Securosis

Research

Firestarter: G Who Shall Not Be Named

As they fight to keep the Firestarter running through Google outages, vacations, and client travel, our dynamic trio return once again. This week they discuss some of the latest news from a particular conference held out in Washington DC last week which Mike stopped by (well, the lobby bar) and Rich used to help run. The audio-only version is up too.   Share:

Share:
Read Post

Updating the Endpoint Security Buyer’s Guide: Mobile Endpoint Security Management

In a rather uncommon occurrence, we are updating one of our papers within a year of publication. As shown by our recent deep dive into Advanced Endpoint and Server Protection, endpoint security is evolving pretty quickly. As mentioned in the latest version of our Endpoint Security Buyer’s Guide, mobile devices are just additional endpoints that need to be managed like any other device. But it has become clear that we need to dig a bit deeper into securing mobile endpoints, so we will. But the change requires a bit of context. We have said for years that management is the first problem users solve when introducing a new technology. Security comes only after management issues are under control. That has certainly been true of mobile devices, as evidenced by the rapid growth, maturity, and consolidation of Mobile Device Management (MDM) technologies. But you cannot really separate management from protection in the mobile endpoint context, as demonstrated by the fact that security features appeared very early among MDM offerings. Mobile devices are inherently better protected from malware attacks due to more modern mobile operating system architectures; so hygiene – including patching, configuration, and determining which applications can run on devices – becomes their key security requirement. This means there is leverage to gain by integrating mobile devices into the device management stack (where applicable) to enforce consistent policy regardless of device, ownership (for BYOD), or location. This has driven significant consolidation of mobile management companies into broader IT management players. In this update of the Endpoint Security Buyer’s Guide we will dig into mobile endpoint security management, defining more specifically what needs to be managed and protected. But most of all, we will focus on the leverage to be gained by managing these capabilities as part of your endpoint security management strategy. Defining Endpoints One of the key points we made early in the Endpoint Security Buyer’s Guide is that the definition of endpoint needs to be more inclusive. From a security standpoint if the device can run applications, access corporate data stores, and store corporate data locally, it is an endpoint and needs to be managed and protected. Smartphones and tablets clearly fit this bill, along with traditional PCs. Organizationally management of all these devices may not fall within a single operations group. That company-specific decision reflects business realities, particularly at large-scale enterprises with thousands of employees and huge IT shops which can afford specialist teams by device. In many smaller companies (the mid-market), we see these operational functions consolidated. But who does the work is less important than what is done to protect mobile endpoints – consistently and efficiently. Managing Endpoint Device Security Hygiene tends to be the main focus for managing mobile endpoint security, so here is a list of what that means in the mobile endpoint context: Enrollment: New devices show up, so registering each device and assigning it proper entitlements begins the process. This is typically handled via a self-service capability so users can register their devices and accept the organization’s policies (especially for employee-owned devices) without waiting for help desk intervention. Of course you cannot assume everyone gaining access will register their devices (especially attackers), so you will want some kind of passive discovery capability to identify unmanaged devices as well. Asset management: Next after enrollment comes the need to understand and track device configuration and security posture, which is really an asset management function. There may be other similar capabilities in use within the organization (such as a CMDB), in which case integration and interoperability with those systems is a requirement. OS configuration: Configuration of mobile endpoints should be based on policies defined by groups and roles within the organizations. These policies typically control many device aspects – including password strength, geolocation, activation lock, and device encryption. OS vendors offer robust and mature APIs to enable this capability, so most platforms offer have similar capabilities. Technology selection largely comes down to leverage managing policies within a consistent user experience across all devices. Patching: Software updates are critical to device security, so ensuring that mobile endpoints are patched in a timely fashion is another key aspect of mobile endpoint security. For mobile devices you will want to be sure you can update devices over the air, as they are often beyond reach of the corporate network, connecting to corporate networks only infrequently. Connectivity: An organization may want to actively control which networks devices use, especially because many public WiFi hotspots are simply insecure. So you will want the ability to specify and enforce policies for which networks devices can use, whether connections require a VPN to backhaul traffic through a central gateway, and whether to use a mobile VPN service to minimize the risk of man-in-the-middle and side-jacking attacks and snooping. Identity/group roles and policies: This capability involves integrating the mobile endpoint security management policy engine with Active Directory or another authoritative identity store. This leverages existing users and groups – managed elsewhere in the organization – to set MDM policies. As you build your mobile endpoint security management strategy, keep in mind that different operating systems offer different hooks and management capabilities. Mature PC operating systems offer one level of management maturity; mobile operating systems are maturing rapidly but don’t offer as much. So to provide a consistent experience and protection across devices you might need to reduce protection to the lowest common denominator of your least capable platform. Alternatively you can choose to support only certain functions on certain devices. For example PCs need to access corporate data (and SaaS application) over the corporate VPN, so they are easier to compromise and present more risk. Whereas more limited mobile devices, with better inherent protection, might be fine with less restrictive policies. This granularity can be established via policies within the endpoint security management platform. Over time MDM platforms will be able to compensate for limitations of underlying operating systems to provide a stronger protection as their capabilities mature. Managing Applications The improved security architectures of mobile operating systems have required attackers to increasingly

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.