Securosis

Research

We Can’t Afford Doctrine

I almost used the title, “we can’t afford religion”, but figured that might hit Digg a little too fast and piss a lot of people off. But that’s kind of what I mean. After my global warming post I got a personal email from one of you that I respect a lot. He doesn’t buy into it, but he’s also not adamantly opposed. As he put it, people tend to have a religious response on the issue, depending on what side they’re on. Right now I tend to believe the consensus that there’s man is accelerating the natural warming of the earth. I haven’t always believed it, and if very clear evidence to the contrary appears my opinion could change. And hopefully you got the point of the original post- that I think even if it isn’t true (but I think it is) there is a huge potential economic upside if it is. But not everyone thinks like that reader and myself, on this and many other issues. A recent study performed functional MRI scans on people while discussing politics and religion. The result? The same emotional response. Yes folks, blind faith even in politics- an area that seems to demand more logic than emotion (nah, I’m not naive enough to think that’s how it really works). Religion relies on faith by nature, but science, politics, and even your daily decision to buy something or put on your seat-belt shouldn’t. There isn’t a single thing in this world that doesn’t change over time (Dick Clark and Keith Richards excepted), and any doctrinal beliefs are destined to eventually be wrong. To be honest, I think a lot of the problems we have in this world are due to rigid minds. Even every single major world religion undergoes constant interpretation and reinterpretation; that’s why the call it religious studies. Doctrine limits free thought and options. It taints analysis of information and situations. It often even biases what information you’re willing to expose yourself to. You can’t afford it. Analyze the data and make your own decisions. Don’t let some random doctrine or religious belief (not religion itself, you know what I mean) make your decisions for you. It doesn’t mean you don’t know right from wrong; it means you know how to think for yourself. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Writing Checks I Can’t Cash

Sorry folks, this has nothing to do with bank fraud or anything like that. Your ego’s writing checks your body can’t cash. -Iceman (you better know the movie) I’m a bit of an egotistical asshole. Yeah, no surprise there. But sometimes I realize the old confidence perhaps goes a little too far. I had two incidents in the past two days that made me realize I started to cross that line again. The first was on a private, non-work email list. Someone asked for a simple opinion and I ended up delivering the sermon from the mount (I hear Jews do that every now and then). It should have been a two sentence answer, and I responded with a page of dribble that this individual most likely already knew. Sure, it was accurate dribble, but they didn’t need to hear it from me, and then I had the audacity to follow it up with a second private email of something I’m sure they’d already seen. The second incident was tonight in Karate class. I studied TaeKwon-Do for about 15 years before moving to Arizona. It’s basically the style Michael Farnum has recently taken up. After a two year break I recently started back up, but with a different style, due to an instructor I hit it off with. We were sparring tonight and he was scoring on me at will. I’ve competed as high as nationals, but the reality is I was totally humbled. I could see exactly what he was doing (which I suppose is good), and couldn’t do a damn thing to stop it (bad when you’re getting hit in the face). Anyway, I took a step back and realized that it’s time for me to take the proverbial chill pill. Even when we’re really good at something, it’s all to easy to believe your own hype and take it too far. Especially when much of that hype is self generated. When I first started working as a paramedic I remember one of my instructors telling us you had to be cocky to survive the job, but if you went too far you’d kill people. Maybe even kill yourself. I don’t think I’ve come close to that line, but this week’s made me realize that it’s yet again time to take a step back, re-evaluate, and mellow out. Perhaps I let the stress of building a new house get to me. Not that I won’t still be an egotistical asshole, but at least I won’t be an obnoxious, out of control egotistical asshole. And, to that person I responded to on that email, if you’re reading- sorry I went overboard. Even Maverick learned his lesson and came back to the game stronger. (Seriously, if you haven’t caught the movie reference, you need help). For the record, I wrote this one for myself, but if any of you get any value out of it so much the better. Hope this isn’t too touchy feely, but I’m getting used to the new content of the blog myself. How weird, I just admitted something I’d normally only share with close friends at the bar to, like, the entire Internet. Blogging is weird. Share:

Share:
Read Post

More Than

(Yes, as promised I’m still blogging, just not on the technology or information security industries). Look I understand too little too late I realize there are things you say and do You can never take back But what would you be if you didn’t even try You have to try So after a lot of thought I’d like to reconsider Please If it’s not too late Make it a cheeseburger < p style=”text-indent:40pt;”> –Here I Am, Lyle Lovett Last night my wife and I finally watched the copy of An Inconvenient Truth I received as a gift for Xmas/Hannukah. You really need to go watch this movie. Soon. Being the cynical security freak that I am, I’m usually pretty good at realizing when I’m being manipulated. In some cases, usually movies, I just suspend belief as best I can and roll with it so I can lose myself in a bit of entertainment. An Inconvenient Truth blatantly manipulated me. It sent tendrils of social consciousness that slithered past my bastions of distrust to grab a hold of my gut and brain and sway my emotions and change my behavior. There was nothing subtle about it- these were the tendrils of a giant squid, grabbing and crushing any resistance, not some vague, foggy, sinister horror movie kinds of things. Some people think there’s still debate on global warming- not me. Just today were two articles on Slashdot that indicate something ain’t right. Take a look here and here. Lakes under Antarctica? The world’s largest tropical glacier disappearing? Nasty stuff. I don’t really think there’s much of a debate on global warming anymore, despite Michael Crichton. But, the thing is, even if there is some debate it shouldn’t matter. It’s as much gambling as it is risk management. Some bets can’t be changed, some risks can’t be mitigated once accepted. And, in the case of global warming, there are huge potential economic upsides. By buying a hybrid (especially thanks to the tax credit), switching our light bulbs, insulating better, and so on we save considerable money over the lifetime of these investments (maybe not on the hybrid, since we went for the SUV). On a macro scale, investing into more sustainable fuels reduces our dependence on foreign oil, creates new industries and new jobs, and makes the nation more self-sustaining and secure. We’re not talking about a tree-hugging return to hemp-powered cars, we’re talking nuclear power, new fuels, and getting out of the Middle East. Works for me. (And none of that was in the movie). So on one side of the bet we have the future of society, the destruction of coastal cities, the redistribution of global power, and other nastiness. On the other side we have an improved economy, cost savings, energy independence, and lower insurance rates. Seems like an easy bet. Anyway, I’ve preached enough. Go check out the movie for yourself… Share:

Share:
Read Post

I’m a Professional- Don’t Try This At Home

I love Mythbusters; and before every show there’s the obligatory warning, “Don’t try this at home. We’re what you call professionals”. Which is really disappointing since I now have no idea what to do with the 500 lbs of explosives, the crash test dummy, and the balistics gel sitting in my garage. This morning Martin reminds me that I’m a bit of a professional myself. As mentioned in this post, I’m running Vista and an XP machine without any antivirus. And as kwismer pointed out in the comments, Vista isn’t completely immune. I can only do this because I’m a highly educated user, only taking risks for myself, with a strong track record of never being infected. History, experience, and training allow me to take actions that are high risk to someone without my background. It’s the same as my rescue activities- the odds of me getting hurt while snowboarding some 300 lbs behemoth in a plastic sled down a black run are smaller than the odds of you blowing a knee on a blue run. Actually, the odds of me fracturing my shoulder while flying down a solo bump run are much higher than if I was doing the same run with a patient strapped in a rig behind me. Know your own risks and make your own assessments; and if you don’t have the skills to even do that accurately, always err on the side of caution. And never place others at risk even if your personal risk is low. Don’t be an idiot. I’m a professional. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Securosis Will No Longer Cover Technology

I have been told to no longer cover technology issues on my personal blog (that’s this). Unless/until circumstances change I won’t be posting anything related to technology or that could be construed in a way to potentially violate this policy. I will continue to occasionally post on non-technology security (and other) issues, but my rate of posting will obviously decline significantly. I won’t be offended if you drop me from your RSS reader or blog roll due to the change in content. And please, no comments on this one- but feel free to email me personally. I’ve enjoyed my time as an IT security blogger and am sorry it’s coming to an end for now. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Running Vista Without a Net

I’ve been running my eval copy of Vista (as a virtual machine) for a couple of weeks now and it’s a strange feeling. No, it has nothing to do with the new user interface (most of which won’t run in my virtual machine anyway), User Account Protection (UAP), or any of the new features. It’s because I’m running without any AntiVirus running. At all. And I can’t, for the life of me, think of any reason to install it yet. It’s there. This little zip file sitting on my desktop trying to tempt me into releasing it from the confines of its uninstalled bundle. It calls to me as I sleep, whispering fears of sending Office macro viruses to my family or being unprepared as that just-detected 1-day worm wheedles its way past my firewalls into the heart of my OS. But I resist the temptation as I banish the file to the depths of a subdirectory. Waiting to be called upon when needed, but imprisoned in the bowels of my file structure until the most desperate of times. As someone who practices safe email and browsing habits I often wonder if I need desktop AV at all. I don’t run it on my Mac and I don’t run it on my XP Home PC (that isn’t ever used for email or inappropriate browsing). I only use it on my corporate desktop, where it’s never found anything despite destroying my system performance every Wednesday at lunch, and I’m well protected with our email server AV (which is definitely necessary). Thus there’s no reason to run it on an OS for which there isn’t a single known worm or virus. It’s not like signature-based AV will catch any of the rumored 0days floating around, and my generally safe browsing habits limit my exposure anyway. I’d consider this feeling of freedom strange if I haven’t been experiencing it on my Mac for the past year. Now you Windows users can know what freedom really feels like. At least for now… Share:

Share:
Read Post

Capital One Wants to Give My Dead Business a Credit Card

Back before Gartner I ran my own consulting/development business for a while. It was reasonably successful, but when a better opportunity came up I shut down operations and joined the company that Gartner eventually acquired. I closed the business about 7 years ago. There are no remaining bank accounts, domains registered to it, business licenses, or anything else possibly connected to it. The old domain name still exists (registered to me personally) since it’s my permanent email, but the website forwards to my joke evilsquirrel site. I ran the business out of Boulder and have moved twice since then, with neither address being associated with the dearly departed corporation. Thus, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why Capital One is sending my dead business credit card solicitations to my current residential address. As far as I can tell there must be some database somewhere with the remnants of the old corp, tied to my SSN (as President and CEO), and they naturally assume I might want one of their credit cards. They’ve connected this with some current database of addresses and tracked me down as an individual to my current address. Don’t you think their fraud systems might consider offering credit to an unregistered, unlicensed business a bit of a risk? And you wonder why we have an identity theft problem?!? It has nothing to do with the Internet, and everything to do with easy credit and abuse of our personal information and databases by financial services. Share:

Share:
Read Post

How Full Disclosure is Like Torture

No, I’m not calling all security researchers torturers. Before you flame me, read the post… Not that I have any personal experience (beyond sitting through Black Dog the day my girlfriend dumped me), but torture is one of those things that rarely seems to give you the results you want, and even when it seems to work comes at an incredibly high cost As I mentioned in the Three Dirty Secrets of Disclosure post, full disclosure, especially “no-knock” full disclosure (releasing everything before even reporting it to the vendor) helps the bad guys more than the good guys. End users don’t have the time or skill, in most cases, to protect themselves. They’re still beholden to their vendor to provide a solution, but now even the lesser-skilled bad guys have a new way to attack. So how is full disclosure like torture? It’s more valuable as a threat. Once used, you can’t take it back, it rarely gives you the results you want, and everyone involved is hurt. Actually, unlike torture full disclosure hurts any innocent bystanders in the process. Some researchers think full disclosure forces vendors to respond and patch. Maybe; but in my experience vendors resist torture like James Bond and end up escaping and just getting really vengeful in the process. I think we need full disclosure as a tool in our arsenal, and that most of the researchers dropping these vulnerabilities think they’re doing good, but full disclosure needs to be a last resort- not a first strike. It’s more powerful as an ever-present threat hanging over the heads of the most unresponsive of vendors. Dropping vulnerabilities and proof of concept code on a daily basis just hardens the vendors and lets them paint you as an out of control rogue. You might think you’re saving the free world, but you’re no Jack Bauer. Share:

Share:
Read Post

On the Month of Apple Bugs, Backdoor Drama, and Why Security Researches Need Exceptional Ethics

Being on the road this week, I missed the latest drama at the Month of Apple Bugs pointed out in this post by Chris Pepper. (One thing Chris doesn’t mention is that this backdoor was only included in a pre-release version of the exploit, not the released proof of concept code). I read LMH’s response and explanation, spoke with him directly, and feel he’s unfortunately damaged the reputation of the already controversial project. Basically, LMH found some individuals scanning the directories where he posted the exploit code samples before the accompanying blog entry was posted. There were no pointers to these files. He included the backdoor code in a file put at that location that the people scanning his server picked up and, in some cases, executed. His goal was to identify these individuals and prevent further looping of his server. I think it was a bad idea, but the backdoor code was not in any released version of the exploit. Basically it was some wacky arms race- with the individuals downloading the code poking around someone else’s server, and LMH taking a vigilante-style response. As I’ve said many times I really don’t like dropping 0day exploit code; it damages the innocent more than the guilty. But if you are going to drop code as part of a full disclosure, it should be to prove the concept and allow people to test and evaluate the vulnerability. Your code should never make the situation worse, no matter what kind of point you’re trying to make. Putting in a backdoor to track and expose who downloads the code, released or not, is never the right way to go. It’s unethical. LMH responded on his blog: The disclaimer is clear enough, and if they go around downloading and voluntarily executing random code (read, a exploit), it’s certainly their responsibility to set up a properly isolated environment. Otherwise you’re total jackass (although, why would you “worry if the bugs are fake”?). Yes- you should set up a test environment before messing with ANY exploit code. I blew 4 hours this weekend fixing my Metasploit copy (still can’t get msfweb running) and creating virtual targets to test a new exploit someone sent me. Then again most people can’t virtualize OS X legally, requiring you to buy a spare Mac to test anything. That said, I don’t think anyone ever has the right to place backdoor code in anything. If you want to track who is downloading or leaking pre-release code you track audit logs or take other actions on your end. You have no right to do anything malicious to someone else’s system, even when they aren’t playing nice. This did nothing but hurt the project. Apple security is a serious issue that needs real debate, but games like this destroy credibility and marginalize the individuals involved. Vendors generally dislike security researchers as it is. Giving them any opening, no matter how small, makes it that much harder on the research community. It allows PR departments to make a legitimate researcher look like nothing more than a malicious criminal, demonizing them in the press even when they play strictly by the book. I don’t consider LMH malicious at all; and after a few conversations have no doubts his goal is to improve security, but I do disagree with his methods on this particular project. Security researchers need to have exceptional ethics to withstand the vendor attempts at marginalization or all their work goes to naught. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Heading to MA

Tomorrow morning I’m off on the wonderful 6 hour flight from Phoenix to Boston I probably don’t have time to meet up, but if any of you are in the area and want to give it a shot let me know. 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.