First of all, as background information, I learned the Thai alphabet (script with 44 consonants and 32 vowels) nearly 20 years ago, so I have have a pretty decent foundation for the Thai language compared to most foreigners visting or working in Thailand.   I can read (slowly) and speak better than 99.99+ percent of all foreigners in Thailand.  For this reason, I thought it was ”the right thing to do” to redirect my career to a “new challenge” in the business climate of Thailand as I continue to improve my foreign language skills.   I wanted to help Thailand progress in IT and IT security, so where else would I go but where I have second language skills?

This was no small decision as you can imagine.  Your career and life changes quite dramatically when you give up a long established consulting practice in the US and dive into business in a foreign land, seeking a new challenge.  I can frankly tell you thatit is more difficult to do business in Thailand (as a foreigner) than I expected, for a number of reasons.  Here is my first off-topic post on this topic.

First of all, it is not legal for foreigners to directly own land in Thailand.  Foreigners can ”own” land using a variety of legal loopholes, proxy owners and shell companies; but all of this is risky and not advised.  Many foreigners lose a lot of money coming to Thailand and attempting to buy land via various “structures”.  Some get lucky, but the entire process of foreigners buying and selling land is quite risky and not recommended.

Foreigners can legally own condominiums, under certain conditions, but this “foreign market” results in inflated prices for condos in Thailand that are traded in an “artificial market place” designed for foreigners.   Condos in Bangkok and major resort areas that are up-to-par with condos in the US can easily cost more than condos in major cities in the US.  Hence, the cost of living in Thailand is not as economical as some might believe when you visit Thailand as a tourist.

Second, business in Thailand can best be described as protectionism with discrimination where the government has placed many barriers to entry to foreigners working and competing in Thailand.     Every foreigner must have a work permit and these work permits are expensive and time consuming to maintain.   If you own a business you must pay high professional service fees for “auditors” to perform annual and semiannual audits regardless of how much income you have (including zero).   Firms in Thailand charge thousands of dollars for these ”audits”.      

Third, if you operate a business in Thailand, you must have a place of business (you cannot legally work from your condo you bought at high prices!), so you are forced, by law, to lease office space.   Foreigners from the US, for example, must be paid a minimum of 50,000 Thai Baht per month, so the government will take 10 percent of that each month as their share of tax withholdings.  Startups with no income simply pay income taxes against their personal savings to comply with the law.  Therefore, to start a company and maintain the business in Thailand, you are required to pay significant startup, monthly, semi-annual and annual fees, permits, tax, leases, visas, etc. 

Forth, generating incoming revenue in Thailand can be quite difficult in a climate of both protectionism and discrimination.   In Thailand, it is easy when you are spending money.  This is the ”Land of Smiles” that tourists see and experience.   However, when you are legally permitted to work in Thailand and trying to generate in-country income, you cannot help but notice the protectionism and discrimination against foreigners working and living here.  Many foreigners working in Thailand just “give up” because the barriers to business success are quite high.

Fifth, on top of the challenges of protectionism/discrimination regarding foreigners and foreign investments, which I have only just scratched the surface here, is the overall global business slowdown combined with a climate of political instability which I am sure you have seen in the news.  Thailand has seen 18 coups since 1932.   Currently, Thailand is under a State-of-Emergency  which negatively impacts business even more.  Sound challenging? 

Most people who live and work in Thailand have the opinion that it is far better to enjoy being a tourist here. Working in Thailand is very difficult for many reasons.   Being a tourist in Thailand is completely different than working here.  When you are a tourist, foreign currently flows from you into Thailand, so life in Thailand as a tourist is fun and friendly, hence the “Land of Smiles” you have heard about or experienced.     However, when you are working in Thailand and trying to generate income from Thailand versus bringing in foreign currency, you don’t see the “Land of Smiles” quite the same anymore.

Without getting into too many details in this post, I can simply say that a foreigner doing business in Thailand experiences both protectionism and discrimination.  I came to Thailand hoping to contribute my experience to help the Kingdom.  However, sometimes it feels like foreigners are only welcome if you are working for free, giving seminars for free, and bringing in lots of foreign currency here.

In a future post on business in Thailand I will dive into some details on a number of topics that might be of interest to readers who will never have a chance to come and work here.   

First of all, I learned the Thai alphabet nearly 20 years ago, so I have have a pretty good foundation for the Thai language.   I can read (slowly) and speak better than 99.99+ percent of all foreigners in Thailand; so, I thought it was time to redirect my career to a “new challenge” in the business climate of Thailand.   

This was no small decision.  Your career changes dramatically when you give up a successful consulting practice in the US and dive into business in a foreign land for a new challenge.  I can frankly tell you that often the challenge is sometimes overwhelming.    It is quite difficult as a foreigner to do business in Thailand.

First of all, it is not legal for foreigners to own land in Thailand.  Foreigners can ”own” land using a variety of legal loopholes, proxy owners and shell companies; but all of this is risky and not advised.  Foreigners lose a lot of money coming to Thailand and attempting to buy land.  Some get lucky, but the entire process of foreigners buying and selling land is quite risky.

Foreigners can own condos, under certain conditions, but this results in  inflated prices for condos in Thailand that are traded in an artificial market place.   Condos that are up-to-par with condos in the US can easily cost more than condos in major cities in the US.  Hence, the cost of living is not as cheap as some might believe.

Business can best be described as “protectism” where the government has placed many barriers to entry to foreigners working in Thailand.     Every foreigner must have a work permit and these work permits are expensive and time consuming to maintain.   If you own a business you must pay high professional service fees for auditors to perform annual and semiannual audits even if your business has no income yet.   Firms in Thailand charge thousands of dollars for these ”audits”.      

In addition, if you operate a business, you must have a place of business, so you are forced to lease office space.   Foreigners from the US must be paid a minimum of 50,000 Thai Baht per month, so the government will take 10 percent of that each month as their share of tax withholdings.   Therefore, to start a company, you will pay a lot of money in startup fees, permits, tax, leases, visas, etc.  The entire system is designed to secure money from you, even if you do not have a penny of incoming revenue.

Of course, generating incoming revenue can be quite difficult in a climate of protectionism.   In Thailand, it is easy when you are spending money.  When you are trying to generate income from Thailand, as a foreigner the challenge can seem overwhelming at times.   Many foreigners here give up because the barriers to business here are very high.

On top of all these challenges, which I have not described in detail, is the overall global business slowdown combined with a climate of political instability, which I am sure you have seen in the news.  

Most people I know say it is better to be a tourist here.   Being a tourist is completely different.  Money flows from you, so life in Thailand is fun and friendly, complimentary to the “Land of Smiles” you have heard about.     However, when you are working to have money flow the other direction, flow to you versus away from you, you don’t see the “Land of Smiles” as tourists experience.

Without getting into too many details, I can simply say that a foreigner doing business in Thailand experiences protectionism and, to a certain degree, discrimination, and sometimes I wonder if coming here for a “business challenge” was a good idea.    I was seeking a “new challenge” and I got more than I bargained for!

In a future post on business in Thailand I will discuss issues regarding how little value is placed in intellectual property in Thailand and how this adversely impacts professional services.    I will also touch on how this lack of regard for intellectual property impacts a consulting practice.   Also, I will touch on some cultural differences in how Thais appear to view teamwork, which is very different than in the US.

Cablevision will ultimately spend about $300m in building a Wi-Fi network exclusively for its customers; 2.4m of these customers qualify to use the service at no cost. There's no pay as you go option, no monthly subscription; you're either a subscriber of theirs, or not. It's a fascinating strategy, because they're leveraging all these dollars as a tool to crack its competitors in the market. With increasing competition from telephone companies that are offering television service, cable companies need to compete on voice, data, and video, as well as well as on mobile offerings. When the network is built, Cablevision can conceivably offer Wi-Fi telephony service, too.

I'm dying to know what the reduced churn rate and increase in subscriptions will be in six months. Given that hotspot access costs $10 to $30 per month depending on the network, Cablevision is delivering something of value. It's great honey for new subscribers and glue to keep current subscribers.

The company is claiming that with this latest activation, they have the largest Wi-Fi network for consumers in the U.S. They're likely correct. The only other public access network of scale that's being used by large numbers is in Minneapolis, and based on what I know about both networks, Cablevision probably deserves bragging rights. The network in Taipei, Taiwan, is likely still larger, but I haven't heard any usage number in nearly two years; at that point, subscription rates were 10 percent of what had been projected.

“I am generally not an alarmist, but I have become more and more concerned about the state of our country and its innovation,” she said last week, explaining why she wrote her book, “Closing the Innovation Gap,” which arrives in bookstores Tuesday. “We have a national innovation deficit.”

Ms. Estrin’s book is the latest call to action during the last several years by scientists, technologists and political leaders worried about the country’s future competitiveness in technology.

In 2005, the National Academies published “Rising Above the Gathering Storm,” a report requested by Congress, which found that federal financing of research in the physical sciences was 45 percent less in 2004 than in 1976 and that 93 percent of students in grades five through eight learn science from teachers who do not hold degrees or certifications in the topics.

...

“There is a remarkable telescoping in of vision and an unwillingness to make long-term bets,” said Vinton G. Cerf, the chief Internet evangelist at Google.

Geez, its like no one ever read "The Only Sustainable Edge" or something...

It's become a big deal in IT security, too. Many corporate customers are demanding ROI models to demonstrate that a particular security investment pays off. And in response, vendors are providing ROI models that demonstrate how their particular security solution provides the best return on investment.

It's a good idea in theory, but it's mostly bunk in practice.

Before I get into the details, there's one point I have to make. "ROI" as used in a security context is inaccurate. Security is not an investment that provides a return, like a new factory or a financial instrument. It's an expense that, hopefully, pays for itself in cost savings. Security is about loss prevention, not about earnings. The term just doesn't make sense in this context.

But as anyone who has lived through a company's vicious end-of-year budget-slashing exercises knows, when you're trying to make your numbers, cutting costs is the same as increasing revenues. So while security can't produce ROI, loss prevention most certainly affects a company's bottom line.

And a company should implement only security countermeasures that affect its bottom line positively. It shouldn't spend more on a security problem than the problem is worth. Conversely, it shouldn't ignore problems that are costing it money when there are cheaper mitigation alternatives. A smart company needs to approach security as it would any other business decision: costs versus benefits.

The classic methodology is called annualized loss expectancy (ALE), and it's straightforward. Calculate the cost of a security incident in both tangibles like time and money, and intangibles like reputation and competitive advantage. Multiply that by the chance the incident will occur in a year. That tells you how much you should spend to mitigate the risk. So, for example, if your store has a 10 percent chance of getting robbed and the cost of being robbed is $10,000, then you should spend $1,000 a year on security. Spend more than that, and you're wasting money. Spend less than that, and you're also wasting money.

Of course, that $1,000 has to reduce the chance of being robbed to zero in order to be cost-effective. If a security measure cuts the chance of robbery by 40 percent -- to 6 percent a year -- then you should spend no more than $400 on it. If another security measure reduces it by 80 percent, it's worth $800. And if two security measures both reduce the chance of being robbed by 50 percent and one costs $300 and the other $700, the first one is worth it and the second isn't.

The Data Imperative

The key to making this work is good data; the term of art is "actuarial tail." If you're doing an ALE analysis of a security camera at a convenience store, you need to know the crime rate in the store's neighborhood and maybe have some idea of how much cameras improve the odds of convincing criminals to rob another store instead. You need to know how much a robbery costs: in merchandise, in time and annoyance, in lost sales due to spooked patrons, in employee morale. You need to know how much not having the cameras costs in terms of employee morale; maybe you're having trouble hiring salespeople to work the night shift. With all that data, you can figure out if the cost of the camera is cheaper than the loss of revenue if you close the store at night -- assuming that the closed store won't get robbed as well. And then you can decide whether to install one.

Cybersecurity is considerably harder, because there just isn't enough good data. There aren't good crime rates for cyberspace, and we have a lot less data about how individual security countermeasures -- or specific configurations of countermeasures -- mitigate those risks. We don't even have data on incident costs.

One problem is that the threat moves too quickly. The characteristics of the things we're trying to prevent change so quickly that we can't accumulate data fast enough. By the time we get some data, there's a new threat model for which we don't have enough data. So we can't create ALE models.

But there's another problem, and it's that the math quickly falls apart when it comes to rare and expensive events. Imagine you calculate the cost -- reputational costs, loss of customers, etc. -- of having your company's name in the newspaper after an embarrassing cybersecurity event to be $20 million. Also assume that the odds are 1 in 10,000 of that happening in any one year. ALE says you should spend no more than $2,000 mitigating that risk.

So far, so good. But maybe your CFO thinks an incident would cost only $10 million. You can't argue, since we're just estimating. But he just cut your security budget in half. A vendor trying to sell you a product finds a Web analysis claiming that the odds of this happening are actually 1 in 1,000. Accept this new number, and suddenly a product costing 10 times as much is still a good investment.

It gets worse when you deal with even more rare and expensive events. Imagine you're in charge of terrorism mitigation at a chlorine plant. What's the cost to your company, in money and reputation, of a large and very deadly explosion? $100 million? $1 billion? $10 billion? And the odds: 1 in a hundred thousand, 1 in a million, 1 in 10 million? Depending on how you answer those two questions -- and any answer is really just a guess -- you can justify spending anywhere from $10 to $100,000 annually to mitigate that risk.

Or take another example: airport security. Assume that all the new airport security measures increase the waiting time at airports by -- and I'm making this up -- 30 minutes per passenger. There were 760 million passenger boardings in the United States in 2007. This means that the extra waiting time at airports has cost us a collective 43,000 years of extra waiting time. Assume a 70-year life expectancy, and the increased waiting time has "killed" 620 people per year -- 930 if you calculate the numbers based on 16 hours of awake time per day. So the question is: If we did away with increased airport security, would the result be more people dead from terrorism or fewer?

Caveat Emptor

This kind of thing is why most ROI models you get from security vendors are nonsense. Of course their model demonstrates that their product or service makes financial sense: They've jiggered the numbers so that they do.

This doesn't mean that ALE is useless, but it does mean you should 1) mistrust any analyses that come from people with an agenda and 2) use any results as a general guideline only. So when you get an ROI model from your vendor, take its framework and plug in your own numbers. Don't even show the vendor your improvements; it won't consider any changes that make its product or service less cost-effective to be an "improvement." And use those results as a general guide, along with risk management and compliance analyses, when you're deciding what security products and services to buy.

This essay previously appeared in CSO Magazine.

Parlez-vous open source? While wide-spread open source usage is still debated in many companies, the French have been advocating for all open source all the time in government and education. French President Nicolas Sarkozy set up an economic commission that recommended tax benefits to stimulate more open source development. Lesson learned from France: start ‘em early. “All students in France use open source.”

Just in time for Labor Day, John Edwards (no, not that one) comes out with an informative guide on “Who provides what in the cloud”. No doubt, this will be a rapidly expanding list, but what’s really interesting is the comment on the article. People have very strong opinions on the cloud…

Research firm Aberdeen Group reports that network costs will increase slightly more than 5 percent over 2007. Contributing factors: “need for speed”, shift from standard to mobile PCs (more end points of connectivity), and the ever-expanding network. And of course the hidden costs of multiple tools with multiple management consoles – if you’re not smart enough to choose say a comprehensive network management solution that is vendor agnostic…One tool to monitor them all…

And just because I miss the Olympics already, here’s an irreverent take on what it’s like to lose to Michael Phelps. http://www.thetechstop.net/?p=1503

Enjoy your long Labor Day Weekend!

The numbers we found interesting:

- only 21% currently deploying virtualization have any kind of systems management solutions for their virtual infrastructure

- about 27% are managing performance/ability of virtual systems with same tools they use for physical servers (Nothing wrong with that as long as they’re seeing what they need to see but…)

- 40 percent of those surveyed do not report the performance of their virtualized applications, hardware, operating systems, or their virtual machines in any measureable way (which rather undercuts the whole point)

Get the full results here.

Changing Behavior

1. Educate yourself.
At least every 6 to 12 months, surfers should browse the educational information provided by their operating system and security vendors and subscribe to any security-related newsletters they might offer. According to David Perry, familiarity with the latest threats, dangers, and recommended safety tips will allow surfers to make safe choices. “Until you know what’s out there, you’re just flying blind. Without an education, you’re wide open”.
2. Avoid suspect sites.
While criminals can infect even mainstream Web sites, sites such as gambling sites, adult Internet sites, and illegal file-sharing sites are far more likely to carry malicious code. Web sites that offer “something for nothing” frequently recoup their losses by infecting visitors’ PCs.
3. Lose Your Comfort Zone.

Recommended Technology

4. Use an updated virus scanning suite.
The most important component of any threat mitigation system is a virus scanning suite. In addition to detecting and removing known viruses and malware, modern virus scanning suites provide additional protections against new attacks by disabling their known protocols. For example, Trend Micro™ Internet Security encrypts keyboard traffic, protecting personal data from keyboard logging programs that might go unnoticed. Users should update their scanner and virus definitions as frequently as possible to ensure the best possible coverage.
5. Upgrade your OS and browser.
In addition to offering more features, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer version 7 and the latest Mozilla Firefox are both substantially more secure than previous-generation browsers. Users of older browsers should upgrade immediately to take advantage of increased security. Similarly, Windows Vista and Mac OS X are more secure than their predecessors, and users of older operating systems should consider upgrading, as well.
6. Disable scripting and “widgets.”
Many Web-based attacks use various scripting languages to run infectious programs in a browser or use downloadable “widgets” to execute infections locally. By disabling scripting and avoiding downloadable widgets wherever possible, surfers disable these common attack vectors.
7. Rate your Web pages.
Some available services rate the risk of Web pages in search results, allowing surfers to avoid unwanted content and hidden threats before viewing the pages. Rating applications (e.g., Trend Micro TrendProtect™) consume few system resources and run unobtrusively, so they are suitable for any Web-enabled personal computer.
8. Ask your provider.
Commerce companies, banks, and credit card associations are all interested in computer security, and many offer additional features. For example, Visa’s Verified By Visa program requires cardholders to enter a second password to identify themselves during a transaction, while businesses in Poland require cell-phone confirmation of credit card purchases. While nothing will be 100 percent effective, any additional security measure provided by a trusted source will increase protection, and surfers should adopt as many as possible.

This article provided for your reading pleasure by Trend Micro.

Based upon talking with Microsoft customers over the past five years, they are always looking for that little bit of extra information to help make prioritization decisions.  An obvious example of this is the severity attached to the vulns.  However, as explained by Mike Reavey of the the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) over on the Ecostrat blog today, customers are also very interested in which vulnerabilities already have exploit code or sample exploits available.

According to our analysis in the most recent Security Intelligence Report (SIR), only about 30 percent of the vulnerabilities we fix each year have exploit code released.  Why is it not 100% ?  Some are not interesting to attackers, sure, but some are simply more challenging to develop a consistent exploit against.  It seems like it would be practically useful if this sort of information could be analyzed and published for customers.

How does one come up with an Exploitability Index?

• The MSRC will analyze the vulnerability and explore what it would take to exploit it, with the support of our Security Vulnerability Research & Defense (SVRD) team.  This will include leveraging methodologies from the broad researcher community.
• We will also ask security researcher members of the Microsoft Active Protections Program (MAPP) (download FAQ) to review the vulnerabilities and check our analysis before releasing the index.

The idea of the Exploitability Index is to provide more information to help customers prioritize Microsoft security updates. This Index will reflect our best estimate, scrutinized by MAPP partners, of the likelihood of a functional exploit being developed for a given vulnerability.

If you are interested, I did an interview with Mike Reavey a while back, where we discuss what sort of information customers want that isn't yet in Security Bulletins.  FYI, the video is about 15 minutes long and the early part focuses on Mike, how he got into security and how he ended up at Microsoft before we get to the Security Bulletin discussion ... if you want to get right to the Security Bulletin discussion, skip forward to about 08:40.

If you like these sorts of videos, click on
SecurityGuy 001 - Interview with MSRC Leader Mike Reavey and it'll take you to the edge.technet.com site and you can check out the related videos.

Regards ~ Jeff