Friday Summary: Legal wrangling edition

This week’s intro has nothing to do with security – just a warning in case that matters to you. I’m betting most people spent their spare time this week watching the World Cup. Or perhaps “sick time”, given the apparent national epidemic that suddenly cleared up by Friday. I am not really a ‘football’ fan, but there were some amazing matches and I remain baffled at how a player thought he could get away with biting another player during a match. And then flop and cry that he hurt his mouth! Speechless! But being perverse, I spend most of my spare time this week following a couple court cases. Yes, legal battles. I’m weird that way. The most interesting was O’Bannon v. NCAA up in Oakland California. I am following it because this case has strong potential to completely change college athletics. If you haven’t been paying attention, the essence is that players cannot make money from marketing own their images, but colleges can. For example, a player might be ‘virtualized’ in an EA video game, and the college paid $10M, but the player cannot receive any financial compensation. The NCAA has drawn a line in the sand, and stated that players must receive less than the actual, federal rate for the cost of college attendance. But what gets me is that the NCAA president believes that if a player is in a photo with a product, and receives money from the company, then s/he is being exploited. If s/he is in the same photo, and does not receive money, then s/he is not being exploited. Their uniforms can have corporate logos, and that company can pay the coach to make players advertise their products. The players can be forced to appear in front of banners with corporate logos, and even be forced to drink water from bottles with their corporate logos, but none of that would be exploitation! Not on the NCAA’s watch. Thank goodness the president of the NCAA is there to protect students for these corporate pirates! Here’s a $1.6 million salary for your virtuous hard work, Mark! I joked with a friend recently that I honestly don’t know how we played college football in the 50s, 60s, and 70s without the millions and millions of dollars now being funneled into these programs. How could we have possibly played the game without all this money? I had not seen a game in years, and attended a local college game last fall; I was horrified that one team’s logo and image were completely subsumed by the local corporate sponsors – notably a local Indian casino. Appalled. The casino’s logo was displayed after each touchdown. The audience just clapped as the sponsoring casino paid for fireworks, and who doesn’t love fireworks? As a previous president stated about the NCAA, ‘amateurism’ plays to the participants, not the enterprise. At Texas the football program pays for the entire athletic department, including $5.3M for the head football coach, and still hands back $9M a year to the school. I’m told the University of Alabama grossed well over $100M in one year from its football program’s various revenue sources. Serious. Freaking. Money. From the various reports I am reading, it does not look good for the NCAA. I am not a betting man, but if pushed I would wager on the plaintiff’s side. And at some time in the future, after the appeals, suddenly the students who support this multi-billion dollar industry will get a big piece of the pie. I was rooting for Aereo. Really rooting for Aereo, but they lost their case against the broadcasters. Shot down by the Supreme Court verdict earlier this week. And honestly it’s hard to fault the verdict – give it a read. This is a huge win for broadcasters and cable carriers, and a serious loss for viewers. When it comes down to it Aereo is re-broadcasting others’ content and making a profit off it. We are not keen at Securosis when content aggregation sites routinely bundle our posts and sell advertising around it either. Still, why the hell can’t the broadcasters make this work and provide the content in a way users want? The broadcasting rules and contracts really need to change to allow some innovation, or viewers will ultimately go somewhere else to get what they want. As a consumer I am miffed that something provided over the air, for free, can’t be sent to me if I want to watch it (if you have ever lived just out of sight of a broadcast tower where so you got crappy reception, you know exactly what I am talking about). Or put it on your DVR. Or whatever private use you want to make of it – the customers you broadcast it to might actually want to watch the content at some convenient place and time. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian’s Webcast on the Open Source Development and Application Security Survey. Favorite Securosis Posts Adrian Lane: Open Source Development Analysis: Development Trends. Mike Rothman: Yeah, it’s mine. But it’s still too damn funny. And I got to bust out the memegenerator. So it’s a win all around. Other Securosis Posts Incite 6/25/2014: June Daze. Trends in Data Centric Security [New Series]. Open Source Development Analysis: Application Security. Firestarter: Apple and Privacy. Favorite Outside Posts Adrian Lane: BoringSSL. This is not the introduction of BoringSSL, but the authors no BS got tired of waiting for politics to get this crap fixed approach without calling out OpenSSL. Bravo. Dave Lewis: The Akamai State of the Internet Report. James Arlen: Deloitte’s Global Defense Outlook 2014. Mike Rothman: Asymmetry of People’s Time in Security Incidents. Lenny Z does a good job of explaining why poor incident handling/management can make it much more expensive to clean up an attack than it is for the attacker. Be prepared, and change the economics. Unfortunately automated attacks now offer so much leverage that you probably cannot achieve parity. But don’t exacerbate the situation. Research Reports and Presentations Defending Against Network-based Distributed Denial of

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.