Securosis

Research

Database Encryption- Option 1, Media Protection

I do believe I am officially setting a personal best for the most extended blog series. Way back in February, before my shoulder surgery, I started a series on database encryption. I not only don’t expect you to remember this, but I’d be seriously concerned about your mental well being if you did. In that first post I described the two categories of database encryption- media protection, and separation of duties. Today we’re going to talk more about media encryption, and the advantages of combining it with database activity monitoring. When encrypting a database for media protection our goal is to protect the data from physical loss or theft (including some forms of virtual theft). This won’t protect sensitive content in the database if someone has access to the DB, but it will protect the information in storage and archive, and may offer realtime protection from theft of the database files. The advantage of encryption for media protection is that it is far easier to implement than encryption for separation of duties, which involves mucking with the internal database structures. The disadvantage is that it provides no internal database controls, and thus isn’t ideal for things like credit card numbers where you need to restrict even an administrator’s ability to see them. Database encryption for media protection is performed using the following techniques/technologies: Media encryption: This includes full drive encryption or SAN encryption; the entire storage media is encrypted, and thus the database files are protected. Depending on the method used and the specifics of your environment, this may or may not provide protection for the data as it moves to other data stores, including archival (tape) storage. For example, depending on your backup agent, you may be backing up the unencrypted files, or the encrypted storage blocks. This is best suited for high performance databases where the primary concern is physical loss of the media (e.g. a database on a managed SAN where the service provider handles failed drives potentially containing sensitive data). Any media encryption product supports this option. External File/Folder Encryption: The database files are encrypted using an external (third party) file/folder encryption tool. Assuming the encryption is configured properly, this protects the database files from unauthorized access on the server and those files are typically still protected as they are backed up, copied, or moved. Keys should be stored off the server and no access provided to local accounts, which will offer protection should the server become compromised and rooted by an external attacker. Some file encryption tools, such as Vormetric or BitArmor, can also restrict access to the protected files based on application. Thus only the database processes can access the file, and even if an attacker compromises the database’s user account, they will only be able to access the decrypted data through the database itself. File/folder encryption of the database files is a good option as long as performance is acceptable and keys can be managed externally. Any file/folder encryption tool supports this option (including Microsoft EFS), but performance needs to be tested since there is wide variation among the different tools. Remember that any replication or distribution of data handled from within the database won’t be protected unless you also encrypt those destinations. Native Database Object Encryption: Most current database management system versions, such as Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, and IBM DB2 include capabilities to encrypt either internal database objects (tables and other structures) or the data stores (files). This is managed from within the database, and keys are typically stored internally. This is overall good option in many scenarios as long as performance meets requirements. Depending on the platform, you may be able to offload key management to an external key management solution. The disadvantage is that it is specific to each database platform, and isn’t even always available. The decision on which option to choose depends on your performance requirements, threat model, exiting architecture, and security requirements. Unless you have a high-performance system that exceeds the capabilities of file/folder encryption, I recommend you look there first. If you are managing heterogeneous database, you will likely look at a third party product over native encryption. In both cases, it’s very important to use external key management and not allow access by any local accounts. The security of database encryption for media protection is greatly enhanced when combined with database activity monitoring. In this scenario, the database content is protected from loss via encryption, and internal data protected against abuse by database activity monitoring. I’ve heard of this combination being used as a compensating control for PCI- the database files are encrypted to prevent loss, while database activity monitoring is used to track all access to credit card numbers and generate alerts for unapproved access, such as a DBA running a SELECT query. Share:

Share:
Read Post

The Two Kinds Of Security Threats, And How They Affect Your Life

When we talk about security threats we tend to break them down into all sorts of geeky categories. Sometimes we use high level terms like clientside, targeted attack, or web application vulnerability. Other times we dig in and talk about XSS, memory corruption, and so on. You’ll notice we tend to mix in vulnerabilities when we talk about threats, but when we do that hopefully in our heads we’re following the proper taxonomy and actually thinking about that vulnerability being exploited, which is closer to a threat. Anyway, none of that matters. In security there are only two kinds of threats that affect us: Noisy threats that break things people care about. Quiet threats everyone besides security geeks ignore, because it doesn’t screw up their ability to get their job done or browse ESPN during lunch. We get money for noisy threats, and get called paranoid freaks for trying to prevent quiet threats (which can still lose our organizations a boatload of money, but don’t interfere with the married CEO’s ability to flirt with the new girl in marketing over email). Compliance, spam, AV, and old-school network attacks are noisy threats. Data breaches (unless you get caught), web app attacks, virtualization security, and most internal stuff are quiet threats. Don’t believe me? Slice up your budget and see how much you spend preventing noisy vs. quiet threats. It’s often our own little version of security theater. And if you really want to understand a vertical market, one of the best things you can do is break out noisy vs. quiet for that market, and you’ll know what you’ll get money for. The problem is, noisy vs. quiet may bear little to no relationship to your actual risk and losses, but that’s just human nature. Share:

Share:
Read Post

How the Death of Privacy and the Long Archive May Forever Alter Politics

Way back in November of 2006 I wrote a post on the impact of our electronic personas on the political process. I was thinking about re-writing the post, but after reviewing it realized the situation is the exact same two years later… if not a bit worse. As a generation raised on MySpace, FaceBook, and other social media starts becoming the candidates, rather than the electorate, I think we will see profound changes in our political process. I’m off in Moscow so I’m pre-posting this, and for all I know the election is in the midst of a complete meltdown right now. Here again, for your reading pleasure, is the text of the original post: As the silly season comes to a close with today’s election (at least for, like, a week or so) there’s a change to the political process I’ve been thinking about a lot. And it’s not e-voting, election fraud, or other issues we’ve occasionally discussed. On this site (and others) we’ve discussed the ongoing erosion of personal privacy. More of our personal information is publicly available, or stored in private databases unlocked with a $ shaped key, than society has ever experienced before. This combines with a phenomena I call “The Long Archive”- where every piece of data, of value or not, is essentially stored for eternity (unless, of course, you’re in a disaster recovery situation). Archived web pages, blog posts, emails, newsgroup posts, MySpace profiles, FaceBook pages, school papers, phone calls, calendar entries, credit card purchases, Amazon orders, Google searches, and … Think about it. If only 2% of our online lives actually survives indefinitely, the mass of data is astounding. What does this have to do with politics? The current election climate could be described as mass media shit-slinging. Our current crop of elected officials, of either party, survives mostly on their ability to find crap on their opponent while hiding their own stinkers. Historically, positive electioneering is a relative rarity in the American political system. We, as a voting public, seem to desire pristine Ken dolls we can relate to over issues-focused candidates. No, not all the time, but often enough that negative campaigning shows real returns. But the next generation of politicians are growing up online, with their entire lives stored on hard drives. From school papers, to medical records, to personal communications, to web activity, chat logs (kept by a “trusted” friend) and personal blogs filled with previously private musings. It’s all there. And no one knows for how long; not really. No one knows what will survive, what will fade, but all of it has the potential to be available for future opponent research. I’m a bit older, but there’s still an incredible archive of information out there on me, including some old newsgroup posts I’m not all that proud of (nothing crazy, but I am a bit of a geek). Maybe even remnants of ugly breakups with ex-girlfriends or rants never meant for public daylight. Never mind my financial records (missed taxes one year, but did make up for it) and such. In short, there’s no way I could run for any significant office without an incredibly thick skin. Anyone who started high school after, say, 1997 is probably in an even more compromising position. Anyone in the MySpace/FaceBook groups are even worse off. With so much information, on so many people, there’s no way it won’t change politics. I see three main options: We continue to look for “clean” candidates- thus those with limited to no online records. Only those who have disengaged from modern society, and are thus probably not fit for public leadership, will run for public office. The “Barbie and Ken” option. We, as society, accept that everyone has skeletons, everyone makes mistakes, and begin to judge candidates on their progression through those mistakes or ability to spin them in the media of the day. We still judge on personality over issues. The “Oprah/Dr. Phil” option. We focus on candidate’s articulations of the issues, and place less of an emphasis on a perfect past or personality. The “Issues-oriented” option. We weigh all the crap on two big scales. Whoever comes out slightly lighter, perhaps with a sprinkling of issues, wins. The “Scales of Shit” option. Realistically we’ll see a combination of all the above, but my biggest concern is how will this affect the quality of candidates? We, as a society, already complain over a lack of good options. We’re limited to those with either a drive for power, or a desire for public good, so strong that they’re willing to peel open their lives in a public vivisection every election cycle. When every purchase you’re ever made, email, IM or SMS, blog post, blog comment, social bookmark, WhateverSpace page, public record, and medical record becomes open season, who will be willing to undergo such embarrassing scrutiny? Will anyone run for office for anything other than raw greed? Or will we, as a society, change the standards by which we judge our elected officials. I don’t know. But I do know society, and politics, will experience a painful transition as we truly enter the information society. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Friday Summary: Happy Halloween!

Man, I love Halloween; it is the ultimate hacker holiday. When else do we have an excuse to build home animatronics, scare the pants off people, and pretend to be someone else (outside of a penetration test)? Last year I built something I called “The Hanging Man” using a microcontroller, some windshield wiper motors, wireless sensors, my (basic) home automation system, and streaming audio. When trick or treaters walked up to the house it would trigger a sensor, black out the front of the house, spotlight a hooded pirate hanging from a gallows, push out some audio of a screaming guy, drop him 15 feet so he was right over the visitors, and then slowly hoist him back up for the next group. This year Adrian and I were pretty slammed so I not only didn’t build anything new, I barely managed to pull the old stuff out. Heck, both of us have big parties, but due to overlapping travel we can’t even make it to each other’s events. But next year… next year I have plans. Diabolical plans… It was a relatively quiet week on the security front, with no major disasters or announcements. On the election front we’re already hearing reports of various voting machine failures, and some states are looking at pulling them altogether. Personally, I stick with mail in ballots. This year election day will be a bit surreal since I’ll be in Moscow for a speaking engagement, and likely won’t stay up to see who won (or whose lawyers start attacking first). While I’m in Moscow, Adrian will be speaking on the Information Centric Security Lifecycle in Chicago for the Information Security Magazine/TechTarget Information Security Decisions conference. I’m a bit sad I won’t be up there to see everyone, but it was impossible to turn down a trip to Moscow. So don’t forget to vote, please don’t hack the vote, and hopefully I won’t be kidnapped by the Russian Mafia next week… Webcasts, Podcasts, and Conferences: The Network Security Podcast, Episode 125. David Mortman joins us to talk about his new gig at Debix and a recent study they released on identity theft and children. I posted a pre-release draft of my next Dark Reading column The Security Pro’s Guide to Thriving in a Down Economy up on the Hackers for Charity Informer site. This is a subscription site many of us are supporting with exclusive and early content to help generate funds for HFC. And by posting, I helped feed a child in an underdeveloped country for a month… Favorite Securosis Posts: Rich: The Five Stage of Cloud Computing Grief. Seriously, this cloud stuff is getting over the top. Adrian: Seems that the people behind Arizona proposition 200 should be hauled in front of the FTC for misleading advertising; this is the most grotesque example I have seen on a state ballot measure. Favorite Outside Posts: Adrian: The Hoff has been on a roll lately, but the post that caught my attention was his discussion of the security and compliance shell game of avoidance through SaaS and ‘Cloud’ services. I mean, it doesn’t count if my sensitive data is in the cloud, right? Rich: Martin asks a simple and profound question. What the hell are you doing with those credit card numbers in the first place?!? (He used nicer words, but you get the point). Top News: What a shock, there’s a worm taking advantage of last week’s RPC flaw in Microsoft Windows. ICANN is going after a fraud-supporting domain name registrar in Estonia. Heck, I think we should go after criminal hosts more often. Maryland and Virginia are dropping electronic voting and going back to paper. Amrit on the 10th anniversary of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA has done more to stifle our rights than to actually protect content. On the positive side, the DMCA has actually somewhat helped website operators and hosts by offering some protection when they host infringing materials, since they have to respond to takedown notices, but aren’t otherwise penalized. A Facebook worm uses Google to get around Facebook security. Most of these sites are a mess because preventing user generated content from abusing other users is a very hard problem. Even when they bother to try. More voting machine idiocy. And here. Look folks, it isn’t like we don’t know how to manage these things. Walk into any casino and you’ll see highly secure interactive systems. Can you imagine how much fun Vegas would be if they treated the slots like we treat voting machines? Blog Comment of the Week: Dryden on The Five Stages of Cloud Computing Grief: My version: Denial: We can”t secure the cloud. Anger: Why the f&*k is my CIO telling me to secure the cloud? Bargaining: Can you please just tell me how you think we can secure the cloud?Depression: They”re deploying the cloud.Acceptance: We can”t secure the cloud. Disclaimer: “Cloud” can be replace with virtually (pun intended) any technology. See you all in 2 weeks… Share:

Share:
Read Post

Thriving In An Economic Crisis- And Supporting Hackers For Charity

I was pretty honored a couple months ago when Johnny Long asked me to participate in a new project for Hackers for Charity called The HFC Security Informer. Johnny is a seriously cool guy who founded Hackers for Charity, which provides a mix of services and financial support in underdeveloped countries. I think most geeks that aren’t running evil botnets have a bit of altruism in them, and HFC is a great way we can use our technical backgrounds (and swag) to help out the rougher parts of the world. HFC runs with basically no funding- giving everything right to its target communities. To better support operations as it grows, Johnny created the HFC Informer- a subscription site with all sorts of behind the scenes content you can’t get anywhere else. This includes pre-release book chapters, discounts on books, exclusive content, and pre-release papers and posts from some of the top names in security… and the occasional lowly analyst. And every time someone contributes content, cash is donated to feed a child for a month. Yesterday I posted a pre-release (and pre-edited) version of my next Dark Reading column The Security Pro”s Guide To Thriving In A Down Economy. Please check it out, and other great content like Rsnake’s Clickjacking paper, and consider supporting HFC. Securosis is a firm believer in the project and we’re hoping to release more content on the HFC Informer, including some of our more in-depth whitepapers. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Attacking The Law With Photing

As a security pro I tend to be a bit paranoid and cynical even outside the domain of technology. Heck, I can’t even get past a nice simple election without picking up on some interesting fraudulent twist. Last night my wife and I were filling out our absentee ballots; never an easy process here in Arizona. Oh, picking candidates is easy enough (Obama for me), but as far as I’m concerned all those ballot initiatives are one of the biggest frauds in our democratic system. I can’t even call it voting, so like any good security researcher I’ll make up a silly word and call it “photing”. Last election cycle we had two competing ballot measures to ban smoking- the real one, put together by a grass roots organization, and the fake one, which pretended to limit smoking but was sponsored by Philip Morris. The goal was simply to confuse the voters, perhaps passing both, and getting to fight it out in the courts. This year we have the worst case of photing I’ve seen since I cast my first ballot at the age of 18. Arizona is home to a ton of migrant labor, and in Phoenix you can’t go a block in certain parts of town without seeing those predatory PayDay loan outfits. A while back, the legislature temporarily suspended the law limiting usury short-term loans, creating this industry. People short on cash can get loans at ridiculous rates (up to 400%) to hold them over until their next paycheck… which clearly won’t go as far. This suspension is due to die in 2010, and the state legislature refuses to extend it. What’s an evil loan shark to do? I mean it isn’t like the voting public would support them? Thus was born Proposition 200 to “crack down on the PayDay loan industry”. There’s even a massive full-court-press ad campaign about how this will lock them down, keep them honest, and protect innocent kittens. One problem- the initiative, and the ad campaign to control these near-criminals, is nearly completely funded… by these even-nearer-criminals. Why? Because without this initiative, the entire industry will be shut down in 2010. Where are Joe Kennedy and Karl Rove when you need them? Share:

Share:
Read Post

The Five Stages Of Cloud Computing Grief

Denial: There is no cloud. Anger: Why the f&*k is this sales guy trying to sell me a cloud? Bargaining: Can you please just tell me what the f&^k your cloud is? Depression: The sales guy found my CIO. Now I have to by a cloud. Acceptance: There is no cloud. Share:

Share:
Read Post

The “Good Enough/Woe Is Me” Dissociation Postulate

I don’t get it. I mean I really don’t get it. I can’t possibly imagine why it isn’t so obvious to everyone else!! Don’t you see what’s happening!!! Soylent Green is QSAs!!! One of the more frustrating aspects of our profession is the apparent lack of security prioritization by the rest of the world. We feel like we see things they don’t, and in that context many of their decisions make absolutely no sense. Are we just that much smarter than everyone else? Are they blindfully ignorant? Alan sums up our problem in his post on security gimmicks: Agree or disagree with the gimmicks. You have to ask yourself why. With all that we read and see about data breaches, with all of these compliance regulations and rules around, why can’t people take security seriously enough? Here is one man’s opinion. Security is a bad news generator of an industry. We focus on what happens when things go wrong. We focus on adding to the process. We don’t focus on the positive and the profitable. There is enough bad news in the world for people to focus on right now. They don’t want the bad news that security makes them confront. If we can figure out how to make security a way of bringing a message of good news, we wouldn’t need to resort to gimmicks. My position is a little more zen. Back in physical security/paramedic/firefighter/mountain rescue days I learned we all go through a process of dissociation with mainstream society. When all you see is nasty sh*t and dying people all day, every day, it’s hard to give a rat’s ass about someone getting the cold shoulder at the water cooler. The military, police, nurses, and many other professions suffer the same problem. In that world, there are two ways to handle it- shut up and deal, or isolate yourself into your chosen community. It’s no accident that so many cops are married to nurses. It’s pretty much the same deal for IT security, except we don’t have to wash blood off our shoes quite as often. We see the fragility and danger of our online economy and society. Stolen elections, rampant fraud, and pwned grandmothers. No website is safe, all PCs have trojans, and those damn Macs will all be compromised next week. We need to collectively chill out. Before we blow an aneurysm. As Marcus Ranum said (totally pissing me off because I didn’t say it first): Will the future be more secure? It’ll be just as insecure as it possibly can, while still continuing to function. Just like it is today. We need to do our best to communicate risks to the business and cost effectively keep those risks within tolerance. Then we clean up the mess if the business, after being well informed, decides to accept that risk. If we don’t take risks, we can’t possibly grow. No matter what someone tells us, we sometimes need to touch the hot stove and learn for ourselves. It’s human nature; don’t expect it to change. Security is only good news when it’s no news. Don’t worry. When things get bad enough, we’ll get the call. If you’ve kept your documentation and communication up, you won’t get shafted with the proverbial short end. Don’t end up like I did in college- working as a full time medic on top of being a student wasn’t exactly conducive to my dating life. That uniform didn’t work nearly as well as I expected. (However, a black belt a few years later was very… effective). Share:

Share:
Read Post

Network Security Podcast, Episode 125

The Skype gods definitely worked against us last night as David Mortman from Debix joined us to to talk about a new study the released on identity theft and children. No, you’re 8 month old is stealing identities like I suspect that creepy kid from the ETrade commercials is, but due to both error and fraud a surprising number of children have financial histories they didn’t know about. We also discuss last week’s Microsoft emergency update, Bono frolicking on MySpace, and the usual TSA foibles. We had some audio issues today so we kept the podcast short to spare your ears as much as possible. The Network Security Podcast, Episode 125 Show Notes: Debix sponsored research into the problem of children and identity theft. They are also hosting a webcast with the FBI on Wednesday, October 29th, at 3pm CDT. Microsoft released an out of cycle patch for a critical vulnerability. Bono showed up on some girl’s MySpace page. Oops. At least he wasn’t driving drunk without underwear and with an infant in his lap, like the usual MySpace divas. Tonight’s music is courtesy of George Thorogood and the Destroyers. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Minor Online Banking FAIL?

  I was amused today when I logged into my business account bank (Wells Fargo) and they had me set up a new set of security questions. The variety wasn’t bad and the questions were reasonably original. After setting them, I was asked to confirm my contact information. A few minutes later, I received this email: Thank you for taking the time to set up your security questions. If we ever need to confirm your identity, your ability to give the correct answers to these questions will help us verify it’s you. If you did NOT set up security questions recently, please call Wells Fargo Online Customer Service immediately at 1-800-956-4442. Please do not reply to this email. It went right to the email address I could have updated after setting up the security questions. Anyone else notice the problem? Now there’s a chance that had I changed the email address on that screen after the security questions, I would have received notification at the old address. As a test, I changed my email a couple of times using the regular interface- but no notifications yet. UPDATE: Got the email, but at the wrong account (the one I changed to, not from). Is this an exploitable security flaw? Nope, but it’s amusing for us paranoid/cynical types. (For the record, they’ve been a great bank for the business, no complaints at all.) Share:

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.