IE Zero Day Getting Serious

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:

Read Post

The Gartner Tax and Magic Quadrants

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:

Read Post

The Goof Excuse

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:

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.