The 14th Annual RSAC Disaster Recovery Breakfast Is on!

Over 15 years ago (pre-Blip) I wanted to do something fun and casual for friends and Securosis readers at the annual RSA Conference… that I, as a budding entrepreneur, could actually afford. I started calling around and found a little place called Jillian’s right near the conference willing to open up early and serve breakfast for a reasonable rate. We ended up with around 50 people dropping in and out over those few hours, just mostly sitting around a table talking about whatever. Little did I know that our Disaster Recovery Breakfast would outlast Jillian’s, and, it seems, downtown San Francisco? I also never thought it would peak out at one point at around 300 people and inspire dozens of copycats. But one thing never changed — the casual atmosphere, the chance to talk without having to scream into someone’s ear, and the great conversations fueled by coffee (and the occasional Irish coffee). Once again, we’re back! Like last year we are hosting at the Pink Elephant which is just a few minutes walk and totally worth it if you want breakfast burritos or an omelette. This year we have two of our long-standing partners helping us out, plus a new (old) face. Here are the details: The 14th Annual Securosis Disaster Recovery Breakfast Thursday, May 9, 8-11 AM Pink Elephant 142 Minna St San Francisco, CA 94105 Come meet IANS Faculty and leadership, the LaunchTech team, members from the Vulnerable U community, the illustrious founder of Securosis (that’s me, duh), and whoever walks in the door for casual, no-marketing conversations. Drop in and out as you like, and you can even grab a coffee to go! RSVP at is appreciated but not required; feel free to just show up, but if you don’t RSVP we might run out of bacon. Share:

Read Post

It’s Time for a Microsoft Trustworthy Cloud Initiative

“All cloud security failures are IAM failures, and all IAM failures are governance failures.” — me on Twitter (too many years ago to find) CISA just released their report on the big Summer 2023 Microsoft Exchange Online Intrusion. You could call it blistering, but I call it more of a third degree plasma burn. It’s also the kind of validation I wish never had to happen. Like many other cloud security professionals, I have been concerned with the security of Microsoft’s cloud (Azure/Office). When I first started using Azure I noticed it tended towards more-open and less-secure defaults. For example, the default for running a VM in a VNet was… no Network Security Groups. The VM would be wide open to the Internet for both inbound and outbound traffic. In AWS and GCP you can’t even deploy anything without an SG attached. (The portal does now try to get you to deploy with an NSG). Other examples? The Azure activity log doesn’t record Read activity, so you can’t identify reconnaissance. Then there are the series of security flaws discovered by the teams and Wiz, Orca, and others. The report has great detail, but the structural issues and recommendations are the real highlights. Here are the ones I think stand out — which have implications (both good and bad) beyond Microsoft. It’s a governance failure: The Board concluded that Microsoft’s security culture was inadequate (page 17). Because features and innovation are prioritized over security: as written in stone by the first cave dwellers. Other CSPs have better security practices: Don’t blame me, it’s item 3 on page 17, and no surprise to those of us who do this for a living. Microsoft did not correct inaccurate information and still does not know what happened: This means multiple failures at multiple levels. Page 17, again. There has been more than one nation-state breach: We knew this, and they refer to Midnight Blizzard. The mistakes there are also… troubling. The Board believes Microsoft has deprioritized security and risk management: Bottom of page 18. The Board recommends Microsoft slow innovation until they fix security: It’s been done before, but I’m not sure how Copilot feels about that. The report then mentions the Microsoft Secure Future Initiative. I wrote on LinkedIn when that came out that it seemed inadequate. It’s like a Band-Aid when you need a tourniquet. The report goes into more detail on some specific security practices it recommends changing; but also seems to indicate they consider other cloud providers to be doing a better job with security around keys, tokens, and credentials. I can only assume they also know about SAS tokens. I mean, this report is rough, and anyone using Azure and Office needs to read it. And yes, I do use both myself for various things, but I’m not… a bank or the United States Government. Outside Microsoft specifically, there are some things in the report that make us cloud security types scream “I KNEW IT! I TOLD YOU SO!!!” at our screens: NIST needs to update 800-53 for cloud: Page 21, and if you know me you’ve heard me complaining about that for years. M&A is a security risk: Okay, Chris Farris and I are literally days from publishing a thing which might just call M&A a threat. CSPs need to stop charging for security-relevant logs: I’m screaming religious words right now. Which is weird, since I’m an atheist. CSPs should be transparent and report incidents and ALL vulnerabilities: Another one that’s an issue beyond Microsoft. CSPs and the government should have better victim notification: This is interesting and unexpected. They straight up call for non-spoofable mobile notifications. The government is watching and should use FedRAMP and its buying power to incentivize change: The original Trustworthy Computing Initiative was largely the result of serious government… threats?… to look at alternative operating systems. It’s time for a replay. It’s time for a Microsoft Trustworthy Cloud Initiative. Especially if they want us to trust them to be the leading AI provider. And FREE THE LOGS!!! Adding link to Joseph Menn’s Washington Post article. He’s banned in Russia so you know you can trust him. 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.