Friday Summary: May 24, 2013

This month Google announced a new five year plan for identity management, and update from 2008’s five year plan. Their look backward is as interesting as the revised roadmap. Google recognized their 2-factor auth was more like one-time 2-factor, and that the model has been largely abused in practice. They also concluded that risk-based authentication has worked. A risk-based approach means more sensitive or unusual operations, such as credential changes and connections from unusual locations, ratchet up security by activating additional authentication hurdles. This has been a recent trend, and Google’s success will convince other organizations to get on board. The new (2013-2018) identity plan is for a stricter 2-factor authentication scheme, a continuing push for OpenID, locking ‘bearer’ tokens to specific devices (to reduce the damage an attacker can cause with stolen tokens), and a form of Android app monitoring that alerts users to risky behavior. These are all very good things! Google did not explicitly state that passwords and password recovery schemes are broken, but it looks like they will promote biometrics such as face and fingerprint scanning to unlock devices and authenticate users. The shift away from passwords is a good thing, but what will replace them is still being hotly debated. From the roadmap Google is looking to facial and fingerprint scans first. This latter is a big deal from a outfit like Google because consumers have shown they largely don’t care about security. Despite more than a decade of hijacked accounts, data breaches, and identity theft, people still haven’t shifted from saying they care about security to actually adopting security. Even something as simple and effective as personal password managers is too much for most people to bother with. A handful of small companies offer biometric apps for mobile devices – targeting consumers and hoping Joe User will actually want to buy multi-factor authentication for his mobile device. So far that pitch has been about as successful as offering brussels sprouts to a toddler. But companies do care about mobile security. Demand for things like biometrics, NFC, risk-based access controls, and 2-factor authentication is all driven by enterprises. But if enterprises (including Google) drive advanced (non-password) authentication to maturity – meaning a point where it’s easier and more secure than our current broken password security – users will eventually use it too. Google has the scale and pervasiveness to push the needle on security. Initiatives such as their bug bounty program have succeeded, leading the way for other firms. If Google demonstrates similar successes with better identity systems, they are well positioned to drive both awareness and comfort with cloud-based identity solutions – in a way Courion, Okta, Ping Identity, Symplified, and other outfits cannot. There are many good technologies for identity and access management, but someone needs to make the user experience much easier before we can see widespread adoption. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian’s DR post: Why Database Monitoring?. Favorite Securosis Posts David Mortman: (Scape)goats travel under the bus. Mike Rothman: Websense Goes Private. It’s been a while since we have had two deals in a week in security, and these were both driven by private equity money. Happy days are here again! Rich’s analysis of the first deal was good. Adrian Lane: Solera puts on a Blue Coat. Other Securosis Posts Making Browsers Hard Targets. Network-based Malware Detection 2.0: Evolving NBMD. Incite 5/22/2013: Picking Your Friends. Wendy Nather abandons the CISSP – good riddance. Spying on the Spies. Websense Going Private. Awareness training extends to the top. This botnet is no Pushdo-ver. A Friday Summary from Boulder: May 17, 2013. Quick Wins with Website Protection Services: Protecting the Website. Quick Wins with Website Protection Services: Are Websites Still the Path of Least Resistance? Favorite Outside Posts Dave Lewis: Woman Brags About Hitting Cyclist, Discovers Police Also Use Twitter. Wow… just, wow. David Mortman: Business is a Sport, You Need A Team. Mike Rothman: Mrs. Y’s Rules for Security Bloggers. Some folks out there think it’s easy to be a security blogger. It’s hard, actually. But with these 6 rules you too can be on your way to a career of pontification, coffee addiction, and a pretty okay lifestyle. But they are only for the brave. Adrian Lane: A Guide to Hardening Your Firefox Browser in OS X. Good post on securing Firefox from Stach and Liu. Research Reports and Presentations 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. Defending Against Denial of Service (DoS) Attacks. Securing Big Data: Security Recommendations for Hadoop and NoSQL Environments. Tokenization vs. Encryption: Options for Compliance. Pragmatic Key Management for Data Encryption. The Endpoint Security Management Buyer’s Guide. Top News and Posts Krebs, KrebsOnSecurity, As Malware Memes. Say what you will, but malware authors have a sense of humor. NC Fuel Distributor Hit by $800,000 Cyberheist. The Government Wants A Backdoor Into Your Online Communications. For everything they don’t already have a backdoor for. Hacks labelled hackers for finding security hole. Twitter: Getting started with login verification. Chinese hackers who breached Google gained access to sensitive data, U.S. officials say. Yahoo Japan Suspects 22 Million IDs Stolen. It’s like 2005 all over again. Skype’s ominous link checking: facts and speculation. Bromium: A virtualization technology to kill all malware, forever. Interesting technology. Indian companies at center of global cyber heist. Update on last week’s $45M theft. Blog Comment of the Week This week’s best comment goes to Simon Moffatt, in response to Wendy Nather abandons the CISSP – good riddance. CISSP is like any professional qualification. When entering a new industry with zero or limited experience, you need some method to prove competence. Organisations need to de-risk the recruitment process as much as possible when recruiting individuals they don’t know. It’s a decent qualification, just not enough on its own. Experience, like in any role is

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.