Data Security in the SaaS Age: Rethinking Data Security

Securosis has a long history of following and publishing on data security. Rich was the lead analyst on DLP about a zillion years ago during his time with Gartner. And when Securosis first got going (even before Mike joined), it was on the back of data security advisory and research. Then we got distracted by this cloud thing, and we haven’t gone back to refresh our research, given some minor shifts in how data is used and stored with SaaS driving the front office and IaaS/PaaS upending the data center (yes that was sarcasm). We described a lot of our thinking of the early stages of this transition in Tidal Forces 1 and Tidal Forces 3, and it seems (miraculously) a lot of what we expected 3 years ago has come to pass. But data security remains elusive. You can think of it as a holy grail of sorts. We’ve been espousing the idea of “data-centric security” for years, focusing on protecting the data, which then allows you to worry less about securing devices, networks, and associated infrastructure. As with most big ideas, it seemed like a good idea at the time. In practice, data-centric security has been underwhelming as having security policy and protection travel along with the data, as data spreads to every SaaS service you know about (and a bunch you don’t know about), was too much. How did Digital Rights Management work at scale? Right. The industry scaled back expectations and started to rely on techniques like tactical encryption, mostly using built-in capabilities (FDE for structured data, and embedded encryption for file systems). Providing a path of least resistance to both achieve compliance requirements, as well as “feel” the data was protected. Though to be clear, this was mostly security theater, as compromising the application still provided unfettered access to the data. Other techniques, like masking and tokenization, also provided at least a “means” to shield the sensitive data from interlopers. New tactics like test data generation tools also provide an option to ensure that developers don’t inadvertently expose production data. But even with all of these techniques, most organizations still struggle with protecting their data. And it’s not getting easier. The Data Breach Triangle Back in 2009, we introduced a concept called The Data Breach Triangle, which gave us a simple construct to enumerate a few different ways to stop a data breach. You need to break one of the legs of the triangle. Data: The equivalent of fuel – information to steal or misuse. Exploit: The combination of a vulnerability or an exploit path to allow an attacker unapproved access to the data. Egress: A path for the data to leave the organization. It could be digital, such as a network egress, or physical, such as portable storage or a stolen hard drive. Most of the modern-day security industry focused on stopping the exploit, either by impacting the ability to deliver the exploit – firewall/IPS or preventing the compromise of the device – endpoint protection. There also were attempts to stop the egress of sensitive data via outbound filters/FW/web proxy or DLP. As described above, attempts to either protect or shield the data have been hard to achieve at scale. So what do we get? Consistent breaches. Normalized breaches. To the point that an organization losing tens of millions of identities no longer even registers as news. SaaS exacerbates the issue Protecting data continues to get more complicated. SaaS has won. As we described in Tidal Forces, SaaS is the new front office. If anything, the remote work phenomenon driven by the inability to congregate in offices safely will accelerate this trend. Protecting data was hard enough when we knew where it was. I used to joke how unsettling it was back in 1990 when my company outsourced the mainframe, and it was now in Dallas, as opposed to in our building in Arlington, VA. At least all of our data was in one place. Now, most organizations have dozens (or hundreds) of different organizations controlling critical corporate data. Yeah, the problem isn’t getting easier. Rethinking Data Security What we’ve been doing hasn’t worked. Not at scale anyway. We’ve got to take a step back and stop trying to solve yesterday’s problem. Protecting data by encrypting it, masking it, tokenizing it, or putting a heavy usage policy around it wasn’t the answer, for many reasons. The technology industry has rethought applications and the creation, usage, and storage of data. Thus, we security people need to rethink data security for this new SaaS reality. We must both rethink the expectations of what data security means, as well as the potential solutions. That’s what we’ll do in this blog series Data Security for the SaaS Age. We haven’t been publishing as much research over the past few years, so it probably makes sense to revisit our Totally Transparent Research methodology. We’ll post all of the research to the blog, and you can weigh in and let us know that we are full of crap or that we are missing something rather important. Comments on this post are good or reach out via email or Twitter. Once we have the entire series posted and have gathered feedback from folks far smarter than us, we package up the research as a paper and license it to a company to educate its customers. In this case, we plan to license the paper to AppOmni (thanks to them), although they can decide not to license it at the end of the process – for any reason. This approach allows us to write our research without worrying about anyone providing undue influence. If they don’t like the paper, they don’t license it. Simple. In the next post, we focus on the solution, which isn’t a product or a service; rather it’s a process. We update the Data Security Lifecycle for modern times, highlighting the need for a systematic approach to identifying critical data and governing the use of that data in

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.