Lockheed-Martin Trademarks “Cyber Kill Chain”. “Cyberdouche” Still Available

It appears that Lockheed Martin has trademarked the term “Cyber Kill Chain”. This should be no surprise, and you can read my House of Cybercards post if you want to know why this isn’t merely humorous. In an interview, James Arlen, creator of the term ‘Cyberdouche’, confirmed his term “is still free to use, as also demonstrated by Lockheed.” Share:

Read Post

IBM/Trusteer: Shooting Across the Bow of the EPP Suites

Last week, IBM announced a deal to acquire Trusteer, an Israeli company focused on advance endpoint malware detection. The price tag was reported to be $800MM – $1B, so it was a pretty healthy 7-8x multiple of rumored 2013 bookings. Trusteer’s technology fills a huge gap in IBM’s advanced malware story. They do some stuff on their network (IPS) box, but without a real presence on the endpoint, their solution is limited. And for company pushing a total security solution story like IBM, you can’t really have holes. Not obvious one’s anyway. IBM has been selling Trend Micro’s endpoint security suite for years, but it hasn’t been a focus of their story and since the new security regime came in with the acquisition of Q1 Labs, any mention of endpoint security has largely been muted. Obviously that will change now that they have Trusteer (and their emerging enterprise capabilities) in their bag. To be clear, Trusteer didn’t get a huge valuation based on their story of disrupting the anti-virus market. They had built a signifiant market licensing their anti-malware toolbar for distribution through financial institutions. Basically, a bank provides Trusteer’s toolbar to their customers for free and a percentage of customers would use it, resulting in dramatically lower fraud rates for those protected customers. Of course, a bank can’t mandate the use of any technology to their customers, but the reduction in fraud for even the minority of protected devices was significant enough it became a no-brainer for the banks to write a very large check to Trusteer to cover their entire customer base. If anything after the deal closes, IBM’s global channels and presence selling technology to other financial institutions should provide a boost to Trusteer’s existing FI business as well. That’s how you justify writing that kind of check. This was a new path to market for security technology, and that provides a bulk of Trusteer’s existing revenue. But they had bigger designs to target the broader enterprise anti-malware market with a still raw, but interesting set of technologies for advanced malware protection. It’s early, but there is a clear opportunity for someone to totally disrupt the endpoint protection racket. Similar to what Palo Alto did to the perimeter firewall. IBM is betting on being able to spur that disruption. By combining Trusteer’s advanced endpoint protection capabilities with the BigFix endpoint management suite, they have pretty much everything the existing EPP vendors provide with better advanced malware protection. So getting rid of the incumbent is much more achievable, rather than asking a Fortune-class enterprise to trust a start-up. But IBM still has work to complete their endpoint security offerings. As described in our recent Endpoint Security Buyer’s Guide series, IBM now has better heuristics and some lockdown technologies. Though we expect endpoint activity monitoring to become a significant requirement over the coming few years, so that remains a gap in their offering. IBM also has to ensure they keep a good portion of the Trusteer expertise and DNA after the acquisition. They’ve been able to do so with the Q1 Labs acquisition, and as with most big M&A this is a critical success factor to get the value out of the deal. The fact that IBM has already made it clear that Trusteer’s Israeli-based research team will become a key part of a new IBM cybersecurity lab should help keep those folks for a little while. So is the beginning of the end for EPP? If you take a step back, EPP has been on a path to irrelevance for years. More than a few large enterprises have commented on how they are using the absolute cheapest means possible of checking the compliance box requiring AV and deploying these advanced products on critical endpoints. Providing years of suspect value will get customers to think like that. The good news for the existing EPP vendors is that their existing suites integrate some (but not all) of the advanced technologies needed to really address advanced malware. They’ve just done a very poor job at describing how their products have evolved, and that’s resulted in a clear negative market perception of the technology. We’ll be doing a more in-depth analysis of advanced endpoint protection starting next month, but suffice it say all the EPP guys don’t necessarily have to die during the transition. Yet the fact remains, they need to kill their golden goose if they are going to get there. If Big AV continues to position these new technologies as a minor upgrade with just a few added features to their existing offering (not to antagonize their installed base), they won’t create enough urgency to upgrade to the current version of the EPP suite. As we saw with the NYT breach (missing 44 out of 45 attacks) earlier this year, deprecated EPP is not much of a defense against modern, advanced attacks. These vendors basically need to make it very clear that the old stuff doesn’t work and make it very attractive to upgrade to the new stuff. This probably requires pulling support from the old suites despite the clear risk of customers picking a different solution when facing the upgrade. But we believe it’s a bigger risk to let 80% of their installed base use obsolete technology. We also should mention other huge winners as a result of this deal are the folks that do advanced endpoint protection, like Bit9, Bromium and Invincea. And Cisco gets some of these capabilities via the Sourcefire acquisition (who has bought Immunet a few years back). These emerging vendors have different approaches to solve the advanced malware problem, but with the valuation Trusteer was able to get they should feel pretty good about having a high value comp when they inevitably shop their companies. Photo credit: “Scrooge McDuck’s money bin for DuckTales Remastered at iam8bit gallery” originally uploaded by insidethemagic Share:

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.