Your Cloud Consultant Probably Sucks

There is a disturbing consistency in the kinds of project requests I see these days. Organizations call me because they are in the midst of their first transition to cloud, and they are spending many months planning out their exact AWS environment and all the security controls “before we move any workloads up”. More often than not some consulting firm advised them they need to spend 4-9 months building out 1-2 virtual networks in their cloud provider and implementing all the security controls before they can actually start in the cloud. This is exactly what not to do. As I discussed in an earlier post on blast radius, you definitely don’t want one giant cloud account/network with everything shoved into it. This sets you up for major failures down the road, and will slow down cloud initiatives enough that you lose many of the cloud’s advantages. This is because: One big account means a larger blast radius (note that ‘account’ is the AWS term – Azure and Google use different structures, but you can achieve the same goals). If something bad happens, like someone getting your cloud administrator credentials, the damage can be huge. Speaking of administrators, it becomes very hard to write identity management policies to restrict them to only their needed scope, especially as you add more and more projects. With multiple accounts/networks you can better segregate them out and limit entitlements. It becomes harder to adopt immutable infrastructure (using templates like CloudFormation or Terraform to define the infrastructure and build it on demand) because developers and administators end up stepping on each other more often. IP address space management and subnet segregation become very hard. Virtual networks aren’t physical networks. They are managed and secured differently in fundamental ways. I see most organizations trying to shove existing security tools and controls into the cloud, until eventually it all falls apart. In one recent case it became harder and slower to deploy things into the company’s AWS account than to spend months provisioning a new physical box on their network. That’s like paying for Netflix and trying to record Luke Cage on your TiVo so you can watch it when you want. Those are just the highlights, but the short version is that although you can start this way, it won’t last. Unfortunately I have found that this is the most common recommendation from third-party “cloud consultants”, especially ones from the big firms. I have also seen Amazon Solution Architects (I haven’t worked with any from the other cloud providers) not recommend this practice, but go along with it if the organization is already moving that way. I don’t blame them. Their job is to reduce friction and get customer workloads on AWS, and changing this mindset is extremely difficult even in the best of circumstances. Here is where you should start instead: Accept that any given project will have multiple cloud accounts to limit blast radius. 2-4 is average, with dev/test/prod and a shared services account all being separate. This allows developers incredible latitude to work with the tools and configurations they need, while still protecting production environments and data, as you pare down the number of people with administrative privileges. I usually use “scope of admin” to define where to draw the account boundaries. If you need to connect back into the datacenter you still don’t need one big cloud account – use what I call a ‘bastion’ account (Amazon calls these transit VPCs). This is the pipe back to your data center; you peer other accounts off it. You still might want or need a single shared account for some workloads, and that’s okay. Just don’t make it the center of your strategy. A common issue, especially for financial services clients, is that outbound ssh is restricted from the corporate network. So the organization assumes they need a direct/VPN connection to the cloud network to enable remote access. You can get around this with jump boxes, software VPNs, or bastion accounts/networks. Another common concern is that you need a direct connection to manage security and other enterprise controls. In reality I find this is rarely the case, because you shouldn’t be using all the same exact tools and technologies anyway. There is more than I can squeeze into this post, but you should be adopting more cloud-native architectures and technologies. You should not be reducing security – you should be able to improve it or at least keep parity, but you need to adjust existing policies and approaches. I will be writing much more on these issues and architectures in the coming weeks. In short, if someone tells you to build out a big virtual network that extends your existing network before you move anything to the cloud, run away. Fast. Share:

Read Post

Ten Years of Securosis: Time for a Memory Dump

I started Securosis as a blog a little over 10 years ago. 9 years ago it became my job. Soon after that Adrian Lane and Mike Rothman joined me as partners. Over that time we have published well over 10,000 posts, around 100 research papers, and given countless presentations. When I laid down that first post I was 35, childless, a Research VP at Gartner still, and recently married. In other words I had a secure job and the kind of free time no one with a kid ever sees again. Every morning I woke up energized to tell the Internet important things! In those 10 years I added three kids and two partners, and grew what may be the only successful analyst firm to spin out of Gartner in decades. I finished my first triathlons, marathon, and century (plus) bike ride. I started programming again. We racked up a dream list of clients, presented at all the biggest security events, and built a collection of research I am truly proud of, especially my more recent work on the cloud and DevOps, including two training classes. But it hasn’t all been rainbows and unicorns, especially the past couple years. I stopped training in martial arts after nearly 20 years (kids), had two big health scares (totally fine now), and slowly became encumbered with all the time-consuming overhead of being self-employed. We went through 3 incredibly time-consuming and emotional failed acquisitions, where offers didn’t meet our goals. We spent two years self-funding, designing, and building a software platform that every iota of my experience and analysis says is desperately needed to manage security as we all transition to cloud computing, but we couldn’t get it over the finish line. We weren’t willing to make the personal sacrifices you need must to get outside funding, and we couldn’t find another path. In other words, we lived life. A side effect, especially after all the effort I put into Trinity (you can see a video of it here), is that I lost a lot of my time and motivation to write, during a period where there is a hell of a lot to write about. We are in the midst of the most disruptive transition in terms of how we build, operate, and manage technology. Around seven years ago I bet big on cloud (and then DevOps), with both research and hands-on work. Now there aren’t many people out there with my experience, but I’ve done a crappy job of sharing it. In part I was holding back to give Trinity and our cloud engagements an edge. More, though, essentially (co-)running two companies at the same time, and then seeing one of them fail to launch, was emotionally crushing. Why share all of this? Why not. I miss the days when I woke up motivated to tell the Internet those important things. And the truth is, I no longer know what my future holds. Securosis is still extremely strong – we grew yet again this year, and it was probably personally my biggest year yet. On the downside that growth is coming at a cost, where I spend most of my time traveling around performing cloud security assessments, building architectures, and running training classes. It’s very fulfilling but a step back in some ways. I don’t mind some travel, but most of my work now involves it, and I don’t like spending that much time away from the family. Did I mention I miss being motivated to write? Over the next couple months I will brain dump everything I can, especially on the cloud and DevOps. This isn’t for a paper. No one is licensing it, and I don’t have any motive other than to core dump everything I have learned over the past 7 years, before I get bored and do something else. Clients have been asking for a long time where to start in cloud security, and I haven’t had any place to send them. So I put up a page to collect all these posts in some relatively readable order. My intent is to follow the structure I use when assessing projects, but odds are it will end up being a big hot mess. I will also be publishing most of the code and tools I have been building but holding on to. Yeah, this post is probably TMI, but we have always tried to be personal and honest around here. That is exactly what used to excite me so much that I couldn’t wait to get out of bed and to work. Perhaps those days are past. Or perhaps it’s just a matter of writing for the love of writing again – instead of for projects, papers, or promotion. 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.