Archive

Archive for the ‘Manufacturers’ Category

SecurityDreamer Trends Report

February 14, 2013 13 comments

security_dreamer_high-res_4c

Overview

Each year since 2005, SecurityDreamer blogger and industry analyst, Steve Hunt, conducts surveys of end user security executives, tracking trends related to the business of security. We cover physical security and IT security equally at SecurityDreamer, carving our unique niche in the industry. Here is a taste of our findings. Sorry, the complete findings are not available except to Steve Hunt’s consulting clients and participants in the research.

Methodology

I find that narratives yield more insight and are more accurate than statistics. Therefore, the SecurityDreamer approach is to conduct dozens of personal interviews, by phone, email or in person. Each interview covers a subset of topics. Data gathered is generally qualitative and anecdotal, rather than quantitative.

Topics Included

Awareness

Budgeting/Spending

Business Continuity

Consultants, Use of

Event Management

Executive Buy-in

Identity & Access Management

Identity Theft

Interdepartmental Collaboration

Operational Best Practices

Penetration Testing

Physical Information Protection

Social Engineering

Staffing/Headcount

Strategy & Planning

Technology Lifecycle Management

Technology Selection

Approximately 50 companies participated in the survey, representing 11 industries.

Industry

%

Energy

19

Finance

16

Business Svcs

14

Online Merchants

13

Banking

8

Healthcare

8

Retail

6

High-Tech

6

HighTech

4

Entertainment

3

Food&Hospitality

3

 

security_dreamer_high-res_4c

Summary Findings from the SecurityDreamer Research

Increased Spending

While operational security budgets saw little growth across all industries, spending for new projects increased steadily in Energy, Finance, High-Tech and Entertainment. New IT security and physical security projects most notably included

  • Security operations centers
  • Virtual command centers
  • Security information management systems (SIEM, PSIM)
  • Networked cameras and sensors at high-risk facilities

Greatest Challenge

CSOs and CISOs complained that their greatest business challenge is metrics: Normal operational metrics, such as improved response time to security incidents, or numbers of malicious code detections are not compelling to business leaders. Security executives seek better ways to calculate ROI, justify purchases, and measure the success of deployments.

Most Surprising finding of 2012

Collecting Company Wisdom. Far more companies in more industries are documenting processes than we’ve seen in previous surveys.  Continual Improvement (a la Baldrige, Kaizen, Six Sigma, etc) appears to be the primary motivation. Security executives realize that much of the know how of security operations resides in the heads of its local security managers. In a hope to benefit from the sharing of this business intelligence, companies are using a variety of techniques (surveys, performance reviews, online forms) to gather it.

Least Aware of This Threat

Physical threats to information rose to the top of the list of issues about which CISOs and CSOs know the least.  Every security executive we interviewed had an understanding of physical threats to information (unauthorized visitors, dumpster diving, etc) but almost none had studied or measured the risks associated with physical threats to information, nor did they have in place thorough procedures to protect against it.

Least Prepared for This Threat

Two related concepts represent the threat for which nearly all security executives feel least prepared to address: Social engineering and physical penetration.  Every security executive confessed that confidential company information was as risk of social engineer attacks (phony phone conversations, pre-texting, impersonation, spear-phishing, etc.).  Physical penetrations were even more frightening to some executives who were certain that their confidential company information could be collected and conveyed out of the building (in the form of printed documents, photos, memory sticks, etc) by

  • an unauthorized visitor tailgating into the building
  • an attacker bypassing security controls at doors and fences
  • rogue employees or contractors
  • an internal attacker of any type

security_dreamer_high-res_4c

This week’s SecurityDreamer activities

September 19, 2011 2 comments

Hey everyone.

I hope you can catch me this week (September 19-23). Either attend a webinar on secure uses of the Cloud, or grab my lapel as I walk the show floor at ASIS in Orlando.

Here’s info on the webinar. Wednesday, Sept 22, 1-hour Webinar titled “Xerox and Cisco: Partnering in the Cloud”. I’ll be speaking along with Bill McGee from Cisco, and RG Conlee from ACS, a Xerox Company. I’ll explore the true benefits of using the cloud, understanding and mitigating the risks of the cloud, and how to best prepare for using the cloud. I hope you can join me.

At ASIS – the largest physical security professional conference in Orlando – this week I will be speaking at several private company events, but you can still find me on the floor. I’ll be excited to tell you the developments of the first venture-funded convergence consultancy I’m now heading.

Secure the Business!

SecurityDreamer Chicago

What a successful SecurityDreamer Chicago Event last week! Thirty men and women from a cross section of Chicago’s IT and physical security communities, end users and service providers, gathered for a fun evening of information sharing, new research, fine art, yummy wine and stimulating conversation.

The event was held at the exquisite David Weinberg Gallery in the art district of Chicago near downtown.  David Weinberg was on hand to talk about his art.  The photographs lining the walls of the the three room gallery were provocative and powerful. David said his art was inspired by his childhood and colored by his years owning a technology company that he sold some years ago.

We were able to afford a beautiful and unusual venue because of our visionary sponsors, BRS Labs and Inovonics.  I’ve mentioned BRS Labs in the past.  I have such appreciation as a technologist for innovative companies, and BRS Labs is one of them.  The company re-thinks video analytics and approaches the challenge in an entirely new way.  While the “video analytics 1.0″ vendors battle it out, BRS Labs quietly amazes it’s customers and confounds its competitors with a “2.0″ solution.  Thank you to BRS Labs for sponsoring SecurityDreamer Chicago.

Rethinking solutions was the theme of the event. I shared some research Hunt Business Intelligence recently completed on trends in critical infrastructure technology adoptions by the largest companies in the world.  It turns out that non-security executives, like CEOs and CFOs, are steadily losing confidence in security executives.

Part of the reason for that loss of confidence is that security executives continue to think like security wonks and do a poor job running security like a regular business unit. A security professional should be able to analyze, measure and create value, and not merely avoid risks.

Inovonics helps its customers create value. Its line of wireless life safety technologies, led by its flagship RADIUS product, leverages existing network infrastructures to provide superior service.  Imagine integrating a wide variety of sensors, including people-location, around your facility built around a single architecture of standard wireless networking. It is life safety information management at its finest.  Thank you to Inovonics for sponsoring SecurityDreamer Chicago.

We are now planning SecurityDreamer New York, SecurityDreamer Houston and SecurityDreamer Orlando (at ASIS).  Drop me a note and tell me a bit about yourself if you want one of the limited invitations.

Why Video Analytics As We Know It Is Going The Way Of the Dodo

April 17, 2011 6 comments

At my SecurityDreamer event at the Hard Rock Cafe in Atlanta a few years ago I discussed the idea of the difference between video analytics one-dot-O (1.0) and video analytics 2.0

The idea I wanted to get across was that popular video analytics vendors at the time were already appearing stuck in processor-intensive analysis of pixel changes.  Video analytics products that were fashionable then, such as Object Video, ioimage, Cernium, Vidient and others had products that were limited by the specific algorithms they used, the types of cameras or images they supported (day/night/indoor/outdoor/scope/frame rate/etc), and the amount of configuration and tweaking once deployed.  Unless a video analytics product was perfectly matched with the optimal camera, environment and algorithm, the results were always disappointing.

That description of video analytics sounds very similar to the way the first computer-based access control products of the 1980s were described. It is similar to the first firewalls and IT-intrusion detection systems.  It sounds just like the first Microsoft Windows operating systems.  In other words, It had all the characteristics of a “version 1.0″ technology.

1.0 is always exciting.  1.0 introduces new ways of solving problems, opens new avenues and gets our creative juices flowing.  1.0 gets us turned on and many of us want to use the technology because we are fearless or desperate for some solution.  But 1.0 always comes with a price of inefficiency and ineffectiveness.  1.0 always makes us long for a new version that will achieve the desired end less painfully and more effectively.

2.0, in an operating system, IT software, or any technology generally represents a quantum leap forward. A rethinking of the problem and an entirely new approach.  Consider the breathtaking difference between Microsoft DOS 3.3 and Windows 95.  It was like the PC had been reinvented.  Suddenly processes that took dozens of configuration steps were automatic and graphically appealing.  DOS 3.3 became obsolete.

Video analytics 2.0 had that same promise – the attractive idea that the headaches and misfires of video analytics 1.0 would be replaced by an automatic, intuitive system.  The company that seemed to have a true video analytics 2.0 approach at the time was BRS Labs – A startup in Texas that had yet to be proven.  The BRS difference was its use of machine learning.  An analytics system that was self learning seemed to be exactly what the end users were hoping video analytics 1.0 should have provided.  Those who were not exposed to BRS scratched and clawed their way through video analytcs 1.0 deployments, steadily reducing their expectations.  Today Video analytics 1.0 vendors have happy customers – customers who expect little and receive what they expect.

Fast forward to today and we see Vidient out of business; Object Video is no longer a technology competitor and has instead reoriented it’s business to patent protection; other analytics vendors are selling very specialized solutions.  And then there is BRS Labs – making money, growing every quarter, and silently showing the world what video analytics 2.0 truly represents.  As more prospective customers see what video analytics 2.0 represents, the 1.0 vendors will drop like flies.

Video Analytics technology has struggled over the past decade with products that require expensive and time consuming installations, high ongoing maintenance costs, and unacceptably high false alarm rates and overall poor operational performance.  In short, traditional video analytics technology has not proven viable and the market, as all markets do, requires innovation.  The market craves an operationally effective solution and innovation is the key to satisfy market demands.  As I have said since 2008, the learning approach taken by BRS Labs is ushering in video analytics 2.0.  The broader market is now coming to this same realization.

Announcing SecurityDreamer Event Series

SecurityDreamer Events are Back!

We are planning a new series of SecurityDreamer events for 2011 and 2012.  You know them as the premier information sharing and professional networking events in the industry.

We bring together end-user executive decision-makers and influencers from important corporations and public organizations in cities around the world. Hunt Business Intelligence shares recent research findings and everyone learns and laughs together.

Did you miss SecurityDreamer at the Hard Rock Cafe in Atlanta? Did you miss the SecurityDreamer PSIM work group in DC? How about SecurityDreamer at the David Burke Restaurant in Vegas or at Margaritaville, The Botanic Gardens, Around the Coyote Art Gallery and many more interesting fun venues.

SIGN UP. If you are interested in attending our unusual, invitation-only events, tell me a little about yourself in an email steve (dot) hunt (at) huntbi (dot) com.

Another PSIM Acquisition – Verint Acquires Rontal

April 6, 2011 1 comment

For several years I’ve thought Verint had the best slogan: Actionable Intelligence.  I also thought that Nextiva, Verint’s flagship video surveillance product, could not really live up to the slogan.  Adding Israeli software vendor Rontal to the portfolio certainly gets Verint’s technology closer to the promises of the marketing department.

In the past I have resisted placing Rontal in the PSIM category.  It always struck me as a tool for improving incident response but fell short of the information analysis I like to see in a PSIM solution.  Nextiva + Rontal does it for me.  The various components of Nextiva, when combined with Rontal, tell a satisfactory security information management story.

Caveat Vendor – with industry analysts, you don’t always get what you pay for

February 24, 2011 1 comment

There is a problem with honesty in this security industry of ours.  Far more of a problem in the physical/homeland security indsutry than IT/cyber security.  the difference? Critics.

The IT/cyber security industry has dozens of knowledgeable, influential industry analysts constantly pushing end users, VARs and manufacturers, (vendors) to higher levels of performance, quality and customer service.

The physical security had none before I showed up on the scene when I directed my research team at Giga Information Group (later Forrester) to begin tracking trends in physical security in 2000.  I kept thinking I would spark industry improvement in physical security and homeland security by inspiring dozens of industry analysts to cover the huge industry.  Instead, vendors reacted with their panties in a bunch and most consultants I spoke to were chicken-shits, with not enough balls to tell Lenel or SoftwareHouse or Bosch when they smelled snake oil, or when product development aimed low.

So in 2005, I left my job as head of security research at Forrester and opened the first industry analyst firm in physical security – thinking for sure that THAT would start the trend.

I was partly right.  A few “analysts” popped up afterwards.  Forrester and Gartner dabbled in physical security half-heartedly for a few months after I left.  Frost & Sullivan later beefed up their particular brand of analysis combned with their trademark (and dubious) “awards.”  More on that another time.  INS also started making noise.

Finally, some “serious” critics emerged. Jeff Kessler, the long-time Lehman analyst, brought intellectual rigor to financial critique of the entire industry and specific niches.  And John Honovich carved a niche for himself becoming the preeminent critic of IP video solutions.

I am very grateful for John and Jeff.  They largely validated my belief that the physical security industry had room for and could benefit from piercing, honest criticism.  But I’m sad that there are only three of us.  John critiques vendors in the IP video arena on his website, Jeff now works for Imperial Capital and focuses is on numbers, and I focus on best practices for end users.  Three different niches, but it’s just crazy that a $170 bn industry supports only three guys doing real industry analysis.

I’ve criticized Frost & Sullivan and INS elsewhere, not to belabor the point here. The shortcomings of their analysis in this industry are obvious to any observer and I don’t need to harp on them.  In a nutshell, I’m disappointed when any analyst relies on the word (or dollars) of manufacturers.  It is an obvious conflict of interest, and the so-called analyst quickly becomes a shill for vendors, whether they intend to or not.  (Hint: they usually intend to.)

If an analyst performs paid work for a vendor, it should be with the sole purpose of helping that vendor improve its products or solve specific customer problems.  It should also be done privately.

For example, I’ll allow vendors to pay me to critique and plan their product development road map or marketing strategy – but I don’t write publically available white papers and will never publicly trade whatever I’ve discussed with vendor clients privately.  I share my end user research findings with my end user- and investor-customers only.

Analysis should be derived from the analyst’s professional experience with the subject he is analyzing, or by analyzing the experiences of end users.  I believe John touches or in some way directly interacts with with every product he writes about, and then bases what he writes on his highly technical knowledge.  Jeff is similar.  He performs primary research, writes his own analysis of his research based on his extensive knowledge and experience with financial and market analysis, and critiques secondary research.  I talk to hundreds of end users each year and systematically analyze best practices (and worst practices) among the users of just about every kind of security technology.

I still think there is plenty of room for honest critique in the physical security industry.  If only someone else with the guts would step up.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.