Incite 8/20/2014: Better get a Bucket

So I am finally home for a few weeks, coinciding with the kids starting school. As usual I grab my messenger bag first thing in the am and head out on my nomadic journey. With about 10 local Starbucks with Google WiFi, I am typically in one of those. I get faster Internet at Starbucks than I do at home (57mbps down FTW). It does make me a little more predictable, so that’s a bit alarming. But I’ll trade 50mb downloads for the anemic DSL speeds of AT&T WiFi every day of the week. After a long day of reading tweets, drinking coffee, and trolling the team in our chat room, I come home to see the kids outside with a bucket. Yes, they were challenged to the Ice Bucket Challenge, an awareness campaign originated by Pete Frates – a former Boston College baseball player – suffering from ALS that has gone viral over the past week. There is a great ESPN profile of Pete and the challenges of ALS. NFL coaches and players, celebrities, families, and evidently school-age kids are dumping buckets of ice water on their heads. Though to be candid, I was kind of annoyed. Most of the celebrities and sports stars mention ALS and talk about the cause – if only for a few seconds. But do these kids even know why they are doing it? I asked, and they had no idea. So I saw a teaching moment. I dictated that before any ice water was dumped, they would need to understand about ALS and commit to not just dousing themselves, but to giving money to the cause. After extracting a $20 commitment each, and making sure they read the online description of the disease, they dumped the water. And all was right in the universe. Then I remembered that I saved the fantastic “A Football Life” episode on Steve Gleason because it was awesome and inspiring. The former New Orleans Saint suffers from ALS, and that show documented his life and his adventure climbing Machu Pichu. Yes, I forced the kids to watch that too. I am good with viral campaigns. I’m ecstatic that this campaign has increased donations to research for an ALS cure tenfold. That is awesome. And it would be even more awesome if everyone who dumped a bucket of ice water on their heads actually understood why they were doing it. Then instead of just being funny, it would be educational as well. –Mike PS: The picture above is Bill Gates (yes, that Bill Gates) doing the ice bucket challenge. Click here to see the full clip in all its animated GIF glory. Photo credit: “Bill Gates ice bucket challenge” originally uploaded by Waseem Ashraf 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. August 18 – You Can’t Handle the Gartner 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 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 Additional Security Features 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 path of least resistance: Clearly the easiest way to pwn an organization is just to find some Windows XP and use old malware. In our App Control paper we said there are a bunch of reasons XP may still exist in your environment. But if you still have unpatched XP you just suck at operations and security. Again, there are some mitigating circumstances (perhaps you cannot patch), but then you need some kind of whitelisting on the device to lock it down. Seriously – it’s 2014, folks. MSFT is trying their best to stop supporting the product. It’s time to upgrade. – MR Form letter: “Company {name} was the victim of unauthorized access to our customer systems, and attackers stole {number} of credit cards between {date1} and {date2}. Company {name} said: ‘Our customer’s trust is a top priority, and we’ve taken steps to address the {vulnerabilityXXXXXx10^3} and help law enforcement catch those naughty, malicious evil-doers that are now looting your bank account. As an added precaution we will make available {worthless-service} to protect your identity, and ask all of our customers to reset their passwords ASAP.’” There you go: an open source breach letter

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.