Incite 6/11/2014: Dizney

This week I will take a page from Adrian’s Friday Summary approach, and just offer a stream of consciousness about the recent trip the family and I took to DisneyWorld. We went down there to watch the girls dance in Downtown Disney. Their dance company does this every other year, which means we are down in Orlando doing the Disney thing every two years. Trying to be more present and aware in my daily life was interesting in a place like Disney. So let me start with a few observations. First of all, it’s expensive to hang out with the Mouse. We get a great deal on tickets to the parks and it still costs a metric crap ton of coin to be there for a couple days. Then you throw in food, bottled water, and the bargain $8 ponchos (which are a bargain during the 20 minute daily downpours) – and it’s not a cheap vacation. Next you have people of all shapes, sizes, nationalities, languages, cultures, etc. If you think America in general is a great melting pot, spend a little time at Disney. You see young and old. Extended families. Those from the US and those not. Newlyweds. Bachelorette parties and all sorts of other groups. Most of these families have group t-shirts on. I just don’t get that. Do you think they wear that T-shirt any other time? Okay, don’t answer that. Actually the best shirts we saw all week were on a family that said, “We don’t believe in family trip t-shirts.” On all 20 of them. Hilarious. The diversity you see is really cool. The downside for me is varying levels of hygiene. I have a pretty sensitive nose and it can get a little steamy in June in Orlando. So standing on line for 40 minutes to ride Peter Pan (I’m still peeved at XX1 about that) next to a group that don’t get deodorant is unpleasant to say the least. You can also see the impact of mobile technology. We let XX1 roam around EPCOT with her dance friends one of the days. We always knew how to get in touch with her. The expectation was that she would check in every hour or so. And worst case we could always use Find My Friends to see where she was. I noticed loads of people with heads down on mobile devices as they walked the park. They were missing the experience, but that’s the culture today. Same goes for folks who watch rides or their kids dancing through the viewfinder of a camera. That doesn’t work for me but it’s common. One dude got it right and had a GoPro camera affixed to his kid’s stroller. I guess to record the reactions to seeing Mickey and the like. That was pretty cool – like a second set of eyes. I didn’t see anyone with Google Glasses on, so there’s that. Last summer I rued missing XX1’s first experience riding a big roller coaster. I did make amends by doing the Rock and Roller Coaster with both the girls and then the Tower of Terror. The girls couldn’t be more different. XX1 was cursing up a storm on both rides (though she did ask before spewing profanity – manners first). I wonder where she got that from? The Daredevil (XX2) was laughing throughout both rides. And best of all, I was right next to the Boy as we rode the Everest coaster in Animal Kingdom. He was scared, like I was the first time I rode a coaster. Which was a little curious given he has no issue doing a 5-story drop at the water park. He cried a little as we boarded the car, much to the chagrin of the family behind us – who thought I was a monster forcing my son onto the ride. I was in his ear the whole time assuring him it was going to be great. As we made the first climb, he ducked a little to not see much of anything. Then we were off, and as he squeezed my hand through the backwards drop and as we pulled a G or 2 through the curves and drops. You know what? He survived. And he loved it! I loved being there right next to him as he experienced it. That’s what being a Dad is all about. The reason we went to Orlando also worked out marvelously. Despite raining pretty much all day, the sun came out and shined during their performance. And the girls shined as well. I have mentioned there are few things more gratifying than seeing your kids excel at something they are passionate about. So as long as they want to dance in Disney, I’ll be down there every two years, contributing to the Mouse economy and riding roller coasters with all my kids. And loving every minute of it. –Mike Photo credit: “Mickey Mouse Magician” originally uploaded by Alain 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. June 2 – Sputnik or Sputnot 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 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

Read Post

Open Source Development and Application Security Analysis [New Series]

Earlier this year I participated in the 2014 Open Source Development and Application Security Survey, something I have participated in the last couple years. As a developer and former development manager – and let’s face it, an overtly opinionated one – I am always interested in adding my viewpoint to these inquiries, even if I’m just one developer voice among thousands. But I have also benefitted from these surveys – looking at the stuff my peers are using, and even selecting open source distributions based on these shared data points. Crazy, I know, but it’s another way to leverage the community. But I am equally interested in the survey questions asked, as they hint at what the sponsors are most interested in learning about their community. The organization that conducts this survey is Sonatype, and the 2014 survey was their 4th annual review of open source usage. This year’s survey was co-sponsored by Contrast Security, Rugged Software, NEA, and the Trusted Software Alliance. What piqued my interest is that this year is that I noticed more questions regarding security and vulnerabilities than in previous years. Even the name of the survey changed. But another interesting facet is that the survey was conducted right when OpenSSL’s Heartbleed vulnerability was discovered. It takes a lot for a security vulnerability to make mainstream news, but Heartbleed managed it. For any of you reading this who were not aware of it, OpenSSL is an open source implementation of the SSL protocol. The disclosure simultaneously illustrated that open source components are in use just about everywhere – across industries and organizations of all sizes – and disrupted IT practitioners’ blind faith in this ubiquitous cryptographic module. But Heartbleed is not the story here – the more interesting thing is how it affected people’s understanding of open source software and security. My question was “Did the vulnerability change the survey results?” In past years Sonatype provided us with a pre-briefing before they announced the survey results, and this year was no different. And after going through the survey myself I was extremely interested in the results. As we went through the data and discussed what it all meant, Sonatype said they were interested in getting someone to perform an independent analysis of the data. You don’t have to ask me twice – I jumped at the chance! As a security practitioner who has built software and managed development teams for a couple decades, I could offer some perspective. And we are beginning to see changes in developer attitudes and participation with security, not to mention a disruption of development approaches with DevOps, so I am eager to go through the data to better understand what developers are doing and what issues they face – in both security and product development. So over the next couple days I will discuss the results, with a focus on two key areas: Security Trends Analysis: The survey poses several questions about security and open source policies as they relate to security, vulnerability tracking, and responsibilities. We will examine tools usage, with trending data from prior years where applicable. Because the survey was conducted during the Heartbleed and Struts vulnerability disclosures, we can examine the data for important differences between responses, before and after disclosure. Development Trends and Operations Management: The survey data contains several important questions on development policies around open source management and use. These trends may not have specific security implications, but they impact how teams manage open source and the general quality of their releases. I will discuss trends in open source policy management, licensing, and security testing approaches; as well as where security testing occurs within the development process. I will highlight key takeaways and make recommendations. Finally, for those of you in security who are not familiar with Sonatype, think Apache Maven and Nexus. Their founder built Maven, which is probably the most widely used build automation tool out there. The company also builds the Nexus repository manager, used by over 40,000 organizations for storing and organizing binary software components, including management of policies for their use and automated health checks for security vulnerabilities. As the steward of the Central Repository, which handled over 13 billion requests for open source components last year, they are in a unique position to monitor use of open source development components – including version management, license characteristics, update frequencies, and known security vulnerabilities. This perspective helped them formulate the survey and reach the 3,300+ development professionals who participated. Next week I will cover the report’s security trend analysis. And if you’re interested I will also do a webcast with Brian Fox of Sonatype to discuss the highlights, comparing and contrasting our views on the results. Check it out! 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.