Friday Summary: September 6, 2013

When my wife an I were a young couple looking for a place in the hills of Berkeley, we came across an ad for an apartment with “Views of the Golden Gate Bridge”. The price was a bit over our budget and the neighborhood was less than thrilling, but we decided to check it out. We had both previously lived in places with bay views and we felt that the extra expense would be worth it. But after we got to the property the apartment was beyond shabby, and no place we wanted to live. What’s more, we could not find a view! We stayed for a while searching for the advertised view, and when neither of us could find it we asked the agent. She said the view was from the side of the house. As it turns out, if you either stood on the fence in the alley, or on the toilet seat of the second bathroom, and looked out the small window, you could see a sliver of the Golden Gate. The agent had not lied to us – technically there was a bridge view. But in a practical sense it did not matter. I would hardly invite company over for a glass of wine and have them stand on tiptoes atop the toilet lid for an obstructed view of the bridge. I think about this often when I read security product marketing collateral. There are differing degrees of usefulness of security products, and while some offer the full advertised value, others are more fantasy than reality. Or require you to have a substance abuse problem – either works. This is of course one of the things we do as analysts – figure out not only whether a product addresses a security problem, but how usefully it does so, and which of the – often many – use cases it deals with. And that is where we need to dig into the technology to validate what’s real vs. a whitewash. One such instance occurred recently, as I was giving a presentation on how malware is the scourge of the earth, nothing solves the problem, and this vendor’s product stops it from damaging your organization. If you think my paraphrasing of the presentation sounds awkward, you are not alone. It was. But every vendor is eager to jump on the anti-malware bandwagon because it is one of the biggest problems in IT security, driving a lot of spending. But the applicability of their solution to the general use case was tenuous. When we talk to IT practitioners about malware they express many concerns. They worry about email servers being infected and corporate email and contacts being exposed. They worry that their servers will be infected and used to send across the Internet. They worry that their servers will become bots and participate in DoS attacks. They worry that their databases will be pilfered and their information will stream out to foreign countries. They worry that their users will be phished, resulting in malware being dropped on their machines, and the malware will assume their user credentials. They even worry about malware outside their networks, infecting customer machines and generating bogus traffic. And within each of these use cases are multiple attack avenues, multiple ways to pwn a machine, and multiple ways to exfiltrate data. So we see many legitimate techniques applied to address malware, with each approach a bit better or worse suited, depending on the specifics of the infection. And this is where understanding technology comes in, as you start to see specific types of detection and prevention mechanisms which work across multiple use cases. Applicability is not black and white, but graduated. The solutions that only apply to one instance of one use case make me cringe. As with the above reference vendor, they addressed a use case customers seem least interested in. And they provide their solution in a way that really only works in one or two instances of that use case. Technically the vendor was correct: their product does indeed address a specific type of malware in a particular scenario. But in practice it is only relevant in a remote niche of the market. That is when past and present merged: I was transported back in time to that dingy apartment. But instead of the real estate agent it was the security vendor, asking me to teeter on the toilet seat lid with them, engaging in the fantasy of a beautiful Golden Gate Bridge view. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Rich talking about how hackers find weaknesses in car computer systems. Mogull and Hoff wrote a book? Amazon says so! Only four copies left, so hurry! Mike’s DDoS research quoted in the Economist… Really. Security issues are clearly becoming mass market news. Mike quoted in Dark Reading about Websense’s free CSO advisory offering. Favorite Securosis Posts Adrian Lane: Friday Summary: Decisions, Decisions. Rich is being modest here – he created a couple really cool tools while learning Chef and Puppet. Even some of the professional coders in the audience at BH were impressed. Drop him a line and give him some feedback if you can. There will be loads of work in this area over the coming months – this is how we will manage cloud security. David Mortman: Dealing with Database Denial of Service. Other Securosis Posts [New Paper] Identity and Access Management for Cloud Services. Incite 9/4/2013: Annual Reset. [New Paper] Dealing with Database Denial of Service. Friday Summary: Decisions, Decisions. Firewall Management Essentials: Introduction [New Series]. Tracking the Syrian Electronic Army. The future of security is embedded. Third Time is the Charm. Security is Reactive. Learn to Love It. Deming and the Strategic Nature of Security. Incite 8/27/2013: You Can’t Teach Them Everything. Reactionary Idiot Test. PCI 3.0 is coming. Hide the kids. Ecosystem Threat Intelligence: Use Cases and Selection Criteria. Random Thought: Meet Your New Database. VMWare Doubles Down on SDN. Ecosystem Threat Intelligence: Assessing Partner Risk. China Suffers Large DNS DDoS Attack. Favorite Outside Posts David Mortman: Busting the Biometric Myth.

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.