Securosis

Research

Endpoint Advanced Protection Buyer’s Guide: Top 10 Questions on Prevention

There are plenty of obvious questions you could ask an endpoint security vendor. But most won’t really help you understand the nuances of their approach, so we decided to distill the selection criteria down to a couple of key points. We’ll provide not just the questions, but the rationale behind them. Q1 If your prevention capabilities rely on machine learning, how and how often are your machine learning models retrained? An explanation here should provide some perspective on the vendor’s approach to math and the ‘half-life’ of their models, which indicates how quickly they believe malware attack behaviors change. Some espouse continuous retraining, while others maintain that very little changes daily, so it’s sufficient to retrain weekly or monthly. You’ll also want to understand whether model updates disrupt the end-user experience with significant downloads, restarts, or other intrusions on normal user activity. Q2 How do your machine learning models factor in false positives and minimize them? If a vendor claims they don’t have false positives, run away – quickly. Customer feedback and awareness of false positives are critical to keeping the products current, so get a sense of how they update their protection, models, and whitelists based on what doesn’t work in the field. Q3 Does your agent work in user or kernel mode? Do you protect the OS kernel? The answer is typically both, because some activities aren’t accessible from either user mode and others from kernel mode. For monitoring and EDR it’s possible to stay in user mode but if attacks need to be blocked there is a requirement for some kind of kernel access. This question enables you to get at how an EDR vendor has developed their offering to provide broader prevention. Q4 Can you block an attack before it loads into memory? If so, how? This digs into the vendor’s ability to block a file-less attack, a critical aspect of stopping advanced attacks. Q5 How do you prevent an attacker from gaining root access to the device? You are trying to understand the exploit prevention/blocking capability of the product; at some point to control the machine, an attacker will need root-level access. Q6 How is threat intelligence integrated into the prevention agent? This answer should be about more than getting patterns for the latest indicators of compromise. It should include the ability to block known bad IP addresses at the network layer, as well as cloud-based sandbox integration. Q7 How often and how large are agent updates? How do you age out old signatures to conserve space? How are updates distributed? Attacks change and machine learning models are imperfect, so agents need to be updated. Especially given that what’s old becomes new again, and care needs to be taken when specific signatures or behavioral models are no longer on endpoint agents. This question enables you to assess how the vendor distributes work between the agents and the cloud. It also gets at whether the vendor has a cloud-native management option, which wouldn’t require an on-premise aggregation point. Q8 How does the product integrate with other enterprise security solutions, including SIEM and/or EDR? If the vendor offers a full EDR capability use this question to figure out whether it’s a common agent between prevention and EDR, and the level of management integration. You can dig a bit into how the endpoint prevention product sends data to/from a SIEM, incident response, and network-based controls. Q9 Does the product support automation? If so, how? Given that you likely don’t have enough people to do what needs to be done, you’ll need to automate some functions as the only way to scale up your security operation. Some tools integrate with automation platforms (typically for incident response), while offering some auto-remediation for common problems (make sure you can control what gets done by the machine and what just sends an alert to a console). Q10 Does the product support application control to lock down some devices? How are exceptions to the white list handled? Can you lock down USB ports? For some devices it’s easier and safer to just lock them down and prevent unauthorized executables from running. This won’t work on all devices but having the option provides flexibility in designing endpoint controls. Likewise, locking down USB ports prevents a common mechanism of data leakage. We could ask another couple hundred questions, but these ten should provide a lot of the insight you need to differentiate between vendors. Next week we’ll post a similar set of criteria for Detection/Response. Enjoy the weekend! Share:

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

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.