A vulnerability in Internet Explorer has been known and unpatched for two weeks. According to ThreatPost, an exploit module is now in Metasploit, and real attacks are growing. Better deploy the FixIt tool if you don’t have some other way of blocking exploits. But I’m probably screwed, because I can’t get that mitigation to run on my Mac. Share:
I haven’t worked at Gartner for over six years now, so I’m not surprised that many people still think vendors can pay to move up the rankings in a Magic Quadrant. I mean, just look at them. Big vendors almost always show up in the top left or right, so they have to be paying for play. Vendors can’t buy Magic Quadrant ratings. Let me say it again: vendors cannot directly buy MQ ratings. I don’t expect to change any minds here, but that isn’t how it works. Not that money can’t influence the process, which I will get into. Analysts are totally walled off from the financial side of Gartner. They are not compensated, at all, based on how much a vendor spends. Many analysts have a very negative view of the vendor community, which can actually be destructive. It doesn’t matter how much a vendor spends – the analyst makes the same. In the seven years I was there I never saw management ask an analyst to adjust an MQ because a new client spent more money. Really, the anti-vendor attitude is so deep that an analyst is more likely to reduce a rating if a vendor tries to play those games. There used to be a loophole. Analysts used to get paid more for participating on strategy days with vendors. Some unscrupulous analysts effectively used blackmail to get vendors to buy more days. Gartner cut that off around the time I became an analyst, sometime around 2001 I think. It pissed off some analysts who were basically doubling their salary with strategy days. Today, all a strategy day does is keep an analyst away from their family – they don’t get paid more. However. Gartner clients get to talk with the analysts more. Anyone can brief an analyst once a quarter or so, but paying clients get longer calls, more frequently. Strategy days mean the vendor gets face time with the analyst and can build a personal relationship (there are guidelines limiting gifts, meals, and such to reduce influence there). This can subtly influence an analyst over time, even though it isn’t explicit buying. Smart vendors can do much the same thing without spending a dime, because most analysts don’t care about contract value, but paying up can definitely be used as an advantage. So why do all the big companies score better, especially in ability to execute? Because, in many MQs, that’s where a larger, more mature organization will almost always score better. They have mature sales, marketing, and channel programs. Bigger support teams. The ability to support larger clients. As much as we slam them for inefficiency all the time, you can throw enough bodies at certain problems to make them go away. It doesn’t mean the product executes or performs better, but that the company has accountants. That’s why startups tend to do much better on vision (since they, you know, actually innovate). One of my weirdest post-Gartner experiences was helping some vendors work through the MQ process. All I really did was help them figure out what the analysts wanted (honest answers) and how to avoid getting into trouble (legal threats if your dot moved 3mm, which happens). I even warned them away from trying to schedule strategy days too close to an MQ, which could be seen as trying to cheat. I wouldn’t say it is a perfect process. And there is a reason Securosis will never engage in vendor comparison research like an MQ, but money doesn’t directly buy results. I have no skin in this game (not even stock) and have been out for a long time, so take it as you will. But if you are an analyst reading this, don’t think for an instant that vendors aren’t trying to influence you every second of every day, and there’s a reason they call it the “Gartner Tax”. Share:
Another day, another breach – that’s not novel. A bunch of personal information (including driver’s license numbers) was stolen from Virginia Tech. But having the organization own up to the fact that the breach resulted from a human error is uncommon. Of the 144,963 individuals affected, only 16,642 provided their driver’s license numbers. According to school officials, the breach was a result of “human error” involving compliance protocols when dealing with the personal data. A forensic investigation into the issue revealed that the information was “partly” accessed through a Virginia Tech server in Italy. “The issue here is that someone on our staff goofed,” Larry Hincker, associate vice president for University Relations, said. Kudos to these folks for not blaming a super-sophisticated attack or the APT or any other way to skirt responsibility. They screwed up and lost data. It is also a reminder about the downside of poor security and IT operations. Photo credit: “Professional Strength [GOOF OFF]” originally uploaded by Chapendra Share:
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:
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:
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.
