The DevOps-y Future of Security Engineering

We have talked a lot about how this cloud thing and the associated DevOps revolution will fundamentally reshape security. Probably not tomorrow, or even the day after that. But before you know it, everything you thought you knew about security will have changed. Rich documented a bunch of our thinking in his Future of Security paper, so you can start there. As with most new disruptive innovations, there are likely other folks already where you want to be – it is good to learn from them. So I was very interested in slides from Zane Lackey (who used to run security engineering for Etsy), from his talk on how to build a modern security engineering organization. A few key points from his presentation: Etsy pushed code into production up to 30 times a day. They surfaced security information to everyone, not just security folks. Communication is key to getting folks to work with security, rather than working around security. Expand your team by offering bug bounties. Use penetration tests to figure out how hackers will achieve their goals – not to just prove that your app can be pwned. Overall it is a good deck, which serves as a good reminder that our world is changing. Understand how, or wait to get run over. Share:

Read Post

Incite 7/30/2014: Free Fall

If you caught my weekend rantings on Twitter, I had some free time this past weekend. The Boss was on a girl’s weekend. The kids are away at camp. And I had a meeting with a client first thing Monday morning. So I could have stayed in the ATL and taken an evening flight out. Or I could fly out first thing in the morning and find a way to get my blood pumping. Shockingly enough, I chose the latter. There is nothing better to get your blood moving than pulling some Gs on a cool roller coaster. I love roller coasters. The anticipation of the drop. The screaming of the folks around you. That exhilaration is hard to match. At least for me. Until it isn’t. Maybe I was just very calm on Sunday. But my heart rate hardly moved on the first wooden coaster. It was fast. It was fun. But it wasn’t scary. The two-loop two-corkscrew ride barely moved the needle either. Maybe I am just numb to coasters. Sure it’s fun, but where is the rush? The stand-up coaster was cool. That was pretty exciting. As was the ‘flying’ coaster, where you ride on the outside of the track with your feet dangling. But there was still something missing. Then I saw it. The free fall ride. I am not a big fan of free fall rides. I’ll take loops, drops, and corkscrews every time. I rode the Tower of Terror at Disney with the girls, but that’s more because I needed to. I had to represent in front of my girls. Sure it was fun, but it’s not my favorite. But in need of an adrenaline rush, I figured it was time. Time to conquer my discomfort and just drop. So I stood in line and within a couple minutes I was ascending 200-something feet in the air. The view was beautiful. The 16-year-old running the ride started chirping something about the ride being broken. That we’d need to descend slowly. But I wasn’t born yesterday. I took a deep breath and got ready. Then I dropped. For 4 seconds anyway. It took my breath away, but I lived. My adrenaline spiked. My heart rate elevated. I felt alive! And I conquered the free fall. It was a good day. It’s not great to have to travel for work on a Sunday, but if you need to. at least make sure you have some fun. –Mike Photo credit: “Drop zone” originally uploaded by Alan Teo 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. July 22 – Hacker Summer Camp July 14 – China and Career Advancement June 30 – G Who Shall Not Be Named June 17 – Apple and Privacy 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 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. The Security Pro’s Guide to Cloud File Storage and Collaboration Core Security Features Overview and Baseline Security Introduction Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Incident Response/Management Quick Wins The (New) Incident Response & Management Process Model Threat Intelligence + Data Collect = Responding Better Really Responding Faster Introduction Trends in Data Centric Security Deployment Models Tools Introduction Use Cases Understanding Role-based Access Control Advanced Concepts Introduction NoSQL Security 2.0 Understanding NoSQL Platforms Introduction Newly Published Papers The 2015 Endpoint and Mobile Security Buyer’s Guide Open Source Development and Application Security Analysis 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 Incite 4 U The Imprudence of Clouds: The SNL skit “Common Knowledge” was a game show where the ‘right’ answer to a question was not the factual answer, but whatever popular answer the studio audience thought was right. That’s what ran through my mind when Robert Graham pointed out that the fact that Some in cybersec keep claiming that open-source is inherently more secure or trustworthy than closed-source does not make it true. Rob’s good like that – poking at so-called “common knowledge”. And based on Sonatype’s just-completed open source survey, clearly developers believes this as well. I would not yet call it a cliche – only a couple years ago enterprises prohibited open source as untrustworthy – but Rob has a good point. In many cases open source code is not being reviewed, and while I see some open source code scanning, open code can be just as bad as commercial software: poor usability, bugs, and vulnerabilities. There is crap software all over the place. Whether you pay for it or not. – AL DDoS: Coming soon to an amateur near you: It was only a matter of time. But it looks like DDoS is about to hit the masses. Between folks using fake Googlebots to blast a site, packaged DDoS kits available for $500, and DDoS bots on Amazon taking advantage of a defect in ElasticSearch, DDoS attacks are becoming more accessible to hackers

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.