Incite 5/28/2014: Auditory Dissonance

I didn’t want to become that Dad. The one who says, “Turn that crap down.” Or “What is this music?” Or “Get off my lawn!” I didn’t want that to be me. I wanted to be the cool Dad, who would listen to the new music with my kids and appreciate it. Maybe even like it. For a while, I was able to do that. Let’s backtrack a bit. I control the iTunes account in the house. That allows me to centralize apps for all the kids and their devices, and more importantly make sure we keep spending within reason. Even better, it gives me the ability to give the kids a hard time about buying an app or song. They love being scrutinized over a $1.99 app. Don’t tell them I spend more than that on coffee every day. To be clear, it’s not worth my time to even think for a minute about an app, but I still get enjoyment out of making them present a case for why they need the latest version of Clash of Clans or Subway Surfer. That also means that when XX1 wants to buy new music, she has to come through me. So about 3 or 4 times a year I get a list of 40-50 songs she wants to buy. She has her own money, so it’s not a money thing. But I won’t give her access to the account (since that would end very badly), so I have to buy the songs myself. Which means I have to listen to some of them. For quite a while, I was fine with that. I like some of the stuff XX1 listens to – statistically about half the pop music she listens to is tolerable with a decent groove and melody. But over the weekend I hit my limit. I was checking her song list before camp, and 90% of the music was just awful. And at that moment, I became that guy. The guy who just doesn’t understand the noise kids are listening to today. Of course I couldn’t let it go. I had to ask, “What the hell is this stuff?” She just shrugged. It’s her money, so I couldn’t tell her not to waste it on crap music. And I think I saw her chuckle the “you just don’t understand, old dude” chuckle. You know that chuckle because it’s how you reacted when your folks wondered about Elvis or the Beatles or Pink Floyd or Springsteen when you were growing up. I guess I am that old dude. And I just don’t understand. Though that doesn’t make it any easier to explain to my friends why I have Bieber songs in my iTunes library. Those songs are for XX1, really! That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. –Mike Photo credit: “Noise” originally uploaded by richardoyork The fine folks at the RSA Conference posted the talk Jennifer Minella and I did on mindfulness at the conference this year. You can check it out on YouTube. Take an hour and check it out. Your emails, alerts and Twitter timeline will be there when you get back. Securosis Firestarter Have you checked out our new video podcast? Rich, Adrian, and Mike get into a Google Hangout and.. hang out. We talk a bit about security as well. We try to keep these to 15 minutes or less, and usually fail. May 19 – Wanted Posters and SleepyCon May 12 – Another 3 for 5: McAfee/OSVDB, XP Not Dead, CEO head rolling May 5 – There Is No SecDevOps April 28 – The Verizon DBIR April 14 – Three for Five March 24 – The End of Full Disclosure March 19 – An Irish Wake March 11 – RSA Postmortem Feb 21 – Happy Hour – RSA 2014 Feb 17 – Payment Madness 2014 RSA Conference Guide In case any of you missed it, we published our fifth RSA Conference Guide back in February. Yes, we do mention the conference a bit, but it’s really our ideas about how security will shake out in 2014. You can get the full guide with all the memes you can eat. Heavy Research We are 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, with our content in all its unabridged glory. And you can get all our research papers too. Understanding Role-based Access Control Advanced Concepts Introduction NoSQL Security 2.0 Understanding NoSQL Platforms Introduction Newly Published Papers Advanced Endpoint and Server Protection Defending Against Network-based DDoS Attacks Reducing Attack Surface with Application Control Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Security Monitoring The Future of Security Security Management 2.5: Replacing Your SIEM Yet? Defending Data on iOS 7 Eliminating Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing Incite 4 U At least there is consistency: Love those survey-based media campaigns, where a company sponsors a survey to determine that a certain industry is vulnerable. Just like every other industry. It’s awesome. So I enjoyed the FUD-tastic writeup of a survey paid for by ThreatTrack, which showed (through a whopping 200 person survey) that energy companies are vulnerable to attack. 61% said the biggest threat comes from email. Shocker. Web is next at 25% and mobile at 3%. Yup, that sounds about right. Even better, 40% thought they’d be targeted by advanced attacks. The other 60% have an appointment on Thursday to see their therapist to deal with the self-esteem issues. – MR That’s WEAK: eBay users are noticing for the first time – post breach of password hashes – that eBay does not allow long passwords. eBay sent email instructing users to reset passwords this week; one week after we heard about the data loss. But those are pesky details, right? Those who took it seriously enough to create strong passphrases to resist brute-force password cracking noticed their long passwords were not allowed. Worse, passwords longer than 20 characters were labelled ‘weak’. Not cool, but remember that eBay – like many firms – only uses passwords as one hurdle; they rely on fraud analytics and monitoring

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.