Securosis

Research

Apple Pay

After a short break, the boys are back and here to talk about Apple. No, not the new wrist-mounted toy, but the first mobile payment system you might actually use. Or so says Rich’s Macworld editor, based on his article title. Share:

Share:
Read Post

The Security Pro’s Guide to Cloud File Storage and Collaboration

One of the fastest growing cloud services is Cloud File Storage and Collaboration, also known as Enterprise Sync and Share. These tools allow organizations to centralize and manage unstructured data in entirely new ways. They also promise massive security benefits, including centralized control over unstructured data, with a full audit log of all user and device activity. But not all services are created equal – inherent and optional security features vary very widely. Transitioning to these new services also requires a strong understanding of both the platform’s security capabilities and how best to leverage them to reduce your organization’s risk. This paper guides security professionals through the new landscape of cloud file storage services. We cover the basic features, the core security capabilities, and then emerging advanced security options. The Security Pro’s Guide to Cloud File Storage and Collaboration (PDF) Share:

Share:
Read Post

You Can’t Handle the Gartner

After our little Black Hat and DEF CON induced hiatus, the boys are back to talk about the latest vendor suing Gartner. Yes, there is a Gartner Tax. No, it isn’t what you think. No, there is no pay for play. Yes, there are better ways to handle this. Yes, end users love Magic Quadrants no matter how much you trash talk them. And yeah, somehow we know a bit about how all this works from all sides. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Hacker Summer Camp

In the latest Firestarter, Rich, Mike, and Adrian discuss the latest controversial research to hit the news from HOPE and Black Hat. We start with a presentation by Jonathan Zdziarski on data recoverable using forensics on iOS. While technically accurate, we think the intent he ascribes intent to Apple shows a deeply flawed analysis. We then discuss a talk removed from Black Hat on de-anonymizing Tor. In this case it seems the researchers didn’t really understand the legal environment around them. Both cases are examples of great research gone a little awry. And Rich talks about a snowball fight with a herd of elk. These things happen. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Analysis of the 2014 Open Source Development and Application Security Survey

Open source software is ubiquitous. Nearly every company is running some. Many organizations are not even aware of it – or at least weren’t until the Heartbleed vulnerability. Then they discovered what many firms already know: there is open source running in your company, and it’s an integral part of your operations. Earlier this year I participated in the 2014 Open Source Development and Application Security Survey, as I have done the last couple years. As a developer and former development manager – and let’s face it, an overtly opinionated one – I am always interested in adding my viewpoint to these inquiries, even if I am just one developer voice among thousands. But I have also benefitted from these surveys – looking at the stuff my peers are using, and even selecting open source distributions based on this shared data. So when Sonatype, the organization that conducts this survey, asked me to perform an independent analysis of the data, I jumped at the chance. I wanted to give back to the community, and perhaps share a unique perspective on what the survey results mean and how open source development is dealing with security-related issues. This research paper is the result of that work. I was given the raw data prior to the official release of the report, and a few questions immediately jumped out: Are developers worried about security? Do they have security policies? How did Heartbleed affect the survey results? Is open source more trustworthy than commercial software? How and when are components banned? I discuss these topics and more in the paper. You can find the official survey results at http://www.sonatype.com/about/2014-open-source-software-development-survey. And our research paper is available for download, free as always: 2014 Open Source Development and Application Security Survey Analysis Thank you to Sonatype – both for giving us access to the data and for licensing this research to accompany their results! Attachments Securosis_OpenSourceSurvey_Analysis.pdf [1.2MB] Share:

Share:
Read Post

China and Career Advancement

This week we kept it simple with two topics. First up, China’s accusations that iOS and iDevices are a security risk. Mike’s at the Jersey Shore, Rich is in Boulder, and Adrian is… baking in Phoenix in between tree-killing monsoons. This week we kept it simple with two topics. First up, China’s accusations that iOS and iDevices are a security risk. Which they should know, since they are all built there. Second is a discussion on security careers. How to break in, and what hiring managers should really look for. Share:

Share:
Read Post

The 2015 Endpoint and Mobile Security Buyer’s Guide

In an uncommon occurrence we have updated one of our papers within a year of publication. As mentioned in the latest version of our Endpoint Security Buyer’s Guide, mobile devices are just additional endpoints that need to be managed like any other device. But it became clear that we needed to dig a bit deeper into securing mobile endpoints. Our updated and revised 2015 Endpoint and Mobile Security Buyer’s Guide updates our research on key endpoint management functions including anti-malware, patch and confirmation management, and device control. Additionally we dug a lot deeper into mobile security and managing BYOD. The reality is that securing endpoints hasn’t gotten any easier. Employees still click things and attackers have gotten better at evading perimeter defenses and obscuring attacks. Humans, alas, remain gullible and flawed. Regardless of any training you provide employees, they continue to click stuff, share information, and fall for simple social engineering attacks. So endpoints remain some of the weakest links in your security defenses. As much as the industry wants to discuss advanced attacks and talk about how sophisticated adversaries have become, the simple truth remains that many successful attacks result from simple operational failures. So yes, you do need to pay attention to advanced malware protection tactics, but if you forget about the fundamental operational aspects of managing endpoint hygiene the end result will be the same. To provide some context, we have said for years that management is the first problem users solve when introducing a new technology. Security becomes a consideration only after management issues are under control. This is the key reason we are adding a bunch of new content about securing mobile devices. Many organizations have gotten their arms around managing these devices, so now they are focusing their efforts on security and privacy – especially around apps running on those devices. What has not changed is our goal for this guide: to provide clear buying criteria for those of you looking at endpoint security solutions in the near future. Direct Download (PDF): The 2015 Endpoint and Mobile Security Buyer’s Guide We would like to thank Lumension Security for licensing this paper. Obviously we wouldn’t be able to do the research we do, or offer it to you without cost, without companies supporting our work. Share:

Share:
Read Post

2014 Open Source Development and Application Security Survey Analysis

Open source software is ubiquitous. Nearly every company is running some. Many organizations are not even aware of it – or at least weren’t until the Heartbleed vulnerability. Then they discovered what many firms already know: there is open source running in your company, and it’s an integral part of your operations. Earlier this year I participated in the 2014 Open Source Development and Application Security Survey, as I have done the last couple years. As a developer and former development manager – and let’s face it, an overtly opinionated one – I am always interested in adding my viewpoint to these inquiries, even if I am just one developer voice among thousands. But I have also benefitted from these surveys – looking at the stuff my peers are using, and even selecting open source distributions based on this shared data. So when Sonatype, the organization that conducts this survey, asked me to perform an independent analysis of the data, I jumped at the chance. I wanted to give back to the community, and perhaps share a unique perspective on what the survey results mean and how open source development is dealing with security-related issues. This research paper is the result of that work. I was given the raw data prior to the official release of the report, and a few questions immediately jumped out: Are developers worried about security? Do they have security policies? How did Heartbleed affect the survey results? Is open source more trustworthy than commercial software? How and when are components banned? I discuss these topics and more in the paper. You can find the official survey results at http://www.sonatype.com/about/2014-open-source-software-development-survey. And our research paper is available for download, free as always: 2014 Open Source Development and Application Security Survey Analysis Thank you to Sonatype – both for giving us access to the data and for licensing this research to accompany their results! Share:

Share:
Read Post

Advanced Endpoint and Server Protection

Anti-virus is basically dead, at least according to the biggest anti-virus vendor. The good news is that signature-based AV has actually been dead for a long time; even the big players have been broadening their capabilities to assess, prevent, detect, and investigate advanced malware on endpoints and servers. There has been a tremendous amount of activity and innovation in protecting endpoint and servers, driven by necessity: Endpoint protection has become the punching bag of security. For every successful attack, the blame seems to point directly to a failure of endpoint protection. Not that this is totally unjustified — most solutions for endpoint protection have failed to keep pace with attackers. But hygiene and awareness alone will not deter advanced attackers very long. We frequently say advanced attackers are only as advanced as they need to be: they take the path of least resistance. But the converse is also true. When these adversaries need advanced techniques, they use them. Traditional malware defenses such as antivirus don’t stand much chance against a zero-day attack Our Advanced Endpoint and Server Protection paper highlights the changes in threat management resulting from these advanced attackers using advanced tactics. We discuss changes in prevention, as well as advances in both detection and investigation. This is really a call to action to rethink how you deal with advanced adversaries, and ultimately how you protect your devices. Advanced adversaries require organizations to rethink how they manage threats. The idea that targeted attacks can be prevented consistently is a pipe dream, so organizations need to shift away from largely ineffective legacy technologies for protecting endpoints and servers. More specifically this means devoting more resources and investing in innovative approaches to blocking attacks in the first place, including advanced heuristics, application control, and isolation technologies. But even with significant investment in innovative prevention, a persistent attacker will still compromise your devices. This highlights the necessity of shifting security investment toward detecting and investigating attacks. We would like to thank the companies who have licensed this content (in alphabetical order): Bit9 + Carbon Black; Cisco/Sourcefire; and Trusteer, an IBM Company. We make this point frequently, but without security companies understanding and getting behind our Totally Transparent Research model, you wouldn’t be able to enjoy our research. Download Advanced Endpoint and Server Protection (PDF) Attachments Securosis_AdvancedEndpointServerProtection_FINAL-multi.pdf [1.6MB] Share:

Share:
Read Post

G Who Shall Not Be Named

This week they discuss some of the latest news from a particular conference held out in Washington DC last week which Mike stopped by (well, the lobby bar) and Rich used to help run. As they fight to keep the Firestarter running through Google outages, vacations, and client travel, our dynamic trio return once again. This week they discuss some of the latest news from a particular conference held out in Washington DC last week which Mike stopped by (well, the lobby bar) and Rich used to help run. 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.