore the NGFW market it will just go away. Hope is not a strategy. And as perimeter consolidation continues (and it is happening – regardless of what IPS vendors tell you), if you don’t have a competitive integrated product you won’t be in the game for long. So McAfee needed to make this move. Certainly before someone else did. But it’s not all peaches and cream. McAfee has their work cut out for them. It’s not like they have really excelled at integrating any of their larger acquisitions. And they have to reconcile their existing IPS platform with Stonesoft’s integrated capabilities. Don’t forget about the legacy SideWinder proxy firewall, which continues to show up a lot in highly secure government environments. Why have one integrated platform when you can have 3? How they communicate the roadmap and assure customers (who are already looking at other alternatives) will determine the success of this deal. To further complicate matters, integration plans are basically on hold due to some wacky Finnish laws that prevent real integration until the deal is basically closed. It is unlikely they will be able to do any real planning until the fall (when they have acquired 50% of the stock), and cross-selling cannot start until they have 90% of the stock tendered – probably early 2014. Details, details. The NGFW game of musical chairs is about to stop, and the move towards the Perimeter Security Gateway is going to begin. The M&A in the space is pretty much done because there just aren’t any decent alternatives available to buy without writing a multi-billion-dollar check any more. Those vendors without something NGFW are likely to see their network security revenues plummet within 2 years. Select your network security vendors accordingly. Photo credit: “Stone Pile” originally uploaded by Mark McQuitty Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 5/8/2013: One step at a time

Do you ever look at your To Do list and feel like you want to just run away and hide? Me too. I talk a lot about consistent effort and not trying to hit home runs, but working for a bunch of singles and doubles. That works great for run rate activities like writing the Incite and my blog series. But I am struggling to move forward on a couple very important projects that are bigger than a breadbox and critical to the business. It is annoying the crap out of me, and I figure publicly airing my issues might help me push through them. I have tried to chunk up these projects into small tasks. That’s how you defeat overwhelm, right? But here it just means I need to push a bunch of tasks back and back and back in my Todo app rather than just one. I think my problem is that I feel like I need a block of time sufficient to complete a smaller task. But I rarely have a solid block of a couple hours to focus and write so I get stuck and don’t even start. But that’s nonsense. I don’t have to finish the entire task now – I just need to do a bit every day, and sure enough it will get done. Is that as efficient as clearing the calendar, shutting off Twitter and email, and getting into the zone? Nope. It will definitely take longer to finish but I can make progress without finishing the entire task. Really, I can. As much as I try to teach my kids what they need to know, every so often I learn from them too. XX1 just finished her big year-end project. It was a multi-disciplinary project involving science, language arts, and social studies. She invented a robot (J-Dog 6.2) that would travel to Jupiter for research. We went to the art store and got supplies so she could mock up the look of the robot; she had to write an advertisement for the product, a user manual, and a journal in the robot’s voice to describe what was happening – among other things. She did a great job. I’m not sure where she got her artistic chops or creativity but the Boss and I didn’t help her much at all. How does that relate to my issue getting big things done? She worked on the project a little every day. She cut the pieces of the model one day. Painted it the next. Outlined the journal on the third. And so on. It’s about making progress, one step at a time. She finished two days early so she didn’t have to do an all-nighter the day before – like her old man has been known to do. So I need to take a lesson and get a little done. Every day. Chip away at it. I have an hour left in my working day, so I need to get to work… –Mike Photo credits: XX1 Geobot project – May 2013 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. Defending Cloud Data/IaaS Encryption Object Storage Encrypting Entire Volumes Protecting Volume Storage Understanding Encryption Systems Security Analytics with Big Data Use Cases Introduction The CISO’s Guide to Advanced Attackers Evolving the Security Program Breaking the Kill Chain Verify the Alert Mining for Indicators 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 I (for the record) am not the world’s greatest lover: I don’t know Troy Hunt but he probably isn’t either. But this awesome post basically supports his claim as the world’s greatest lover by stating “I could quite rightly say that nobody has ever demonstrated that this is not the case and there are no proven incidents that disprove it.” Then he goes on to lampoon the web site security seals from your favorite big security vendor. Not just that they can’t really justify their assurances that something is secure, but showing screenshots of these ‘protected’ sites busted by simple attacks. As funny (in a sad way) as this is, ultimately it won’t make much of a difference because the great unwashed think those seals actually mean something. – MR Nuclear powered 0-day: This is a bit of a weird one. Internet Explorer 8, and only IE version 8, is being actively exploited in the wild with a 0-day attack. It is always interesting when a vulnerability only works on one version of IE and doesn’t affect earlier or later versions. Additionally the malware was propagated through a US Department of Labor website, and only to people researching illnesses associated with work on nuclear weapons. Clearly the attackers were targeting a certain demographic, but I haven’t seen any reports of actual exploitation, which is the part we should be most interested in (except the DoL website – they totally pwned that one). It seems like a bit of an outlier attack because I don’t expect too many of their targets to look on the DoL site for that information, but what do I know? As we have learned, these espionage attacks are basically a targeted spray and play: attacking every possible path to their desired targets, understanding that the law of averages is in their favor. – RM Learn it. Know it. Live it.: Security professionals talk about how developers don’t understand security, but the Coverity team throws it right back at them with 10 Things Developers Wished Security People Knew. This is sound advice for security people working with software development. The underlying belief is that all these things require security to get to know the people, process, and code

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.