September 20, 2007 - Volume 2, #134
Good Morning:
What's the difference between Bill Belichick (the coach of the NE
Patriots) and pretty much every other coach in the NFL? Besides 3 Super
Bowl rings, that is? He got caught. That's right, he got caught. You
don't think every other team has spies in the stands trying to decipher
signals to gain an advantage? Of course they do. I'm sure many also use
video, as Belichick did. But Bill got caught and now he's a villain.
I did a little rant a few days ago about "hating your competitors," [0]
especially relative to competitive intelligence. Given the fact that
the Belichick story won't seem to die, and the fact that in the
security business it's VERY competitive and everyone is looking for an
advantage, what is cool and what isn't? And if you are an end user, how
can you know what is real and what isn't and most importantly - whether
it matters?
I could write a book on this topic. Maybe I will, but I've got my hands
full with Security Mike [1] for a while, so I'll
try to summarize fairly
quickly. As I mentioned on Monday, no one can assume the competition
doesn't know all about your stuff. I don't care what business you are
in. You have competition and you need to assume they know all about
your stuff. That means you need to know about their stuff.
So how do you do it? Let me use security as an example. You need a box.
It's most helpful if the competition will just sell you the box.
Barracuda did. It was nice. Drop shipped it right to our offices. The
other folks, not so much. So we had to be creative. I can't say much
about this kind of creativity until the statute of limitations runs
out, but suffice it to say the resellers can be your friends. I also
know of an instance where a so-called
"independent reviewer" procured a box to review and sent it to a
competitor. I guess that's kind of being creative too. In a "2-5 year
with an option for parole after 18 months" way.
Once you get the box, you need a lab. You need to bang on your
competitor's box and find out where it's strong and where it's weak.
Then
you need to help your field teams understand that information and use
it to your advantage. And at times, some of the competition will lie
about what they've found about your box. Sometimes they'll just make
things up. If you are a vendor, that's why your SE's are probably the
most valuable employees that you have. They need to know how to
overcome those objections and make sure you get a chance to be
evaluated.
In enterprise sales cycles, it's all about the eval. Especially in
security. So do whatever you have to do to get the eval. Make sure your
SE's can make the box dance. And also understand that all the
competitive posturing in the world isn't going to help if you've lied
to the customer about what your box does and what the competition's
doesn't. The eval doesn't lie.
If you are a customer, do you care about this stuff? The answer is a
resounding no. You are worried about solving your technology problem
and if the vendors are more focused on their competition than solving
your problem, then you probably aren't talking to the right vendor. And
define your long list quickly and get to the eval. The longer you wait
and let the vendors snipe at each other, the more confused you are
going to be.
The moral of the story is this: Everyone is doing it, so you need to as
well. Belichick got caught, but let's be clear, everyone is trying to
steal the other team's signals and get access to their game plan. Same
goes in our security industry. Some are more ethical than others, but
at the end of the day - you can't be competitive unless you have that
information. If that makes you queasy, then you probably should find
something else to do.
And with that, it's time to get back to work. Have a
great weekend.
Technorati: Information
Security [2], CSO [3],
Security
Mike [4], Internet
Security [5]
[6]The Pragmatic CSO: Available Now! Read the Intro and Get "5 Tips to be a Better CSO" www.pragmaticcso.com [7] |
Get Your Special Report: 6 Easy Steps to Protect Your Identity and pre-order your copy today www.securitymike.com [8] [9] |
Top Security News
this blog post from Paul McNamara [10]
are true, then Ameritrade has got a lot of downside liability to deal
with relative to the data breach announced this week. At first it was
like, "big whoop, another data breach." But if Ameritrade basically
ignored warnings that their data had been compromised, they are going
down the river and they don't have a paddle. Do you see the class
action vultures flying over the mountains? This could keep them busy
(and fed) for quite a while. The problem is that Ameritrade is playing
dumb. They better have a lot of documentation that they took the issue
seriously, did an investigation, and found nothing to worry about. If
not, then they've got a lot of explaining to do. I guess their
forensics guys could find that the bad guys took another route to pwn
the machines, but even so - it wouldn't mean the first notification
wasn't real as well. Ultimately we are all waiting for the forensics
report and then the vultures will know where the feeding frenzy will be.
Link to this [10]
IronPort recently announced they have done
some work to increase throughput by more effectively using Intel
multi-core chips [11]. An 800% increase? Who knows and who cares?
I really hate that "mine is bigger than yours" positioning and
marketing. The point is that it's not clear that vendors are going to
get appropriate return for taking on the risk of building their own
chips. That doesn't mean you'll be able to get a 10GB IPS by loading
some open source software on the old Pentium 3 you have in your closet.
There will need to be other packet acceleration technologies utilized
and the like (especially if decoding SSL traffic is a requirement), but
for a lot of the compute activities - your standard PC chips are going
to do great and continue following Moore's Law (or some less aggressive
corollary). Lest you think I'm all about software on standard hardware,
I'm not. Ultimately customers want SOLUTIONS to their problems, so they
expect the vendor to integrate everything and tie it up with a nice,
little bow on top. It's just not clear that there is a lot of value in
spinning ASICs anymore.
Link to this [11]
Raytheon bought the Oakley Networks that
does DLP stuff [12]. Oakley has always been strong in the Fed
space, so
there is synergy with Raytheon, but this is a pretty strange
combination. Clearly monitoring your data usage, making sure it doesn't
leak and then being able to investigate an issue is pretty important
for some of the Federal agencies, but it's not clear that Raytheon is
the kind of organization that is going to be able to move fast enough
to keep pace in an emerging, dynamic high-tech market. So we'll see,
but there is very little history of emerging technology actually
prospering in a beltway-bandit type of environment.
Link to this [12]
The Laundry List
- Great, now it's time for next generation DLP. We've hardly deployed first generation, but Orchestria thinks they can "dramatically reduce enterprise risk." How so? Delete all the data? I hate these kinds of releases that promise the world and deliver nothing but unsubstantiated claims and two analyst quotes because they couldn't get a customer to say anything. - Orchestria release [13]
- A smart VPN, that's novel. Verizon can recognize your mobile device and place it on a VPN within their carrier network. - InformationWeek mobile blog [14]
- Guess Maynor's gag order from SecureWorks expired because he's published the details of the Apple wireless exploit. It's been patched, this isn't news - but it remains an instructive lesson on how security researchers can be used as punching bags. - PCWorld release [15]
- PCI day of reckoning is upon us. The deadline creates lots of scrambling, but will it be enforced, especially beyond Tier 1 merchants? That's the real question. - Mark Tordoff's blog [16]
Top Blog Postings
http://spiresecurity.typepad.com/spire_security_viewpoint/2007/09/am-i-a-modeler-.html [17]
Link
to this [17]
http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2007/09/comment-on-netwitness-article.html [18]
Link
to this [18]
[6]
[9]