Securosis

Menu

Research

Incite 5/15/2013: Fraud Hits Close to Home

Mike Rothman May 15, 2013 1 Comment

We are in the school year endgame right now. The kids will be done for the year in 10 days, and then summer officially begins. It is a frantic time in our house – the kids head off for camp in mid-June and we take family vacations before then. There is a lot of stuff to buy, a lot of packing to do, and a lot of quality time to squeeze in before The Boss and I become empty nesters for 7 weeks. One of those tasks is haircuts. It turns out the Boy has my hair. And that means he needs to get it cut. Frequently. I’m not complaining but it requires some planning. If they leave in mid-June we need to get his hair trimmed mid-May, which gives it a month before we get the short camp cut. Yes, we actually have to think about stuff like this. So I took the Boy for a haircut on Saturday afternoon, and my phone rang with a number I didn’t recognize from South Florida. Normally I would let it go to voicemail, especially on a Saturday, but my paranoia kicked in because Mom is in South Florida. When you get to my age you dread calls from numbers you don’t know in South Florida. So I picked up the phone for my friends in Office Depot’s fraud department. No, they aren’t really my friends, but they did me a huge solid by catching a strange transaction. Evidently someone used my credit card and address (with cellphone number) to buy a laptop for delivery to a store in California. They asked if I had bought a computer for $519 that day. I had to laugh because everyone knows you can’t buy a Mac for $519, and I wouldn’t be caught dead with a Windows laptop. Kidding aside, they quickly canceled the transaction and kindly suggested I call MasterCard to shut down my clearly compromised card. Yeah, I was already 2-3 steps ahead. Card was shut down, new card ordered, and fraud investigation underway within 5 minutes. Then came the damage assessment. I checked my personal email account to ensure no funkiness (2FA for the win) and also reviewed transactions on my other financial accounts in case of a larger compromise on my end. All clean, for now. But then I got thinking – which of the zillion online merchants I use got popped? They had my cell phone, so it wasn’t a skimming attack. This involved both card number and address/phone, so it was full-on total pwnage of some merchant. But I never expect to learn which. I can’t be too pissed – I had a pretty good run with that MasterCard number. It lasted 18 months, which sadly is a long time between card credential compromises. I could be angry, but it’s just the way it is. When my new card comes in I will need to spend a couple hours wading through my bills and changing all the automatic charges for monthly stuff. I need to monitor that account much more closely until I am confident everything is clean. In 12-18 months I will need to do it again. At least the merchant didn’t give me a hard time – unlike last time this happened, when someone bought auto parts and had them delivered to an address in my town. Of course it wasn’t my address, but those are pesky details. AmEx did good work on that situation, fortunately. And with that, let me tip my hat to Office Depot once again. Once attackers get a working card the fraud transaction come fast and furious, so they saved me a bunch of angst. Now I need to go by some office supplies from Amazon. Come on, man, you didn’t think this would buy any office supply loyalty, did you? –Mike Share:

Share:
Read Post

Boundaries won’t help GRC

Mike Rothman May 15, 2013 1 Comment

Amen to our buddy Paul Proctor, who starts a post, Why I hate the term GRC, with “GRC is the most worthless term in the vendor lexicon.” I couldn’t agree more. 10 years later I still don’t know what it means. Besides everything, as Paul explains: Vendors use it to describe whatever they are selling and Gartner clients use it to describe whatever problem they have. For seven years I have battled this monolithic term and I fear I’m losing the battle. The alternative is to try to bring some clarity to its usage by defining some boundaries. Unfortunately boundaries aren’t going to help. As long as Risk or Compliance (the R and C of GRC) continues to have budget line items, we will have both vendors and users dumping whatever they can into the GRC bucket. It’s a funding strategy that has worked for years, and unless there is some miraculous movement away from regulation it will be successful for years to come. Then Paul tries to put GRC tools into a box. Good luck with that. But he makes a good point: “Buying a tool to solve your GRC problems is putting the cart before the horse. For example, if you don’t have risk assessment, buying a GRC tool is not going to give it to you.” I applaud this attempt to provide some sanity to the idiocy of GRC. But that’s too positive and constructive for me. I would rather just bitch about it some more. Which I think I did… Share:

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Research

view all

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

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.