Securosis

Research

Summary: Hands on

  Before I dive into this week’s sermon, just a quick note that our posting will be a bit off through the end of the year. As happens from time to time, our collective workloads and travel are hitting insanity levels, which impedes our ability to push out more consistent updates. But, you know, gotta feed the kids and dogs. A couple weeks ago I got to abandon my family during the weekend and spend my time in a classroom renewing my Emergency Medical Technician certification. I was close to letting it go, but my wife made it abundantly clear that she would rather lose me for a weekend than deal with the subsequent years of whining. I never look forward to my recert classes. It is usually 2-3 days in a classroom, followed by a written and psychomotor (practical) test. I first certified as an EMT in 1991, and then became a paramedic in 1993 (which is an insane amount of training – no comparison). I won’t say I don’t learn anything in the every-two-year refresher classes, but I have been doing this for a very long time. But this year I learned more than expected, and some of it relates directly to my current work in security. Five or six years ago I started hearing about some new trends in CPR. A doctor here in Phoenix started a research study to try a completely nonconventional approach to CPR. The short version is that the human body, when dead, isn’t using a ton of oxygen. Even when alive we inhale air with 21% O2 and exhale air with 16% O2. Stop all muscular activity and the brain will mostly suck out whatever O2 is circulated when you compress someone’s chest. This doc had some local fire departments use hands-only CPR and 300 compressions with no ventilations. This keeps the blood pressure up and blood circulating, and the action of pushing the chest generates more than enough air exchange. The results? Something like 3x the survival rates. The CPR you learn today probably isn’t there yet, but definitely emphasizes compressions more than mouth-to-mouth, which I suspect will be dropped completely for adults if the research holds. There’s more to it, but you get the idea. All right, interesting enough, but what does this have to do with security? I found myself instinctively clinging to my old concepts of the ‘right’ way to do CPR despite clear evidence to the contrary. I understand the research, and immediately adopted the changes, but something felt wrong to me. I have been certified in what are basically the same essential techniques for nearly 30 years. Part of me didn’t want to let go, and that wasn’t a feeling I expected. I later had the same reaction to changes in the treatment of certain closed head injuries, but that more due to specific cases where I used techniques now known to harm patients. I am an evidence-based guy. I roll with the times and try not to cling to convention, but somewhere in me, especially as I get older, part of the brain reacts negatively to changing old habits. Fortunately, my higher-order functions know to tell that part to shut the hell up. We have a tendency to imprint on whatever we first learn as ‘correct’. Perhaps it was the act of discovery, or forming those brain pathways. In security we see this all the time. I once had an IT director tell me he would rather allow Windows XP on his network over iPads, because “we know XP”. Wrong answer. The rate of change in security exceeds that of nearly every other profession. Even developers can often cling to old languages and constructs, and that profession is probably the closest. I like to think of myself as an enlightened guy capable of assimilating the latest and greatest within the context of what’s known to work, and I still found myself clinging to a convention after it was scientifically proven wrong. I don’t think any of us are in a position to blame others for “not getting it”. All of us are luddards – you just need to hunt for the right frame of reference. That is not an excuse, but it is life. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Nada. Unless Google and Bing are both lying to me. Like I said, busy week. Favorite Securosis Posts Adrian Lane: Microsoft Upends the Bug Bounty Game. This may work. Mike Rothman: Microsoft Upends the Bug Bounty Game. Not a lot of choice this week (yes, I have been the suck at blogging lately). But Rich does a nice job explaining the ripple effects of Microsoft extending their bounty program. Rich: New Series: The Executive Guide to Pragmatic Network Security Management. The post isn’t new, but I can announce that RedSeal Networks intends to license it (pending the end of our open peer review process). And don’t forget that this is the first papare we are opening up for full public change tracking on GitHub. Other Securosis Posts Friday Summary: Halloween 2013 Edition. Favorite Outside Posts Adrian Lane: I Love the Smell of Popcorn in the Morning. Why did I choose to never be a CIO again? This is why. You’d think this type of story would be rare, but it’s common. However, it only occurs at 2:00am or on your first day of vacation. Mike Rothman: Five Styles of Advanced Threat Defense. The Big G does a decent job of explaining the overlap (and synergy) of these so-called Advanced Threat product categories. I differ slightly on how to carve things up but this is close enough for me to mention. Rich: IT Security from the Eyes of Data Scientists. Yep, serious job security if you head down this path. 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

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

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.