Securosis

Research

A Simple Question The TSA Seems To Refuse To Answer

I just read over at Computerworld that the TSA will start requiring gender and date of birth when we buy plane tickets. This is part of Secure Flight, and meant to increase the accuracy of matches to the terrorist watch list(s). As brought up by Bruce and many others over the years, the TSA has yet to identify a single case where this list… umm… you know… actually caught a terrorist. Yes, they’ve snagged some people with warrants, but this is supposedly the terrorist watch list, not the random dumb-ass criminal watch list. They’ve even been questioned about it in their blog comments multiple times, and have yet to answer. Thus, I think we all know the answer. (A special request to the TSA- when you add the colonoscopies, can we get copies to give to our physicians? I’m almost 40 and that would be a cool way to save on health care costs). Note: I don’t blame the people working hard at the checkpoints (other than the few bad eggs common in all workplaces). They are in a crappy position and we shouldn’t blame them for the idiocy of their superiors. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Wireless Security Survey

‘Rich forwarded me the RSA Wireless Security Survey for 2008 that was just released this morning. The cities that they scanned were Paris, London & New York. Public hotspots — designed to allow anyone with a wireless device to access the Internet on a pay-as-you-go or pre-paid basis — continue to grow in prevalence across all three cities, and in each case the growth of available hotspots accelerated significantly in 2008 compared with development in the preceding year. Paris saw the largest jump, with numbers increasing by over 300% and comfortably outstripping the comparative growth in New York City (44%) and London (34%). However, New York City remains the leader in regards to its concentration of hotspots. At 15%, New York City is well clear of London where just 5% of wireless access points were found to be hotspots. In Paris, hotspots represented 6% of all the access points we located. It is interesting to compare the year over year changes, and to see what kind of encryption is being employed. It’s certainly worth a review, and a little vendor hype is to be expected, but there are two things that worry me about survey’s like this. First, the public perception that if the connection is encrypted that all is safe. Unless there is a shred secret or some other type of protection, most of these systems are vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks. Second is that the rogue hotspots are difficult to detect, which is the de-facto method for wireless man-in-the-middle. If your an IT manager, you have very little way to assess risk from this report, so just assume wireless hotspots are compromised and that you need to deploy a system to thwart these attacks on externally accessible corporate WiFi. And as an end users, if you think you are safe just because you have established an encrypted connection at Starbucks, think again. The guy in the tiny corner apartment overlooking the store makes his living by sniffing personal information and passwords. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Oracle APEX Vulnerability Comment

I was asked about the recent post by Pete Finnigan regarding the APEX vulnerability that he discovered, was part of the recent Oracle CPU, and Pete elaborated upon in a recent post. Pete is one of the best in the business at Oracle security, so when he lists something as a vulnerability, people usually react. The question was why had I recommended applying the new Oracle CPU under normal patch cycles when this looked like a reasonably serious vulnerability. Why wait? You don’t need to wait, but if you are vulnerable to this attack, you probably have bigger issues that should have been addressed already. Specifically: Don’t leave development tools and accounts/environments on production databases, especially those that serve web content. Don’t leave development schemas and associated users/grants/roles on production database servers. This just adds to the complexity and potential overlooked security holes. Occasionally run checks for weak passwords. There are free tools available for most of the common database platforms like Oracle Password Checker, SQL Ping, Scuba and others (just be careful where you download them from), there are vendors that offer this for sale as part of their assessment suite (Fortinet, Application Security), or you can write your own. Some look for a small subset of known default passwords, so I recommend using one where you can edit the dictionary to adjust as you see fit. At least a couple of times a year, review the database accounts to see if there are accounts that should not be there, or if accounts that have execute privileges that should not. Once again, I believe there are free tools, vendor tools as well as scripts that are available from database user groups that will accomplish this task and can be customized to suit your needs. APEX is a handy development tool, but if you are a DBA or a security professional, reading Oracle’s description should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up: “APEX is operated from a web browser and allows people with limited programming experience to develop professional applications.” A powerful tool in the hands of inexperienced programmers sounds like handing out loaded guns. Patch if you think you are susceptible to this vulnerability, but for self-preservations sake, run some assessments to catch this class of vulnerability and not just this issue. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Friday Update: It’s 0day Week!

Holy 0day Batman! What started as a quiet week definitely got a little more interesting yesterday as Microsoft released an out-of-band patch for a critical vulnerability affecting most versions of Windows. It’s been a while since MS had to push out an emergency fix like this, and boy was it a whacky vulnerability. For those of you who haven’t kept up on it, it is a flaw in the RPC service that allows remote code execution without authentication. What’s really interesting is that this flaw is in a part of the code base that was patched already for a very similar problem. What’s even more interesting is that this was discovered due to active exploits in the wild. I’ve been known to be a little persnickety about definitions, and I’ve never liked that we call all unpatched vulnerabilities zero-days. In my book, a true 0day is a vulnerability that is being actively exploited but we don’t know about it. The bad guys have information we don’t and are using it against us. When the details are public, but no patch is available, I just consider that an unpatched vulnerability. But who am I to say- I still consider hackers good guys. On a totally different note, I think I found a minor security flaw in the RSA Conference session submission system. It appears that if you submit a session and add a speaker, you can overwrite some of the attributes of that speaker if they are already in the system. Minor, but annoying since I was submitted for something like 10 sessions and part of my bio kept changing while I was submitting my own stuff. On that note, it’s time to head off and start decorating for our annual Evilsquirrel Halloween Party. We have about 13 tubs of decorations we’ve collected since my old roommates and I started holding parties around 1995 or so. I even have homemade animatronics I built using microcontrollers and other geeky stuff. Yeah, I fear for my impending children too, but the neighborhood kids love us. At least the ones who don’t pee themselves when the motion sensor kicks off. Webcasts, Podcasts, and Conferences: The Network Security Podcast, Episode 124. Jacob West from Fortify joined us to rail against electronic voting. If Dick Cheney wins the election, we’ll all know why. I participated in a virtual conference put on by InformationWeek and Dark Reading. I was on Ten Security Threats Your Organization May Be Unable to Prevent, with H D Moore of Metasploit and BreakingPoint and Trey Ford of WhiteHat Security. I felt a little weird talking about XSS and SQL Injection with H D following me, but it was a pretty good panel. Favorite Securosis Posts: Rich: Your Simple Guide to Endpoint Encryption. I’ve been writing a lot about market issues lately, and I really enjoy it when I can give out practical advice. Adrian: WAF vs. Secure Code vs. Dead Fish. Look folks, we’re far too polarized politically in this country to fight out over which of these things solves our problem better, when both are equally good and bad. Favorite Outside Posts: Adrian: Rsnake captures the everyman experience and puts the fun back into Internet browsing. I mean, can’t we all just get along? Rich: Andy reminds us what it’s like to work in the real world. Researchers, analysts, and vendors often forget what it’s like to be in the trenches, even though most of us have been there. I think it’s refreshing to read about Andy’s pain. Er… maybe that wasn’t the best way to say that. Top News: Microsoft Security Patch was released this week. We covered it a bit ourselves. Princeton posts a guide to hacking Sequoia voting machines. Jimmy Buffett for President! FTW! Australian government massively censoring the Internet. I love that country and have spent a lot of time down there, but the government is really whacky. Did you know that hard core pornography is illegal everywhere except the Australian Capital Territory (you know, where all the politicians are). Guess writing censorship bills is boring work. Voting machines flipping votes. Notice a trend? (Thanks to Dave at Liquidmatrix, who does a great daily summary). Blog Comment of the Week: Windexh8er’s comment on the Microsoft vulnerability post: So even though this sort of thing is less common as SDLs mature further (honestly Microsoft is doing a much better job in this space — but legacy code that’s in the OS is still there). This just goes back to the position wherein do corporations really need client side processing? Some may have valid reasoning (i.e. graphics / architecture / modeling / etc), but for the majority of the end users out there in corporate America they really don’t need a fully functional end system. In a Microsoft environment I’d like to see the next iteration of OS go to stripped down systems like you can leverage in Server2k8 – obviously most “work” today from a variety of different locations and the laptop has overwhelmingly displaced the standard desktop workstation for day to day business. With that respect the standard installation should be minimalistic at best. Stripped stack, host based filtering (in and out), no user rights with the exception of approved applications and then strictly managed socket / protocol connections to approved devices. Give them what they need through established connections. At that rate client processing goes way down and visibility and control sky rockets. It’s far too much for any given internal IT / IS departments to manage numerous deployed apps and multiple desktop configurations in the state business as usual is running today. Everyone I know has a corporate laptop (these are big businesses right) but all of these users can pretty much all connect to outside networks and do casual computing – even if it’s restricted, it’s still wide open enough to let the user infect themselves unknowingly. I’d love to do a formal PoC, like this, with one of my large clients. Cost savings

Share:
Read Post

Microsoft Critical Update Today- **Updated- Details Released**

If you don’t already know, Microsoft is releasing an out of band critical update today. Rumor is it is not related to the TCP DoS issue, and may involve an 0day with remote code execution. Here’s the link to the webcast where they will detail what’s going on. We don’t normally jump on a bandwagon like this, but it sounds like a big one you’ll want to fix ASAP. UPDATE: Woops- literally 2 minutes after I posted this, Ryan Naraine posted details and a link to the official advisory. It’s a nasty vulnerability in the Server service that allows remote code execution without authentication. You should already be blocking TCP ports 139 and 445 at the perimeter, so nothing unusual to change on the firewall. But this is totally wormable, requires no authentication, and allows arbitrary code execution. It’s the evil trinity of vulnerabilities. You should pay extra attention to your mobile users and friends and family- have them update ASAP since the odds are they aren’t blocking those ports. Don’t get too cocky if you have a firewall- like Slammer it will only take one infected sales dude to plug back in at the office and ruin your day. These are the kinds of vulns NAC is made for. Also, don’t forget about those virtual versions of Windows running on your Mac. It looks so easy to exploit, that by the time you read this it’s probably too late 🙂 Share:

Share:
Read Post

WAF vs. Secure Code vs. Dead Fish

I’ve been slowly catching up on my reading after months of near-nonstop travel, and this post over at Imperviews caught my eye. Ignoring the product promotion angle, it raises one of my major pet peeves these days. I’m really tired of the Web Application Firewall vs. secure coding debate, never mind using PCI 6.6 to justify one over the other for security effectiveness. It’s like two drunk cajuns arguing over the relative value of shrimp or pork in gumbo- you need both, and if either is spoiled the entire thing tastes like sh&t. You also can’t dress up the family dog and fish in a pinch, use them as substitutes, and expect your kids to appreciate either the results or use of resources (resulting gumbo or the loss of Rover). Here’s the real deal- Secure coding is awesome and you need to adopt a formal process if you produce any meaningful volume of code. But it takes a ton of resources to get to the old code (which you should still try to do), and can’t account for new vulnerability classes. Also, people screw up… even when there are multiple layers to detect or prevent them from screwing up. On the other hand, WAFs need to get a hell of a lot better. We’re seeing some positive advancements, as I’ve written about before, but they still can’t stop all vulnerabilities, can’t stop logic flaws and certain other categories of attack, can’t deal with the browser end, and I hear a lot of complaints about tuning (while I think liking WAFs with Vulnerability Assessment is a great start on this problem, we’re just at the start of that race). I absolutely hate to tell you to buy more than you need, but if you have a major web presence you likely need both these days, in the right combination (plus a few other things). If you don’t have the resources for both, I suggest two options. First, if you are really on the low end of resources, use hosted applications and standard platforms as much as possible to limit your custom coding. Then, make sure you have kick ass backups. Finally, absolutely minimize the kinds of information and transaction you expose to the risk of web attacks- drop those ad banners, minimize collecting private information, and validate transactions on the back end as much as possible. If you do have some more resources available, I suggest starting with a vulnerability assessment (not a cheap ass bare-bones PCI scan, but something deeper), and using that to figure out where to go next. Yes- we are eating our own dog food on this one. The blog is hosted using a standard platform. We know it’s vulnerable, so we’ve minimized the attack surface as best we can and make sure we have backups of all the content. I’ve been pleasantly surprised we haven’t been nailed yet, but I expect it to happen eventually. None of our sensitive operations are on that server, and we’ve pulled email and our other important stuff in house. Early next year we’re going to be launching some new things, and we will again go with remote hosting (on a more powerful platform). This time, we are switching to a more secure platform than WordPress (Expression Engine) and will pay for a full vulnerability assessment and penetration test (at least annually, or when any major new components come online). We may perform some financial transactions, and we’ll use an external provider for that. A WAF is out of budget for us, so we’ll focus on minimizing our exposure and manually fixing problems discovered by ongoing assessments. We also plan on using as little custom code as possible. But seriously- I’m tired of this debate. Both options have value, they aren’t exclusionary, and which you need depends on what you are doing and how many resources you have. Eventually we’ll get a better lock on this problem, but that’s a few years out. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Network Security Podcast, Episode 124

Want to talk about electronic voting? We did. So we invited Jacob West from Fortify to talk with us about a paper he just published with a couple of engineers at Fortify. Guess what- they found electronic voting using DRE voting machines are the least secure way to vote. Makes me feel good going into the election. It’s a good thing we’re fairly self-policing when it comes to time; this is a conversation that could have gone on for a couple of hours. We had a number of technical issues tonight, so be glad we’ve got a podcast up at all. Network Security Podcast, Episode 124, October 21, 2008 Show Notes: Dear Mr. President: Let’s talk tech – We desparately need a geek in the Cabinet! Miley Cyrus Hacker Raided by FBI – Don’t brag to the press when you’re already in the cross-hairs! Flash Suckage: Eat your cookies – Now you can be tracked through Flash too. VeriSign and ICANN square off over the DNS root – Let’s just give it to Dan K. and let him manage it. Judge Suppresses Report on Voting Machine Security – Which brings us to why we’re really here Fortify’s paper on e-voting Share:

Share:
Read Post

EFF Challenges Telecom Immunity

I missed including this in the Friday summary. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is challenging the legality of telecom’s being granted immunity in their participation of NSA’s warrant-less spying on US citizens, claiming the executive branch of the government has overstepped it’s authority. Indirectly they will open the entire program up for scrutiny as well. EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston: “In our constitutional system, it is the judiciary’s role as a co-equal branch of government to determine the scope of the surveillance and rule on whether it is legal, not the executive’s. The Atto ey General should not be allowed to unconstitutionally play judge and jury in these cases, which affect the privacy of millions of Americans.” Seems to have a point. This is going to be a very interesting and very important fight for personal privacy, as well as an interesting inspection of the close relationship between industry and sections of our government. And this case will be argued in a political climate that has less 9-11 fear and more annoyance with corporations misbehavior, so I think that EFF will have traction and we will be seeing this in the headlines for some time. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Three Steps Forward, One Back

What did you think of the new MacBook? I think they are nice, I don’t want a new one bad enough to upgrade. I bought my MacBook last month knowing full well that they were going to release the new models on the 14th of this month, but the advancements would not be enough for me to wait. Most of the articles & analysis I read were a little harsh, with much of the focus on the price drop, or lack of drop, when I was focused on usability. Maybe they are right, and with the economic slowdown the price reduction is not enough to capture larger appeal and Apple will get hammered. Still, I think this is a nice advancement. I had seen the leaked photos of the Aluminum case and that looked a lot nicer and more durable that the plastic one; when you travel as much as I do, that seems to be a very nice upgrade. And as it has proven to be with my aluminum desktop cases, I am sure that the heat loss through the case itself will be valuable in keeping the machine cooler with faster processors that we will be made available in the future. If you have ever over-clocked machines before, you know how much Aluminum cases help dissipate heat and improve the lifespan of electronic components. The biggest problem I have with my MacBook is the mediocre video quality. It’s not just that the graphics card in the current model is under-powered, rather the color, contrast and sharpness it is just ‘Blah’! The new LED backlit display should solve much f this problem. Yeah, the graphics engine is a big boost as well, but really, what hard core gamer is going to use a laptop for a first person shooter? I thought not. I am going to call the Mini-display port a wash. Why? It will be awesome when attached to the new 24 inch monitor, no doubt about that. But how many MacBook owners are going to buy a $900.00 Monitor? If the analysts are complaining the price $999.00 point is too high for the MacBook, doubling the price makes this option miss the target buyer. Nice technology, perhaps not appropriate for the current generation of buyers. Personally I am glad that the BluRay player was not included in the new MB. This, in my opinion, is the current generation of Laserdisc players. Yes it offers better performance, but few want it. Did you see that only some 8 million Blu-Ray disks have been sold this year? They have sold almost that many Blu-Ray players if you take into account the current generation of Playstations; this is a dismal adoption rate. And if you are like me, I would rather have video on demand as it seems like a more dynamic & efficient way to get movies and television. And I am not lugging around Blu-Ray player that will probably be obsolete within months. All of which is in line with Apple’s strategy (http://www.apple.com/appletv/whatson/movies.html). That takes us to my one disappointment: Firewire. This is how I will hook up my Drobo. This is how I hook up my camera. This is how I update the maps on my Garmin. It’s fast. It’s nice to have the option. Sure I can get adaptor cables and use USB, but I would have preferred a dedicated port. Removing this was probably not such a good idea, and I wonder if we will see its return in future models. All in all, I think the MacBook made three steps forward and one back; couple that with a price drop and I say that is pretty darn good! Share:

Share:
Read Post

Your Simple Guide To Endpoint Encryption Options

On the surface endpoint encryption is pretty straightforward these days (WAY better than when I first covered it 8 years ago), but when you start matching all the options to your requirements it can be a tad confusing. I like to break things out into some simple categories/use cases when I’m helping people figure out the best approach. While this could end up as one of those huge blog posts that ends up as a whitepaper, for today I’ll stick with the basics. Here are the major endpoint encryption options and the most common use cases for them: Full Drive Encryption (FDE): To protect data when you lose a laptop/desktop (but usually laptop). Your system boots up to a mini-operating system where you authenticate, then the rest of the drive is decrypted/encrypted on the fly as you use it. There are a ton of options, including McAfee, CheckPoint, WinMagic, Utimaco, GuardianEdge, PGP, BitArmor, BitLocker, TrueCrypt, and SafeNet. Partial Drive Encryption: To protect data when you lose a laptop/desktop. Similar to whole drive, with some differences for dealing with system updates and such. There’s only one vendor doing this today (Credent), and the effect is equivalent to FDE except in limited circumstances. Volume/Home Directory Encryption: For protecting all of a user’s or group’s data on a shared system. Either the users home directory or a specific volume is encrypted. Offers some of the protection of FDE, but there is a greater chance data may end up in shared spaces and be potentially recovered. FileVault and TrueCrypt are examples. Media Encryption: For encrypting an entire CD, memory stick, etc. Most of the FDE vendors support this. File/Folder Encryption: To protect data on a shared system- including protecting sensitive data from administrators. FDE and file folder encryption are not mutually exclusive- FDE protects against physical loss, while file/folder protects against other individuals with access to a system. Imagine the CEO with an encrypted laptop that still wants to protect the financials from a system administrator. Also useful for encrypting a folder on a shared drive. Again, a ton of options, including PGP (and the free GPG), WinMagic, Utimaco, PKWare, SafeNet, McAfee, WinZip, and many of the other FDE vendors (I just listed the ones I know for sure). Distributed Encryption: This is a special form of file/folder encryption where keys are centrally managed with the encryption engine distributed. It’s used to encrypt files/folders for groups or individuals that move around different systems. There are a bunch of different technical approaches, but basically as long as the product is on the system you are using, and has access to the central server, you don’t need to manually manage keys. Ideally, to encrypt you can right-click the file and select the group/key you’d like to use (or this is handled transparently). Options include Vormetric, BitArmor, PGP, Utimaco, and WinMagic (I think some others are adding it). Email Encryption: To encrypt email messages and attachments. A ton of vendors that are fodder for another post. Hardware Encrypted Drives: Keys are managed by software, and the drive is encrypted using special hardware built-in. The equivalent of FDE with slightly better performance (unless you are using it in a high-activity environment) and better security. Downside is cost, and I only recommend it for high security situations until prices (including the software) drop to what you’d pay for software. Seagate is first out of the gate, with laptop, portable, and full size options. Here’s how I break out my advice: If you have a laptop, use FDE. If you want to protect files locally from admins or other users, add file/folder. Ideally you want to use the same vendor for both, although there are free/open source options depending on your platform (for those of you on a budget). If you exchange stuff using portable media, encrypt it, preferably using the same tool as the two above. If you are in an enterprise and exchange a lot of sensitive data, especially on things like group projects, use distributed encryption over regular file/folder. It will save a ton of headaches. There aren’t free options, so this is really an enterprise-only thing. Email encryption is a separate beast- odds are you won’t link it to your other encryption efforts (yet) but this will likely change in the next couple years. Enterprise options are linked up on the email server vs. handling it all on the client, thus why you may manage it separately. I generally recommend keeping it simple- FDE is pretty much mandatory, but many of you don’t quite need file/folder yet. Email is really nice to have, but for a single user you are often better off with a free option since the commercial advantages mostly come into play on the server. Personally I used to use FileVault on my Mac for home directory encryption, and GPG for email. I then temporarily switched to a beta of PGP for whole drive encryption (and everything else; but as a single user the mail.app plugin worked better than the service option). My license expired and my drive decrypted, so I’m starting to look at other options (PGP worked very well, but I prefer a perpetual license; odds are I will end up back on it since there aren’t many Mac options for FDE- just them, CheckPoint, and WinMagic if you have a Seagate encrypting drive). FileVault worked well for a while, but I did encounter some problems during a system migration and we still get problem reports on our earlier blog entry about it. Oh- and don’t forget about the Three Laws. And if there were products I missed, please drop them in the comments. 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.