Securosis

Menu

Research

Incite 1/29/2014: Southern Snowpocalypse

Mike Rothman January 29, 2014 No Comments

I grew up in the northeast. My memories of snow weren’t really good. I didn’t ski, so all that I knew about snow was that I had to shovel it and it’s hard to drive in. It is not inherently hard to drive in snow, but too many folks have no idea what they are doing, which makes it hard. To be clear, this situation is on me. I had an opportunity to go home earlier today. But I wanted my coffee and the comfort of working in a familiar Starbucks, rather than my familiar basement office. Not my brightest decision. I figured most folks would clear out early, so it would be fine later in the day. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Evidently there are an infinite number of people in the northern Atlanta suburbs trying to get home. And they are all on the road at the same time. A few of them have rear wheel drive cars, which get stuck on the mildest of inclines. No one can seem to get anywhere. I depend on the Waze app for navigation. Its crowdsourced traffic info has been invaluable. Not today. It has routed me in a circle, and 90 minutes later I am basically where I started. Although I can’t blame Waze – you can’t really pinpoint where a car gets stuck and causes gridlock until someone passes by. In case it wasn’t clear, no one is going anywhere. So I wait. I read my email. I caught up on my twitter feed. I checked Facebook, where I saw that most of my friends in ATL were similarly stuck in traffic. It’s awesome. My kids have already gone out and played in the snow. I hope the boss took pictures. I missed it. Oh well. Nothing I can do now. Except smile. And breathe. And smile again. At some point I will get home. I will be grateful. Oh yeah, and next time I will stay home when it threatens to snow. Duh. –Mike UPDATE: It took me about 4 1/2 hours to get home. Yes, to travel 6 miles. I could have walked home faster. But it was 20 degrees, so that wouldn’t really have worked well either. Some kids in XX1’s middle school didn’t get home until 10 PM. It was a total nightmare. My family and friends are safe, and that’s all that matters. Now get these kids out of my hair. I have work to do… Photo credit: This is an actual picture of sitting in traffic yesterday. What you see was my view for about an hour inching along. And I don’t normally play on the phone when I’m driving, but at that point I wasn’t really driving… Heavy Research We’re back at work on a variety of blog series, so here is a list of the research currently underway. Remember you can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, where you can get all our content in its unabridged glory. And you can get all our research papers too. The Future of Information Security Introduction Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Security Monitoring Benefiting from the Misfortune of Others Reducing Attack Surface with Application Control Use Cases and Selection Criteria The Double Edged Sword Advanced Endpoint and Server Protection Assessment Introduction Newly Published Papers Eliminating Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing What CISOs Need to Know about Cloud Computing Defending Against Application Denial of Service Security Awareness Training Evolution Firewall Management Essentials Continuous Security Monitoring API Gateways Threat Intelligence for Ecosystem Risk Management Dealing with Database Denial of Service Identity and Access Management for Cloud Services Incite 4 U CISOs don’t focus on technology, not for long anyway: Seems like this roundtable that Dan Raywood covered in CISOs have “too much focus on technology” is about 5 years behind the times. I spend a bunch of time with CISOs, and for the most part they aren’t consumed by technology – more likely they are just looking for products to make the hackers go away. They have been focused on staffing and communicating the value of their security program. Yes, they still worry about malware and mobile devices and this cloud thing. But that doesn’t consume them anymore. And any CISO who is consumed by technology and believes any set of controls can make hackers go away should have a current resume – s/he will need it. – MR You don’t want to know: Sri Karnam writes about the 8 things your boss wants you to know about ‘Big Data Security’ on the HP blog – to which I respond ‘Not!’ The three things your boss wants to know, in a security context, are: 1) What sensitive data do we have in there? 2) What is being done to secure it? 3) Is that good enough? The key missing ingredient from Sri’s post is that your boss wants this information off the record. Bosses know to not go looking for trouble, and just want to know how to respond when they are asked when their boss asks. If you formally tell them what’s going on, they have knowledge, and can no longer rely on plausible deniability to blame you when something blows up. Sure, that’s an ethical copout, but it’s also a career-saver. – AL Pure vs. applied research: Interesting post on Andrew Hay’s blog about why security vendors need a research group. It seems every security vendor already has a research group (even if it’s a guy paying someone to do a survey), so he’s preaching to the choir a bit. But I like his breakdown of pure vs. applied research, where he posits vendors should be doing 70% of their research in areas that directly address customer problems. I couldn’t agree more. If you’re talking about a huge IT company, then they can afford to have Ph.D.s running around doing science projects. But folks who have to keep the lights on each quarter should be focused on doing research to help their customers solve problems. Because most customers can’t think about pure research while they are trying to survive each day. –

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Research

view all

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

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.