Black Hat Schedule

Our schedules are already filling up for Black Hat this year, so if you want to meet please drop us a line. And for those who want a real schedule, [James Arlen put one together for easy import into your calendar].( Share:

Read Post

Standards don’t move fast enough

Branden Williams is exactly right: 2013 is a pivotal year for PCI DSS. A new version of the guidance will hit later this year. So why is 2013 so important for PCI DSS? In this next revision (which will be released this year, enforced in 2015, and retired at the end of 2017) the standard has to play catch up. It’s notoriously been behind the times when it comes to the types of attacks that merchants face (albeit, most merchants don’t even follow PCI DSS well enough to see if compliance could prevent a breach), but now it’s way behind the times on the technologies that drive business. Enforced in 2015. Yeah, 2015. You know, things change pretty quickly in technology – especially for attackers. But the rub is that the size and disruption of infrastructure changes for the large retailers who control the PCI DSS mean they cannot update their stuff fast enough. So they only update the DSS on a 3-year cycle to allow time to implement the changes (and keep the ROC). Let’s be clear: attackers are not waiting for the new version of PCI to figure out ways to bust new technologies. Did you think they were waiting to figure out how to game mobile payments? Of course not – but no specific guidance will be in play for at least 2 years. Regardless of whether it’s too little, it’s definitely too late. So what to do? Protect your stuff, and put PCI (and the other regulatory mandates) into the box that it belongs. A low bar you need to go beyond if you want to protect your data. Photo credit: “Don’t let this happen to you! too little, too late order coal now!” originally uploaded by Keijo Knutas Share:

Read Post

Friday Summary: June 28, 2013—“Summer’s here” edition

Normally by this time of year things slow down, people go on vacation, and we get to relax a bit, but not this year. At least not for me. It has been seven days a week here for a while, playing catch-up with all the freakin’ research projects going on. And I have wanted to comment on a ton of news items, but have not had the time. So this week’s summary consists of comments on a few headlines I have not had any other the chance to comment on. Here we go: All I can think about when I read these stories on NSA spying and Snowden news items: It is criminal for you, the public, to know our secrets. But it’s totally okay for us to spy on you. Nothing to worry about. Move along now. Love Square. Great product. Disruptive payment medium. But it has been reported they want to create a marketplace to compete with eBay, Amazon and – my interpretation, not something they have stated – craigslist. So let me ask you: Are they friggin’ nuts? Speaking of crazy, why would anyone claim HP is too late to enter the big data race? Has their tardiness in rolling out big data or big-data-like technologies hurt them in the SIEM space? No question. But general big data services is a very new market, and the race for leadership in packaged services has not even begun yet. Was I the only one shocked to learn RSA’s call for papers started this week? WTF? Didn’t I just get back from that conference? We are still a month away from Black Hat. It is currently 109F here in Phoenix, and all I want to do is find a cold beer and keep out of the heat. This just does not feel like the time to be thinking about presentation outlines… But if you want to present next February consider this a friendly reminder. For those three of you who have been emailing me about passwords and password managers because of my comments during the Key Management webcast last week, it’s okay. We will continue to use passwords here and there. I like password managers. Corporate and personal. I use them every day. But passwords will be replaced by tokens and identity certificates for Internet services because a) identity tokens allow us to do much more with identity and authorization than we can with passwords, and b) tokens remove the need to store password hashes on the server. Which is a another way of saying passwords can’t do what certificates do. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian’s white paper on 10 Common Database Vulnerabilities. Mike’s DR Post: The Slippery Slope Of Security Invisibility. Rich’s DR Post: Security Needs More Designers, Not Architects. Adrian’s Dark Reading post Database Configuration Standards. Adrian’s Key Management webcast. Rich’s Macworld article on Apple’s Security Strategy. It’s older, but I just saw Mike’s Security Myth-busting video and it’s funny. Favorite Securosis Posts Rich: Adrian on SQLi. He gets a little pedantic, but that’s what we love about him. Mike Rothman: Security Analytics with Big Data: Deployment Issues. Adrian did a fantastic job with this series. Read all the posts and learn about the future of SIEM… Adrian Lane: Top 10 Stupid Sales/Press/Analyst Presentation Tricks. We see stupid human tricks every week and I don’t think most companies understand how they or their slide decks are perceived. Other Securosis Posts Database Denial of Service [New Series]. API Gateways: Developer Tools. iOS 7 Adds Major Data Security Improvements. Incite 6/26/2013: Camp Rules. The Black Hole of DLP. Automation Awesomeness and Your Friday Summary (June 21, 2013). Full Disk Encryption (FDE) Advice from a Reader. Scamables. Talking Head Alert: Adrian on Key Management. How China Is Different. Microsoft Offers Six Figure Bounty for Bugs. Project Communications. Network-based Malware Detection 2.0: Deployment Considerations. Favorite Outside Posts Adrian Lane: Data Leakage In A Google World. People forget that Google is a powerful tool, which often finds data companies did not want exposed. It’s a tool to hack with, and yes, a tool to phish with. Chris Pepper: Solaris patching is broken because Oracle is dumb and irresponsible. Feh. Mike Rothman: Wences Casares: Teach Your Children to be Doers. Great post here by a start-up CEO about how to teach your kids to get things done. If only all those “entitlement kids” got a similar message from their parents. Dave Lewis: Opera Software Hit by ‘Infrastructure Attack’; Malware Signed with Stolen Cert Rich: TheStreet on Brian Krebs. I think it’s awesome that Brian is doing so well – he writes circles around everyone else on the cybercrime beat. Needless to say, we are fans of the low-overhead direct model. Seems to be working for us at least. 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 Oracles releases critical security update for Java, Apple follows suit. The DEA Seized Bitcoins In A Silk Road Drug Raid. Turkey seeks to tighten control over Twitter. Why Snowden Asked Visitors in Hong Kong to Refrigerate Their Phones. Snowden distributed encrypted copies of NSA docs around the world. Pentagon’s failed flash drive ban policy: A lesson for every CIO. U.S. Surveillance Is Not Aimed at Terrorists. Attackers sign malware using crypto certificate stolen from Opera Software. Software Flaw Threatens LG Android Smartphones. South Korean cyberattacks. Researcher nets $20K for finding serious Facebook flaw. Vast majority of malware attacks spawned from legit sites. More from Google’s Safe Browsing disclosures. Google Adds Malware and Phishing Data to Transparency Report. HP Confirms Backdoor In StoreOnce Backup Product Line. Blog Comment of the Week This week’s best comment goes to Guillaume, in response to iOS 7 Adds Major Data Security Improvements. The share sheet thing is pretty

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.