Securosis

Menu

Research

Friday Summary: July 18, 2014, Rip Van Winkle edition

Adrian Lane July 17, 2014 No Comments

I have been talking about data centric security all week, so you might figure that’s what I will talk about in this week’s summary. Wrong. That’s because I’m having a Rip Van Winkle moment. I just got a snapshot of where we have been through the last six years, and I now see pretty clearly where we are going. It is because I have not done much coding over the last six years; now that I am playing around again I realize not just that everything has changed, but also why. It’s not just that every single tool I was comfortable with – code management, testing, IDE, bug tracking, etc. – has been chucked into the dustbin, it’s that most assumptions about how to work have been tossed on their ears. Server uptime used to be the measure of reliability – I now regularly kill servers to ensure reliability. I used to worry that Java was too slow, so I would code C – now I use JRuby to speed things up. I used to slow down code releases so QA could complete test sweeps – now I speed up the dev cycle so testing can happen faster. I used to configure servers and applications after I launched them – now I do it beforehand. Developers should never push to code production; developers should now push code to production as frequently as possible. Patching destabilizes production code; now we patch as fast as possible. We’ll fix it after we ship; now infrastructure and efficiency take precedence over features and functions. Task cards over detailed design specs; design for success gave way to “fail faster” and constant refactoring. My friends are gone, my dog’s dead, and much of what I knew is no longer correct. Rip Van Winkle. It’s like that. Step away for a couple years and all your points of reference have changed – but it’s a wonderful thing! Every process control assumption has been trampled on – for good reason: those assumptions proved wrong. Things you relied on are totally irrelevant because they have been replaced by something better. Moore’s Law predicts that compute power effectively doubles every two years while costs remain static. I think development is moving even faster. Ten years ago some firms I worked with released code once a year – now it’s 20 times a day. I know nothing all over again … and that’s great! On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian and Mort talk Big Data with George V Hulme. Mort quoted in Communicating at the speed of DevOps. Favorite Securosis Posts Mike Rothman: The Security Pros Guide to Cloud File Storage and Collaboration: Introduction. I’m looking forward to this series from Rich because there is a lot of noise and lots of competitors in the cloud-based storage game. Lots of hyperbole too in terms of what an enterprise needs. Adrian Lane: Firestarter: China and Career Advancement. Lots of people looking to get into security and lots looking to hire. But HR is an impediment so both sides need to think up creative ways to find talent. Other Securosis Posts Trends in Data Centric Security: Deployment Models. The Security Pro’s Guide to Cloud File Storage and Collaboration: Introduction. Incite 7/16/2014: Surprises. Are CISOs finally ‘real’ executives? Firestarter: China and Career Advancement. Leverging TI in Incident Response/Management: Really Responding Faster. It’s Just a Matter of Time. Listen to Rich Talk, Win a … Ducati? Summary: Boulder. Favorite Outside Posts Mike Rothman: Is better possible? Another great one by Godin. “If you accept the results you’ve gotten before, if you hold on to them tightly, then you never have to face the fear of the void, of losing what you’ve got, of trading in your success for your failure.” Yes, we call can get better. You just have to accept the fear that you’ll fail. Gunnar: Apple and IBM Team Up to Push iOS in the Enterprise. My Mobile security talk two years back was “From the iPhone in your pocket to the Mainframe”, now the best in class front ends meet the best in class back ends. Or what I call iBM. IBM and Apple match was a bright strategy by Ginni Rometty and Tim Cook, but it might have been drafted by David Ricardo, who formalized comparative advantage, a trade where both sides gain. Adrian Lane: Server Lifetime as SDLC Metric. And people say cloud is not that different … but isn’t it funny how many strongly held IT beliefs are exactly reversed in cloud services. David Mortman: Oracle’s Data Redaction is Broken. Research Reports and Presentations Analysis of the 2014 Open Source Development and Application Security Survey. Defending Against Network-based Distributed Denial of Service Attacks. Reducing Attack Surface with Application Control. Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Security Monitoring. The Future of Security: The Trends and Technologies Transforming Security. Security Analytics with Big Data. Security Management 2.5: Replacing Your SIEM Yet? Defending Data on iOS 7. Eliminate Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing. What CISOs Need to Know about Cloud Computing. Top News and Posts Oracle fixes 113 security vulnerabilities, 20 just in Java. Google’s Project Zero. Specially Crafted Packet DoS Attacks, Here We Go Again. SCOTUS’s new Rummaging Doctrine. Blog Comment of the Week This week’s best comment goes to Jeff, in response to Leverging TI in Incident Response/Management. Sorry if this goes a little bit off topic, but I believe this relates back to responding faster (and continuous security monitoring that Securosis has championed), but would like to get your thoughts on the best place/recommended infrastructure designs to terminate, decrypt, and inspect SSL traffic to/from a network so all relevant security tools – IPS/IDS, WAFs, proxoes, security gateways, etc., – can inspect the traffic to ensure a complete picture of what’s entering/leaving the network to allow for quick/faster responses to threats. Thx, Jeff Share:

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.