Securosis

Research

Friday Summary: October 4, 2013

I was never a big fan of the Rolling Stones. Heard them on the radio all the time growing up but never bought any of their stuff. It was good but not good enough to spend my hard-earned money. Recently a friend, a hardcore Stones addict, convinced me I needed some in my music collection. A couple clicks on Amazon, and three days later I had a big box of music waiting for me when I got back from the Splunk conference. In need of a little rest after a hectic few weeks, I cracked open the package and gave it a listen. And WTF? This is not what I heard on the radio. This song is hardcore blues. The next song is honky-tonk. Then rock and roll, followed by some delta blues. Singer, guitarist, and drummer all changing styles with each song like each one was a style they had played all their lives. This is amazing. Different, but (ahem) I liked it! The band as I heard it on the radio growing up is not the band on CDs and records. There is depth here. Versatility. Ingenuity. What I thought is not what they are. Their popularity suddenly makes sense. The songs played on radio and streaming services do a disservice to the band, and fail to capture special aspects of what they are (and were) about. So this morning I realized the answer to a simple question, which I have been hearing for years without a good answer. The question is most often asked as “We are evaluating SIEM solutions but this vendor Splunk came up. Who are they and what do they do?” The security community primarily knows them as an almost-SIEM platform. They do more than log management, but less than SIEM. And that is accurate – most of the security press talks about Splunk in that grey area between SIEM and LM, but fails to explain what’s going on or why the platform is popular. What you have read in the press and seen in… let’s call them “Supernatural Quadrangles” for the sake of argument… does not capture what is going on or how this platform fits into the enterprise. Yes, I said enterprise. This came up because Splunk was kind enough to invite me to their conference in Las Vegas this week to catch up on recent platform enhancements and speak with some of their customers. I don’t get paid to go, in case you’re wondering, but it is worth spending a couple days speaking with customers and hearing what they are really doing. The customer conversations were the optimistic variety I expected, but the keynote was something else entirely. Their CEO talked about mining the data feeds from aircraft and trains to help optimize safety and efficiency. About getting telemetry from mobile endpoints to gauge app reliability. I heard user stories about using the platform as a basis for consumer buying trend analysis and fraud analytics. This is not security – this s generalized analytics, applied to all different facets of the business. Even weirder was the enthusiastic fanboi audience – security customers normally range from mildly disgruntled to angry protagonist. These people were happy to be there and happy with the product – and the open bar was not yet open. Wendy Nather and I did a quick survey of the crowd and discovered that we were not among a security audience – it was IT Operations. Splunk’s core is a big data platform. That means it stores lots of data, with analytics capabilities to mine that data. And like most big data platforms, you can apply those capabilities to all sorts of different business – and security – problems. It is a Swiss Army Knife for all sorts of stuff, with security as the core use case. To understand Splunk you need to know that in addition to security it also does IT analytics, and is applicable to general business analytics problems. Another similarity to “Big Data” platforms is that many commercial and open source projects extend its core functionality. The only security platform I know of with a similar level of contributions is Metasploit. Again, it’s not SIEM. It is not the ideal choice for most enterprise security buyers who want everything nicely packaged together and want fully automated analytics. Correlation and enrichment are not built into Splunk. Enterprises need reports and to ensure that their controls are running, so anything different is often unacceptable. They don’t want to rummage around in the data, or tweak queries – they need results. Well, that’s not Splunk. Not out of the box. Splunk is more flexible because it is more hands-on. It offers more use cases, with a cost in required customization. Those are the tradeoffs. There is no free lunch. A few years ago I mocked Splunk’s “Enterprise Security Module”. I said that it did not contain what enterprise security centers want, they did not understand enterprise security buyers, and they didn’t offer what those buyers demand in a security platform. Yeah, in case you were wondering, I failed charm school. Splunk has gotten much closer in features and functions over three years, but it is still not a SIEM. In some ways that is a good thing – if you are just looking to plug in a SIEM, you are missing their value proposition. Splunk pivoted vertically to leverage their capabilities across a broader set of analysis problems, rather wage trench warfare with the rest of the event management market. The majority of people I spoke with from larger enterprise belonged to operations teams. At those firms, if security uses the product, they piggy-back off the Ops installation, leveraging additional security features. The other half of customers I spoke with were security team members at mid-sized firms, applying the platform to highly diverse security use cases and requirements. To understand why Splunk has so many vocal advocates and protagonists you need to broaden your definition of a security platform.

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.