Check out the shiny new Cloud Security Maturity Model 2.0!

I’m pretty excited about this one. We are finally releasing version 2.0 of the Cloud Security Maturity Model. This is the culmination of nearly 9 months of research and analysis, a massive update from the original released in 2020. The tl;dr is that this version is not only updated to reflect current cloud security practices, but it includes around 100 cloud security control objectives to use as Key Performance Indicators — each matched 1:1 (where possible) with a technical control you can assess (AWS for now— we plan to expand to Azure and GCP next). You can download it here — no registration wall, and it includes the spreadsheet and PDFs. The CSMM 2.0 was developed by Securosis (that’s us!) and IANS Research in cooperation with the Cloud Security Alliance. Version 2.0 underwent a public peer review process at the CSA and internal review at IANS. We will keep updating it based on public feedback. The model includes nearly 100 control objectives and controls, organized into 12 Categories in 3 Domains. IANS released a free diagnostic self-assessment survey tool. You can quickly and easily generate a custom maturity report. FireMon added a free CSMM dashboard to Cloud Defense, which will automatically assess, rate, and track your cloud maturity using the CSMM! It’s really cool. But I’m biased because I pushed hard to build it. Okay, that’s what it is, but here’s why you should care. When Mike and I first built the CSMM we designed it more as a discussion tool to describe the cloud journey. Then we started using it with clients and realized it also worked well as a framework to organize a cloud security program. Two of the big issues with cloud governance we’ve seen in the decade-plus we’ve been doing this are: Existing security frameworks have been extended to cloud, but not designed for cloud, which creates confusion because they lack clear direction. Those don’t tell you “do this for cloud” — they tell you “add this cloud stuff”. We saw need for a cloud-centric view. Security teams quickly get tossed into cloud, and while tooling has improved immensely over time, those flood you with data and don’t tell you where to start. We don’t lack tools, but we do lack priorities. Version 2.0 of the CSMM was built directly to address these issues. We reworked the CSMM to work as a cloud security framework. What does that mean? The model focuses on the 12 main categories of cloud security activities, which you can use to organize your program. The maturity levels and KPIs then help define your goals and guide your program without the minutiae of handling individual misconfigurations. What’s the difference between the Diagnostic and the Dashboard? The IANS diagnostic is where you should start. It’s a survey tool anyone can fill out without technical access to their deployments. The objective of the diagnostic is to help you quickly self-assess your program and then, using that, determine your maturity objectives. Let’s be realistic — not all organizations can or should be at “Level 5”. The diagnostic helps set realistic goals and timelines, based on where you are now. The FireMon Cloud Defense CSMM Dashboard is a quantitative real-time assessment and tracking tool. Once you integrate it with your cloud accounts you’ll have a dashboard to track maturity for the entire organization, different business units, and even specific accounts. It’s the tool to track how you are meeting the goals established with the diagnostic. It’s self-service and covers as many AWS accounts as you have (Azure will be there once the CSMM adds Azure controls). You can also just use the CSMM spreadsheet. Options are good. Free options are better. Finally, please send me your feedback. These are living documents and tools, and we plan to keep them continuously updated. The usual disclosure: I’m an IANS faculty member and I manage the Cloud Defense product. But both of these are available absolutely free, no strings attached, as is the model itself. 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.