Securosis

Research

Introducing the Endpoint Advanced Protection Buyer’s Guide

Endpoint security has undergone a renaissance recently. Similar to network security a decade ago, the technology had not seen significant innovation for years, and adversaries improved to a point where many organizations questioned why they kept renewing existing endpoint protection suites. It was an untenable situation. The market spoke, and security companies responded with a wave of new offerings and innovations which do a much better job detecting both advanced adversaries and the techniques they use to obfuscate their activities. To be clear, there is no panacea. Nothing is 100% effective in protecting endpoints. But the latest wave of products has improved dramatically over what was available two years ago. But that creates a conundrum for organizations of all sizes. With so many vendors addressing the endpoint security market with seemingly similar offerings, what should a customer buy? Which features make the most sense, depending on the sophistication and adversaries an organization faces? Ultimately, how can potential customers make heads or tails of the noise coming from the security marketing machinery? At Securosis the situation was frustrating. So many buzzwords were thrown around without context. New companies emerged, making claims we considered outrageous on effectiveness. Some of this nonsense reminds us of a certain database vendor’s Unbreakable claims. Yes, we’ve been in this business a long time. And yes, we’ve seen pretty much everything. Twice. But we’ve never seen a product that blocks every attack with no false positives. Even though some companies were making that claim. Sadly, that was only the tip of the iceberg of our irritation. There was a public test of these endpoint solutions, which we thought drew the wrong conclusions with a suspect methodology. If those tests were to be believed, some products kicked butt while others totally sucked. But we’ve talked with a bunch of folks who got results were consistent with the public tests, and others whose results were diametrically opposed. And not every company with decent technology was included in the tests. So if a customer were making a choice entirely based on that public test they could be led astray – ultimately, how a product performs in your environment can only really be determined by testing in your environment. In Securosis-land frustration and irritation trigger action. So we got irritated and decided to clarify a very murky situation. If we could help organizations figure out what capabilities were important to them based on the problems they were trying to solve, they would be much better educated consumers when sitting with endpoint security vendors. If we could map out a process to test the efficacy of each product and compare “apples to apples”, they would make much better purchase decisions based on requirements – not how many billboards a well-funded vendor bought. To be clear, billboards and marketing activity are not bad. You can’t grow a sustainable company without significant marketing and brand-building. But marketing is no reason to buy an endpoint security product. We found little correlation between marketing spend and product capability. So at Securosis we decided to write an Endpoint Advanced Protection Buyer’s Guide. This comprehensive project will provide organizations what they need to select and evaluate endpoint security products. It will roll out over the next month, delivered in two main parts: Selection Criteria: This part of the Buyer’s Guide will focus on the capabilities you need to address the problems you face. We’ll explain terms like file-less malware and exploit pathways, so when vendors use them you will know what they’re talking about. We will also prepare a matrix to help you assess their capabilities against your requirements, based on attacks you expect to face. POC Guide: Figuring out what product seems to fit is only half the battle. You need to make sure it works in your environment. That means a Proof of Concept (POC) to prove value and that the product does what they say. That old “Trust, but verify” thing. So we’ll map out a process to test the capabilities of endpoint security products. Prevention vs. Detection/Response We have seen a pseudo-religious battle being fought, between a focus on trying to block attacks, versus focusing on detection and response once an attack is successful. We aren’t religious, and believe the best answer is a combination. As mentioned above, we don’t buy into the hype that any product can stop every attack. But we don’t believe prevention is totally useless either. So you’ll be looking at both prevention technologies and detection/response, but perhaps not at the same time. We’ll prepare versions of the Buyer’s Guide for both prevention and detection/response. And yes, we’ll also integrate them for those who want to evaluate a comprehensive Endpoint Advanced Protection Suite. Licensing Education Those of you familiar with our Securosis business model know we post research on our blog, and then license content to educate the industry. You also probably know that we research using our Totally Transparent Research methodology. We don’t talk about specific vendors, nor do we mention or evaluate specific products. But why would an endpoint company license a totally vendor-neutral buyer’s guide which educates customers to see through their marketing shenanigans? Because they believe in their products. And they want an opportunity to show that their products actually provide a better mousetrap, and can solve the issues facing organizations around protecting endpoints. So hats off to our licensees for this project. They are equipping their prospects to ask tough questions and to evaluate their technology objectively. We want to thank (in alphabetical order) Carbon Black, Cybereason, Cylance, ENDGAME, FireEye, SentinelONE and Symantec for supporting this effort. We expect there may be a handful of others later in the year, and we’ll recognize them if and when they come onboard. We will post pieces of the Buyer’s Guide to the blog over the next month. As always we value the feedback of our readers, so it you see something wacky, please let us know. Share:

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.