Friday Summary: Halloween 2013 Edition

  While you’re thinking about little kids in scary costumes, I’m here thinking about adults who write scary code. As I go through the results of a couple different companies’ code scans I am trying to contrast good vs. bad secure development programs. But I figure I should ask the community at large: What facet of your secure software development program has been most effective? Can you pinpoint one? For many years I felt placing requirements within the development lifecycle (i.e.: process modifications) yielded the greatest returns. I have spoken with many development teams over the past year who said that security awareness training was the biggest benefit, while others most appreciated threat modeling. Still others claimed that external penetration testing or code scans motivated their teams to do better, learn more about software defects, and improve internally. The funny bit is that every team states one of these events was the root cause which raised awareness and motivated changes. Multiple different causes for the same basic effect. I have been privy to the results from a few different code scans at different companies this summer; some with horrific results, and one far better than I could have ever expected, given the age and size of the code base. And it seems the better the results, the harder the development team takes external discoveries of security defects. Developers are proud, and if security is something they pride themselves on, defect reports are akin to calling their children ugly. I am typically less interested in defect reports than in understanding the security program in general. Part of my interest in going through each firm’s secure development program is seeing what changes were made, and which the team found most beneficial. Once again, the key overall benefit reported by each team varies between organizations. Many say security training, but training does not equal development success. Others say “It’s part of our culture”, which is a rather meaningless response, but those organizations do a bit of everything, and they scored considerably better on security tests. It is now clear to me, despite my biases for threat modeling and process changes, that for organizations that have been doing this a while no single element or program that makes the difference. It is the cumulative effect of consistently making security part of code development. Some event started the journey, and – as with any skill – time and effort produced improvement. But overall, improvement in secure code development looks glacial. It is a bit like compound interest: what appears minuscule in the beginning becomes huge after a few years. When you meet up with organizations that have been at it for a long time, it is startling see just how well the basic changes work. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Dave Lewis’s CSO post: “LinkedIn intro: Data, meet security issues”. Juniper blog quotes Adrian on DB-DoS. Adrian’s DR post: Simple is better. Gunner on The Internet-of-Things. Favorite Securosis Posts David Mortman: Don’t Mess with Pen Test(ers). Adrian Lane: Thinking Small and Not Leading. It is unfortunately common to discover that a job is quite different than you thought. And how best to accomplish your goals often involves several rounds of trial and error. Mike Rothman: The Pragmatic Guide to Network Security Management: The Process. Rich had me at Pragmatic… Other Securosis Posts The Pragmatic Guide to Network Security Management: SecOps. Incite 10/30/2013: Managing the Details. New Series: The Executive Guide to Pragmatic Network Security Management. Summary: Planned Coincidence. Favorite Outside Posts Dave Lewis: Buffer Hacked. David Mortman: Adventures in Dockerland. Not a security article but something for security to keep in mind. Docker is making big inroads in the cloud, especially PaaS, so you need to understand it. Adrian Lane: Big Data Analytics: Starting Small. A short post with pragmatic advice. Mike Rothman: Time doesn’t exist until we invent it. As always, interesting perspective from Seth Godin about time… “Ticking away, the moments that make up a dull day…” Gal: Fake social media ID duped security-aware IT guys. Research Reports and Presentations Firewall Management Essentials. A Practical Example of Software Defined Security. Continuous Security Monitoring. API Gateways: Where Security Enables Innovation. Identity and Access Management for Cloud Services. Dealing with Database Denial of Service. The 2014 Endpoint Security Buyer’s Guide. The CISO’s Guide to Advanced Attackers. Defending Cloud Data with Infrastructure Encryption. Network-based Malware Detection 2.0: Assessing Scale, Accuracy and Deployment. Top News and Posts Kristin Calhoun Keynote at API Strategy and Practice WhiteHat has a new secure browser; what does the Firefox say? via Wendy Nather. A More Agile NSA Chief: ‘To My Knowledge’ Agency Didn’t Tap Google, Yahoo Data Centers Mozilla Shines A Light With Lightbeam Alleged Hacker V& In DOE, HHS Breaches MongoHQ Suffers Security Breach Blog Comment of the Week This week’s best comment goes to Zac, in response to Don’t Mess with Pen Test(ers). As you say, we try not to focus on or fixate on the potential risks. There are however ways to mitigate or reduce the risk. Foremost for me is to consider any and all electronic transactions to be accessible and therefore never put anything I want to keep private out of electronic records. Just like how in the past you wouldn’t speak of things you wanted to keep private today you don’t post it (Facebook is training people to do all the wrong things). And when you consider that medical offices, tax agencies, government agencies, companies all either experience breaches or just plain send your informaiton to the wrong people… let alone work at getting your informaiton. Or how snail mail post can end up in the wrong mailbox… One may as well stay home due to a fear of being hit by a car while walking the dog. tl;dr – if you want to keep something private… keep it to yourself. 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.