Securosis

Research

Friday Summary: January 31, 2014

During my total and complete laptop fail for this week’s Firestarter, I was trying to make the point that large software projects have a considerably higher probability of failure. It is no surprise that many government IT projects are ‘failures’ – they are normally managed as ginormous projects with many competing requirements. It worked or the Apollo missions so governments doggedly cling to that validated model. But in the commercial environment Agile is having a huge and positive impact on software development. Coincidentally, this week Jim Bird discussed the findings of the 2013 Chaos Report. In a nutshell the topline was “More projects are succeeding (39% in 2012, up from 29% in 2004), mostly because projects are getting smaller”. But Jim points out that you cannot conjure up an Agile development program like the Wonder Twins activate their superhero powers – Agile development processes are one aspect, but program management across multiple Agile efforts is another thing entirely. A lot of thought and work has gone into this over the last few years, and things like the Scaled Agile Framework can help. Still, most government projects I have seen employ no Agile techniques. There is a huge body of knowledge out on how to get these things done, and industry leads the public sector by a wide margin. I used to get a lot of spam with hot stock tips. I was assured a penny stock was about to shoot through the roof because a patent was approved, and got plenty of dire warnings about pharmaceuticals firm failing clinical trials. Of course the info was bogus, but Mr. Market, the psycho he is, actually reacted. Anonymous bloggers could manipulate the market simply by leaving comments on blogs and message boards, offering no evidence but generating huge reactions. If you are a day trader this can pretty much ensure you will make money. This whole RSA deal, where they allegedly took $10M from the NSA to compromise security products, has the same feel – it sounds believable, but we are seeing a huge backlash without any sort of evidence. It feels like market manipulation. Could RSA have been bribed? Absolutely. Would the NSA conduct this business without leaving a paper trail? Probably. But would I buy or sell stocks based on spam, anonymous blogs posts, or my barber’s recommendation? No. That is not an appropriate response. Nor will I grandstand in the media or start a new security conference, trying to hurt RSA, because of what their software division did or did not do years ago. That would also be inappropriate. Pulling the ECC routines in question? Providing a competing solution? Providing my firm some “disaster recovery” options in case of compromised crypto/PRNG routines? Those are all more appropriate responses. For those of you who asked about my upcoming research calendar, I am excited about some projects that will commence in a couple weeks and complete in Q2. First up will be an update to the Big Data Security paper from mid-2012. SOOOO much has happened in the last 6-9 months that a lot it is obsolete, so I will be updating it. Gunnar and I are working on a project we call “Rebel Federation”, which is how we describe the assembly of an identity management solution based on best of breed components, rather than a single suite / single vendor stack. We will go through motivations, how to assemble, and how to mitigate some of the risks. And given the burst of tokenization inquiries over the past 60 days, I will be writing about that as well. If you have questions, please keep them coming – I have not yet decided on an outline. And finally, before RSA, I promise to launch the Security Analytics with Big Data paper. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian quoted on Database Denial of Service. David Mortman and Adrian Lane will be presenting at Secure360. Mike and JJ podcast about the Neuro-Hacking talk at RSA. Favorite Securosis Posts Mike Rothman: The Future of Information Security. Rich is our big thinker (when he gets enough sleep, at least) and I am fired up to read this series about how we need to start thinking about information security moving forward. The technology foundation under us is changing dramatically, and that won’t leave much of current security standing in the end. Either get ahead of it now, or clean up the rubble of your security program. Adrian Lane: Southern Snowpocalypse. It snowed here in Phoenix last year, but nothing like it did in ATL yesterday. It does not matter where snow hits – if it is at the wrong time and a city is unprepared, it’s crippling. Other Securosis Posts Firestarter: Government Influence. Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Security Monitoring: Benefiting from the Misfortune of Others. Summary: Mmm. Beer. Favorite Outside Posts Jamie Arlen: James at ShmooCon 2014. Totally self-serving, I know, but awesome none the less. Gunnar: NFC and BLE are friends. Adrian Lane: Pharmaceutical IT chief melds five cloud security companies to bolt down resource access. This is my first NetworkWorld fave – usually I ridicule their stuff – but this is a good description of a trend we have been seeing as well. And you need some guts to walk this path. Mike Rothman: Volunteer at HacKid! If you’re on the west coast and have kids, you should be at HacKid, April 19-20 in San Jose. Plenty of opportunities to volunteer. I’ll be there (with my 10 year old twins), and I think Rich is planning to attend as well. See you there! Research Reports and Presentations Eliminate Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing. What CISOs Need to Know about Cloud Computing. Defending Against Application Denial of Service Attacks. Executive Guide to Pragmatic Network Security Management. Security Awareness Training Evolution. Firewall Management Essentials. A Practical Example of Software Defined Security. Continuous Security Monitoring. API Gateways: Where Security Enables Innovation. Identity and Access Management for Cloud Services. Top News and Posts Software [in]security and scaling automated code review. Just Let Me Fling Birds at Pigs Already!

Share:
Read Post

Incite 1/29/2014: Southern Snowpocalypse

I grew up in the northeast. My memories of snow weren’t really good. I didn’t ski, so all that I knew about snow was that I had to shovel it and it’s hard to drive in. It is not inherently hard to drive in snow, but too many folks have no idea what they are doing, which makes it hard. To be clear, this situation is on me. I had an opportunity to go home earlier today. But I wanted my coffee and the comfort of working in a familiar Starbucks, rather than my familiar basement office. Not my brightest decision. I figured most folks would clear out early, so it would be fine later in the day. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Evidently there are an infinite number of people in the northern Atlanta suburbs trying to get home. And they are all on the road at the same time. A few of them have rear wheel drive cars, which get stuck on the mildest of inclines. No one can seem to get anywhere. I depend on the Waze app for navigation. Its crowdsourced traffic info has been invaluable. Not today. It has routed me in a circle, and 90 minutes later I am basically where I started. Although I can’t blame Waze – you can’t really pinpoint where a car gets stuck and causes gridlock until someone passes by. In case it wasn’t clear, no one is going anywhere. So I wait. I read my email. I caught up on my twitter feed. I checked Facebook, where I saw that most of my friends in ATL were similarly stuck in traffic. It’s awesome. My kids have already gone out and played in the snow. I hope the boss took pictures. I missed it. Oh well. Nothing I can do now. Except smile. And breathe. And smile again. At some point I will get home. I will be grateful. Oh yeah, and next time I will stay home when it threatens to snow. Duh. –Mike UPDATE: It took me about 4 1/2 hours to get home. Yes, to travel 6 miles. I could have walked home faster. But it was 20 degrees, so that wouldn’t really have worked well either. Some kids in XX1’s middle school didn’t get home until 10 PM. It was a total nightmare. My family and friends are safe, and that’s all that matters. Now get these kids out of my hair. I have work to do… Photo credit: This is an actual picture of sitting in traffic yesterday. What you see was my view for about an hour inching along. And I don’t normally play on the phone when I’m driving, but at that point I wasn’t really driving… Heavy Research We’re back at work on a variety of blog series, so here is a list of the research currently underway. Remember you can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, where you can get all our content in its unabridged glory. And you can get all our research papers too. The Future of Information Security Introduction Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Security Monitoring Benefiting from the Misfortune of Others Reducing Attack Surface with Application Control Use Cases and Selection Criteria The Double Edged Sword Advanced Endpoint and Server Protection Assessment Introduction Newly Published Papers Eliminating Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing What CISOs Need to Know about Cloud Computing Defending Against Application Denial of Service Security Awareness Training Evolution Firewall Management Essentials Continuous Security Monitoring API Gateways Threat Intelligence for Ecosystem Risk Management Dealing with Database Denial of Service Identity and Access Management for Cloud Services Incite 4 U CISOs don’t focus on technology, not for long anyway: Seems like this roundtable that Dan Raywood covered in CISOs have “too much focus on technology” is about 5 years behind the times. I spend a bunch of time with CISOs, and for the most part they aren’t consumed by technology – more likely they are just looking for products to make the hackers go away. They have been focused on staffing and communicating the value of their security program. Yes, they still worry about malware and mobile devices and this cloud thing. But that doesn’t consume them anymore. And any CISO who is consumed by technology and believes any set of controls can make hackers go away should have a current resume – s/he will need it. – MR You don’t want to know: Sri Karnam writes about the 8 things your boss wants you to know about ‘Big Data Security’ on the HP blog – to which I respond ‘Not!’ The three things your boss wants to know, in a security context, are: 1) What sensitive data do we have in there? 2) What is being done to secure it? 3) Is that good enough? The key missing ingredient from Sri’s post is that your boss wants this information off the record. Bosses know to not go looking for trouble, and just want to know how to respond when they are asked when their boss asks. If you formally tell them what’s going on, they have knowledge, and can no longer rely on plausible deniability to blame you when something blows up. Sure, that’s an ethical copout, but it’s also a career-saver. – AL Pure vs. applied research: Interesting post on Andrew Hay’s blog about why security vendors need a research group. It seems every security vendor already has a research group (even if it’s a guy paying someone to do a survey), so he’s preaching to the choir a bit. But I like his breakdown of pure vs. applied research, where he posits vendors should be doing 70% of their research in areas that directly address customer problems. I couldn’t agree more. If you’re talking about a huge IT company, then they can afford to have Ph.D.s running around doing science projects. But folks who have to keep the lights on each quarter should be focused on doing research to help their customers solve problems. Because most customers can’t think about pure research while they are trying to survive each day. –

Share:
Read Post

New Series (and Paper): The Future of Information Security

Update: Here are links to the series as we post it: Post 1 Post 2 Post 3 Post 4 Post 5 Back in 2012 I wrote a post titled Inflection. It was a collection of ideas and trends I have been watching, with the implications for the practice of security. This year I submitted it to the RSA Conference and it was accepted. I will be giving an updated presentation based on that post Tuesday afternoon. I thought that would be the end of it, because this isn’t the sort of research someone is usually interested in licensing and so it stays on the blog. But I was contacted by the folks at Box who were looking for something different that focuses more on where the industry is headed than our usual papers on helping you manage a current security issue. As an analyst I believe the majority of my published research should focus on day-to-day management of security, but it is also important to push the edges a bit and spend time thinking about the bigger picture. I am particularly excited about this paper because it isn’t being licensed by a traditional security vendor. The call from Box came out of left field, and shows that cloud and content providers are seeing security as a competitive differentiator. That isn’t an endorsement – no one can ever pay us to say nice things about them, but I can honestly say we are doing more work this year outside the traditional security market than I have ever seen before. To wet your whistle as I start writing the content, here’s a graphic of the outline. I will also be putting the content up on GitHub as I write and edit it for public feedback and review. I’m finding I like that better than the blog for the people who want to provide feedback, but this feed is better for getting the draft content out to a wide audience. We’ll take feedback on either side. Oh, and I could really use some help with a better title! This one feels a little pretentious to me, but I am struggling for something better and “Inflection” doesn’t translate well to a paper. Thanks, and here’s the outline: Share:

Share:
Read Post

Firestarter: Government Influence

In this week’s Firestarter Rich, Mike, and Adrian (until his computer died) discuss the importance (or lack thereof) of the security industry and community in influencing government. Adrian drops out part-way through due to his frugal laptop choice, but rumor is he whipped out the credit card and payed homage to Apple shortly after the conclusion of this week’s recording. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Security Monitoring: Benefiting from the Misfortune of Others

Threat intelligence (TI) is hot because it promises to close the gap a bit between attackers and defenders. So we have done considerable research on TI over the past year. We started by talking about the Early Warning System, a monitoring concept that leverages threat intelligence feeds to look for emerging attacks. Then we dove into the kinds of TI you can extract from network traffic, the ability to identify malicious IPs and senders by gathering TI through email, and finally a view of the external world through EcoSystem TI. As you see there are many different types of threat intelligence feeds, and many ways to apply the technology – both to increase the effectiveness of alerting, and to implement preemptive workarounds based on likely attacks. That is why we call threat intelligence benefiting from the misfortune of others. By understanding attack patterns and other nuggets of information gleaned from studying attacks on other organizations, you can get ahead of the threat. Okay – you cannot actually get ahead of the threat without a time machine. The threat is already out there, but hopefully it hasn’t been used against you yet. As the networks promote their summer reruns, “If you haven’t seen it, it’s new to you!” Shortening the Window We believe one of the most compelling uses for threat intelligence is to help detect attacks earlier in the attack cycle. By looking for attack patterns identified via threat intelligence in your security monitoring/analytics functions, you can shorten the window between compromise and detection. So we are happy to start a new series called Leveraging Threat Intelligence in Security Monitoring. We will go into depth on how to update your process, in order to integrate your existing malware analysis/threat intelligence gathering function with your security monitoring team’s work. We will be using parts of our Network Security Operations Quant and Malware Analysis Quant process maps to document a new Security Monitoring Process Model leveraging threat intelligence. We would also like to thank Norse Corp for agreeing to potentially license this content at the end of the process. We build all our public research using our Totally Transparent Research model, so all the research will be posted to the blog first to give everyone an opportunity to provide feedback and comment. But first things first. We need to set the stage by revisiting the kinds of threat intelligence we have highlighted in our research. This will provide the context you need to understand the kinds of TI feeds you can integrate into your security monitoring environment. Threat Intelligence Sources You can get effective threat intelligence from a number of different sources. We can chunk them into major categories to look at for security monitoring: Compromised Devices Malware Indicators Reputation Command and Control Networks Compromised Devices The first category of TI is the proverbial smoking gun. Something may look compromised, but until it actually starts acting compromised you may never know. Services are emerging to look for indications on the Internet of devices which either act like bots or communicate with C&C networks. These services are no-touch – you don’t need to install anything on your own network to get a verdict on devices within your network. How does it work? The intelligence providers penetrate botnets and monitor traffic on C&C networks. Using this information they build lists of (compromised) devices participating in botnets. Of course these services might detect your own internal honeypots or other malware analysis. So you will want to make sure you have some means of determining which devices should show up on their lists, and which shouldn’t. But being able to identify compromised devices is extremely useful for prioritizing remediation. Malware Indicators Malware analysis continues to mature rapidly, getting better and better at understanding exactly what malicious code does. This enables you to define both technical and behavioral indicators to seek out within your environment, as Malware Analysis Quant described in gory detail. Why is this important? The key strategy of classical AV – file blacklisting – is no longer effective, so indicators enable you to detect malware by what it does. A number of companies offer information on specific malware. You can upload a hash of a malware file – if the recipient has seen it already they match the hash and return their analysis; otherwise you upload the whole file for analysis. The services run malware samples through proprietary sandbox environments and other analysis engines to figure out what they do, build detailed profiles, and provide comprehensive reports which include specific behaviors and indicators. You can search your environment for those indicators to pinpoint possibly compromised devices. You can also draw conclusions from the kinds of indicators you find. Have those tactics been tied to specific adversaries? Do you see these kinds of activities during reconnaissance, exploitation, or exfiltration? Your analysis can enrich these indicators with additional context for better decisions about the best next step. Reputation Since its emergence as a primary data source in the battle against spam, reputation data seems to have become a component of every security control. The most common reputation data is based on IP addresses, and provides a dynamic list of known bad and/or suspicious addresses. This has a variety of uses – learning that a partner’s IP address has been compromised, for instance, should set off alarms, especially if the partner has a direct connection to your network. Traffic to known malware distribution sites, phishing sites, command and control nodes, spam relays, and other sites with bad reputations should be investigated. Besides IP addresses, pretty much everything within your environment can (and should) have a reputation. Devices, URLs, domains, and files, for starters. If you have traffic going to a known bad site, weird traffic coming from a vulnerable contractor-owned device, or even a known bad file showing up when a salesperson connects to the corporate network, you have something to investigate. If something in your environment develops a bad reputation – perhaps as a spam relay or DoS attacker – you need to know ASAP, hopefully before your entire network gets blacklisted. C&C Traffic Patterns One specialized type

Share:
Read Post

The SIXTH Annual Disaster Recovery Breakfast (with 100% less boycott)

Holy crap, time flies! Especially when you mark years by making the annual pilgrimage to San Francisco for the RSA Conference. Once again we are hosting our RSA Conference Disaster Recovery Breakfast. It has been six frickin’ years! That’s hard to believe but reinforces that we are not spring chickens anymore. We are grateful that so many of our friends, clients, and colleagues enjoy a couple hours away from the glitzy show floor and club scene that dominates the first couple days of the conference. By Thursday you will probably be a disaster like us and ready to kick back, have some conversations at a normal decibel level, and grab a nice breakfast. And with the continued support of MSLGROUP and Kulesa Faul, we are happy to provide an oasis in a morass of hyperbole, booth babes, and tchotchke hunters. As always, the breakfast will be Thursday morning from 8-11 at Jillian’s in the Metreon. It’s an open door – come and leave as you want. We will have food, beverages, and assorted recovery items to ease your day (non-prescription only). Yes, the bar will be open because Mike doesn’t like to drink alone. Remember what the DR Breakfast is all about. No marketing, no spin, just a quiet place to relax and have muddled conversations with folks you know, or maybe even go out on a limb and meet someone new. After three nights of RSA Conference shenanigans we are pretty confident you will enjoy the DRB as much as we do. See you there. To help us estimate numbers, please RSVP to rsvp (at) securosis (dot) com. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Summary: Mmm. Beer.

I realize this will shock many of you, but I hated beer in high school and the first couple years of college. I know, I know, this destroys your image of me, but it’s the truth. I blame it on orange soda. My parents weren’t big soda drinkers, so I wasn’t really exposed to it. The first time I tried an orange soda at a birthday party in elementary school, the carbonation freaked me out and that was the end. My anti-carbonation stance carried over when we started on beer in high school (don’t tell the cops). Plus, beer back then sucked. I was still a young male and would drink beer when nothing else was around, but I tended towards kamikazes. Until the night I got so drunk that when my friends dropped me off at home I freaked out over someone stealing my car. You know, the one I drove to the bar earlier that night and (wisely) left there. The hangover lasted three days – so much for the immunity of youth. But then I discovered Buff Gold. In 1990 the Walnut Brewery, the first brew pub in Boulder, opened up. Shortly afterwards I was hired as a 19 year old 140 lb (wet) bouncer. It was a mellow crowd. I couldn’t drink there as an underage employee, but a couple other bars owned by the same guy carried the beer. Buffalo Gold was the first ale I ever tried, and started me down a path of refined malty (and responsible) consumption. As a side note, Frank Day, the owner, later opened the first Rock Bottom brewery in Denver (same franchise, different name). He also started the Old Chicago’s chain. Rock Bottom is all over the place, and merged with Gordon Beirsch a few years ago, which also owns Big River Brewery, the only brew pub at Disney World (on the Boardwalk). I keep showing my Walnut Brewery nametag at Disney, but they still make me pay for my beers. When they let me in the door. Anyhoo… after Buff Gold came Fat Tire, which migrated down from Fort Collins an hour north of Boulder. Then all sorts of craft beers exploded, which explains why the American Homebrewers Association offices were around the corner from my old Boulder condo. Turns out I didn’t hate beer, I just hated bad beer. After I moved to Phoenix a Yard House opened up near us and my (now) wife and I started spending most Friday happy hours there. That’s when I met The Bastard. Arrogant Bastard, if you are being formal, and it is about as serious a beer as you can find. After that anything short of an IPA seemed almost tasteless, and I became obsessed with California hops. I also loved the naming and marketing used by the Stone Brewing company. Beers like Ruination and Sublimely Self Righteous. Tag lines like, “You’re Not Worthy” and “you probably won’t like this beer”. When my wife was pregnant with our first child she deigned to take the Stone Brewery tour when we were out in San Diego, despite being unable to drink. That’s when I realized the marketing genius of their aggressive, no-nonsense approach. After… a few pints… I emailed Adrian and informed him I had our new corporate branding. “No B.S. Research”, “If you want to feel good about yourself, call your mom. If you want a security program, call us”, and the rest of our site and attitude. It has been five years since that trip, and our distinct divergence from traditional professionalism. And you know what? People like honesty. And the ones who don’t aren’t the sorts we want to work with anyway. It’s a nice filter that drives the kinds of clients and engagements that make this such an awesome job, and save us from endless piles of lapdogging and paperwork. And it all started with a beer. Like anything else worth a damn. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian quoted on DBaaS. Dave Lewis in The Atlantic: This Little House in Wyoming Didn’t Just Get Flooded With Web Traffic From China. Favorite Securosis Posts Adrian Lane: The Catalyst. Someone sent me the book this week. Care to guess who? Rich: The SIXTH Annual Disaster Recovery Breakfast (with 100% less boycott). Yes, it’s a repost, but RSVP anyway. Other Securosis Posts Mindfulness Works. Firestarter: Target and Antivirus. Eliminate Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing [New Paper]. Favorite Outside Posts Adrian Lane: Metadata for beginners 😉. My favorite of the week was not a post, but a tweet. It only takes a couple fat-fingered cell calls from a ‘suspect’ to make you part of their social circle. Chris Pepper: More security is always better, right? Domain registrar auto-enrolls customers into $1,850 security service. Er. Dave Lewis: The death of Windows XP. Rich: Increased Cyber Security Can Save Global Economy Trillions. Funny numbers, but once again we see security hitting the mainstream. Research Reports and Presentations Eliminate Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing. What CISOs Need to Know about Cloud Computing. Defending Against Application Denial of Service Attacks. Executive Guide to Pragmatic Network Security Management. Security Awareness Training Evolution. Firewall Management Essentials. A Practical Example of Software Defined Security. Continuous Security Monitoring. API Gateways: Where Security Enables Innovation. Identity and Access Management for Cloud Services. Top News and Posts Chinese Internet Traffic Redirected to Small Wyoming House. Huh. Notes from Shmoocon 2014. Office.com Defaced by Syrian Electronic Army. RootCloak Hides Root Access From Specific Applications. Chrome hack lets websites keep listening after you close the tab. “70,000 healthcare.gov records hacked” claim turns out to be Google results. Oops; press fail. Again. Blog Comment of the Week This week’s best comment goes to DS, in response to A Very Telling Antivirus Metric. “We stop 0 day* attacks” *in this sense 0 indicates the number of attacks we successfully stop. Always gotta read the fine print. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 1/22/2014: The Catalyst

I was on the phone last week with Jen Minella, preparing for a podcast on our Neuro-Hacking talk at this year’s RSA Conference, when she asked what my story is. We had never really discussed how we each came to start mindfulness practices. So we shared our stories, and then I realized that given everything else I share on the Incite, I should tell it here as well. Simply put, I was angry and needed to change. Back in 2006 I decided I wanted to live past 50, so I starting taking better care of myself physically. But being more physically fit is only half the equation. I needed to find a way to deal with the stress in my life. I had 3 young children, was starting an independent research boutique, and my wife needed me to help around the house. In hindsight I call that period my Atlas Phase. I took the weight of the world on my shoulders, and many days it was hard to bear. My responsibilities were crushing. So my anger frequently got the best of me. I went for an introductory session with a life coach midway through 2007. After a short discussion she asked a poignant question. She wondered if my kids were scared of me. That one question forced me to look in the mirror and realize who I really was. I had to acknowledge they were scared at times. That was the catalyst I needed. I wasn’t going to be a lunatic father. I need to change. The coach suggested meditation as a way to start becoming more aware of my feelings, and to even out the peaks and valleys of my emotions. A few weeks later I went to visit my Dad. He had been fighting a pretty serious illness using unconventional tactics for a few years at that point. I mentioned meditation to him and he jumped out of his chair and disappeared for a few minutes. He came back with 8 Minute Meditation, and then described how meditation was a key part of his plan to get healthy. He told me to try it. It was only 8 minutes. And it was the beginning of a life-long journey. These practices have had a profound impact on my life. 6 years later it’s pretty rare for me to get angry. I am human and do get annoyed and frustrated. But it doesn’t turn into true anger. Or I guess I don’t let it become anger. When I do get angry it’s very unsettling, but I’m very aware of it now and it doesn’t last long, which I know my wife and kids appreciate. I do too. Everyone has a different story. Everyone has a different approach to dealing with things. There is no right or wrong. I’ll continue to describe my approach and detail the little victories and the small setbacks. Mostly because this is a weekly journal I use to leave myself breadcrumbs on my journey, so I remember where I have been and how far I have come. And maybe some of you appreciate it as well. –Mike Photo credit: “Scared Pandas” originally uploaded by Brian Bennett Heavy Research We are back at work on a variety of blog series, so here is a list of the research currently underway. Remember you can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, where you can get all our content in its unabridged glory. And you can get all our research papers too. Reducing Attack Surface with Application Control Use Cases and Selection Criteria The Double Edged Sword Security Management 2.5: You Buy a New SIEM Yet? Negotiation Selection Process The Decision Process Evaluating the Incumbent Revisiting Requirements Platform Evolution Changing Needs Introduction Advanced Endpoint and Server Protection Assessment Introduction Newly Published Papers Eliminating Surprises with Security Assurance and Testing What CISOs Need to Know about Cloud Computing Defending Against Application Denial of Service Security Awareness Training Evolution Firewall Management Essentials Continuous Security Monitoring API Gateways Threat Intelligence for Ecosystem Risk Management Dealing with Database Denial of Service Identity and Access Management for Cloud Services Incite 4 U SGO: Standard Government Obscurity: The Target hack was pretty bad, and it seems clear it may only be the tip of the iceberg. Late last week the government released a report with more details of the attack so companies could protect themselves. Er, sort of. The report by iSIGHT Partners was only released to select retailers. As usual, the government isn’t talking much, so iSIGHT went and released the report on their own. A CNN article states, “The U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not make the government’s report public and provided little on its contents. iSIGHT Partners provided CNNMoney a copy of its findings.” Typical. If I were a retailer I would keep reading Brian Krebs to learn what’s going on. The feds are focused on catching the bad guys – you are on your own to stop them until the cuffs go on. – RM Unrealistic expectations are on YOU! Good post on the Tripwire blog about dealing with unrealistic security expectations. Especially because it seems very close to the approach I have advocated via the Pragmatic CSO for years. I like going after a quick win and making sure to prioritize activities. But my point with the title is that if senior management has unrealistic expectations, it’s because your communications strategies are not effective. You can blame them all you want for being unreasonable, but if they have been in the loop as you built the program, enlisted support, and started executing on initiatives, nothing should be a surprise to them. – MR Other people’s stuff: The recent Threatpost article ‘Starbucks App Stores User Information, Passwords in Clear Text’ is a bit misleading, as they don’t mention that the leaky bit of code is actually in the included Crashylitics utility. The real lesson here is not about potential harm from passwords in log files, which is a real problem, with

Share:
Read Post

Mindfulness Works

Back in November I learned I will be giving a talk on Neuro-Hacking at RSA with Jennifer Minella. We will be discussing how mindfulness practices can favorably impact the way you view things, basically allowing you to hack your brain. But I am pretty sure you can’t sell my synapses on an Eastern European carder forum. Over the last few months Jen and I have been doing a lot of research to substantiate the personal experience we have both had with mindfulness practices. We know security folks tend to be tough customers and reasonably skeptical about pretty much everything – unless there is data to back up any position. The good news is that there is plenty of data about how mindfulness can impact stress, job performance, and work/life balance. And big companies are jumping on board – Aetna is the latest to provide a series of Evidence-based Mind-Body Stress Management Programs based on mindfulness meditation and yoga. Meditation and yoga are becoming a big business (yoga pants FTW), so it is logical for big companies to jump on the bandwagon. The difference here, and the reason I don’t believe this is a fad, is the data. That release references a recent study in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. That’s got to be legitimate, right? Participants in the mind-body stress reduction treatment groups (mindfulness and Viniyoga) showed significant improvements in perceived stress with 36 and 33 percent decreases in stress levels respectively, as compared to an 18 percent reduction for the control group as measured with the Perceived Stress Scale. Participants in the mind-body interventions also saw significant improvements in various heart rate measurements, suggesting that their bodies were better able to manage stress. The focus of our talk is going to be solutions and demystifying some of these practices. It’s not about how security people are grumpy. We all know that. We will focus on how to start and develop a sustainable practice. Mindfulness doesn’t need to be hard or take a long time. In as little as 5-15 minutes a day you can dramatically impact your ability to deal with life. Seriously. But don’t take our word for it. Show up for the session and draw your own conclusions. We just recorded a podcast for the RSA folks, and I’ll link to it once it’s available, later this week. Jen and I will also be posting more mindfulness stuff on our respective blogs in the lead up to the conference (much to Rich’s chagrin). Photo credit: “6 Instant Ways To Stress Less And Smile More – Flip Your Perspective” originally uploaded by UrbaneWomenMag Share:

Share:
Read Post

Firestarter: Target and Antivirus

In this week’s Firestarter Rich, Mike, and Adrian discuss the latest in the Target relevations and whether over-reliance on antivirus is to blame once again. We aren’t out to blame the victim. We also pick our top prevention strategies for this sort of attack. Ain’t hindsight great? 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.