I am in Barcelona, Spain with Michael Howard and Adam Shostack at the TechEd EMEA: Developers Conference.

In addition to teaching and attending security sessions, we are in Barcelona to formally announce the launch of the SDL Optimization Model, SDL Pro Network and the Microsoft SDL Threat Modeling Tool Beta!   For those of you who are unaware of these initiatives here’s a description of each…

SDL Optimization Model: The SDL Optimization Model was created to facilitate gradual, consistent and cost-effective implementation of the SDL in development organizations outside of Microsoft. It allows development managers and IT policy-makers to assess the state of the security in development and create a vision and road map for reducing customer risk.

Specific objectives of the model include the following:

·         Enable organizations outside of Microsoft to create more secure and privacy-enhanced software by successfully implementing the SDL

·         Allow organizations to self-assess current software development security practices and create a strategy for gradual improvement

·         Provide SDL Pro Network service providers with a consistent and effective framework for providing SDL services

SDL Pro Network: The SDL Pro Network is a group of security service providers that specialize in application security and have substantial experience and expertise with the methodology and technologies of the Microsoft SDL. SDL Pro Network service providers will guide and support organizations in implementing the SDL into their environments.

The primary focus area for all members, both now and in the future, will be to deliver on the program’s commitment to make the SDL available outside Microsoft, specifically focusing on these issues:

·         Protecting the customer - Helping customers adopt the SDL or general secure coding practices.

·         Improving the SDL - Leveraging member knowledge to understand how the SDL is used by customers, what needs to be modified and what customer needs must be met in the future.

SDL Threat Modeling Tool Beta: The Microsoft SDL Threat Modeling Tool Beta allows for structured analysis, proactive mitigation and tracking of potential security and privacy issues in new and existing applications.  Microsoft developed the tool and we use it internally on many of our products. This tool offers a threat modeling methodology that any software architect can lead effectively — in contrast with other processes, which are more expert-dependent. A few quick notes about the features:

·         Automated guidance and feedback in drawing threat diagrams

·         Guided analysis of threats and mitigations based on the STRIDE taxonomy

·         Integration with bug-and issue-tracking systems like Visual Studio Team Foundation Server

To learn more about these, visit the SDL portal, http://www.microsoft.com/sdl.

By the way, if you are in Barcelona and want to stop by and chat, the session list is below:

SDL Theater Sessions:

·         Getting started with the new SDL Threat Modeling Tool                             

Adam Shostack, Theater 1, Tuesday, Nov. 11, 15:20 – 15:40

·         You could do that but it would be wrong – a discussion of pros/cons of threat mitigations

Michael Howard & Adam Shostack, Theater 1, Thursday, Nov. 13, 10:20 – 10:40

General Sessions:

·         DVP308  How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Threat Modeling      Nov. 12, 10:45 – 12:00

·         DVP309  How to Review Your Code and Test for Security Bugs                  Nov. 13, 3:15 – 4:30

·         DVP312  Top Ten Strategies to Security Your Code                                       Nov. 14, 10:45 – 12:00

Defining Cloud Computing

Cloud computing is a very active community. The Google Group gets 600 posts per month and many bloggers are covering the space. However, “cloud computing” is impossible to define in a way that satisfies everyone (or even most). Cloud computing is not alone in this controversy, consider the definition and meaning of “Web 2.0″, “mashups” or “RESTful architecture”. All of these terms are relatively recent. According to Google Trends, these terms became popular to the general public sometime between 2005 and 2007:

• Web 2.0 - often confused with RIA, AKA Social Computing, Long-Tail Apps, Crowdware (2005 by O’Reilly Media)
• Mashup - made popular by Google Maps, AKA Composite/Situational Apps. (2005)
• REST - Has a strict definition, but many don’t understand it and abuse the term. (2006 by R. Fielding)
• Cloud computing - collides with many other terms, such as SaaS, Grid, Utility, PaaS, etc. (2007)

The definition of cloud computing is in progress:

There’s a Darwinian evolution of the exact definition of cloud computing running around. We’re about a country mile away from “knowing when I see it”, which is excellent progress. The cloud to everyone’s silver-lining has enough material to write a 3 volume desktop reference at this point. - Michael Cote, June 2008

Definition #1 - “Cloud computing is the realisation of Internet (”Cloud”) based development and use of computer technology (”Computing”) delivered by an ecosystem of providers. - Sam Johnston, July 2008

Definition #2 - “Cloud computing = network computing. I love the idea of cloud computing, the next evolution of the most network intensive architecture possible, but one that if it works well, is transparent. It’s all about the transparency.” - Douglas Gourlay, Cisco, May 2008

Definition #3 - “There seems to be a group myopia around so-called “cloud computing” and its definitions. What we’re really talking about are “cloud services” of which, “computing” is only a subset…Cloud services are not SaaS. They are far more akin to web services…” - Randy Bias, neoTactics, May 2008

(Anti-)Definition #4 - “Note that I refer to cloud services, not to the could. I am not interested in defining cloud as a term, because I don’t think it’s very useful. For those of us in the distributed computing’s pace

The Working Definition (Winner!):

“…the notion of providing easily accessible compute and storage resources on a pay-as-you-go, on-demand basis, from a virtually infinite infrastructure managed by someone else. As a customer, you don’t know where the resources are, and for the most part, you don’t care. What’s really important is the capability to access your application anywhere, move it freely and easily, and inexpensively add resources for instant scalability.” - Mitchell Crandell, Rightscale, June 2008

Taxonomies of the Cloud Space

Taxonomies are useful to provide insight into a market. It classifies a multitude of players into a smaller bucket.

Andreessen’s Platforms - September 2007

Provided an early taxonomy model for emerging cloud platforms

Platform being a system that can be programmed

• Access API - platform that provides web service endpoints
• Plug-In API - platform invokes your code, that you have deployed remotely
• Runtime Environment - your code runs inside the platform’s process space.

Mehta 11 Layer Stack, April 2008

1. Facilities (space, power, cooling)
2. Network
3. Hardware (e.g. servers Amazon EC2 runs)
4. Hardware virtualization (e.g. Xen for EC2) - optional
5. O/S (e.g. Linux)
6. Systems Management (e.g., tools to manage EC2 instances)
7. Application Middleware (e.g., MySQL on EC2)
8. Application Code
9. Application APIs / Web Services
10. GUI for Application
11. GUI for Application Development / Customization

Croll Cloud Stack, June 2008

7 layer stack within Turnkey app and Generic Platform.

Turnkey app

• SaaS
• Extensible app
• Generic IDE
• Constrained APIs
• App Cluster
• Virtual Data Center
• Virtual Servers

Generic Platform

The bottom of Alistair’s stack includes “root access “style compute clouds.

Robert Anderson, July 2008

3 layer stack

• Software (SaaS)
• Platform (PaaS)
• Infrastructure (IaaS)

This is the model taxonomy for this session.

Related Concepts and Terms

• Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Hardware as a Service (HaaS) are synonyms to cloud infrastructure.
• Virtualization
• Hosting
• Autonomic computing
• Distributed computing
• Grid computing

Cloud Applications

• SaaS
• S+S (Software+Services)
• Managed Service Provider (MSP)

I say today is a good day for two reasons:  1.)  BT’s CSO Jill Knesek wrote an article called “Keys to establishing an end-to-end security strategy” which begs some discussion within context, and 2.)  Sara Peters on Twitter last night wanted to know why I thought “risk management” requires more than what most “best practices” around the subject suggest the effort requires.

WHAT SHOULD WE BE REFLECTING ABOUT?

Jill Knesek’s article gives us a rough outline of how to develop a security strategy.  It’s fairly high-level, Pragmatic CSO-ish type stuff.  It gives us a nice outline of

• Get a seat at the table
• Process
• People
• Technology

Nothing earth-shattering there.  But it is a very nice broad CISO-level taxonomy about what we have to reflect on.  The need to reflect is driven by something Jack told me long ago,

“The amount of risk we have is a function of the decisions we made and our ability to execute on them from some point in the past”.

As an Aside:  So Sarah if you’re reading, this quote does much to explain why I said I disagree with much of what our industry calls “risk management”.  We tend to define the process of risk management as essentially a tactical “issue whack-a-mole” exercise. Find the issue.  Analyze the “risk” around the issue.  Fix the issue.  Repeat. This hamster-wheel-of-pain, while sometimes an effective tool for the CISO, is incongruous with addressing root causes (the ability to match a tactical issue to the strategic shortcoming that created the issue is up to the expertise of the analyst or consultant).  It is only Kaizen without (good) Hansei, if you will.

Back to what Jill is writing - the sorts of things we should be reflecting about can be thought of in context of her outline.  Namely:

1. Once you have a seat at the table, what is the nature of that relationship?  Who are you reporting to and what are their concerns? What and how are you reporting and how might that be addressing their concerns?
2. What processes are in place?, How do you know that those are the processes that should be in place? If they are, what kind of job am I doing at those processes?
3. What is the quality of the skills and resources I have from a people perspective, and how do I know if they are adequate?  How do I know that the training they petition me for will effectively reduce organizational risk?
4. Are the Technology solutions I have in place effective, are we managing them effectively, and what sort of States of Knowledge could they provide me with (to make good decisions and execute upon them, from above)?

This, for the CISO, is Hansei.  The continuous management of it is Kaizen.  Not to particularly pick on Jill’s article, but creating a “risk register expressed in ALE” might be fine if you’re trying to explain to the board what your “first 100 days in office” will be like - but these sorts of lists are usually not very strategic in nature, and as such, depending on the outcome of that risk register (and the models used to create it) it might not actually be useful.

WHAT IS NEEDED FOR REFLECTION?

So what is needed for this sort of CISO-level Hansei?

The CISO must understand the

• Current State of Nature

turn that into a

• State of Knowledge

and use that to create a

• State of Wisdom.

CREATING A STATE OF NATURE FOR THE IRM PROGRAM

This Current State of Nature determination be done by applying analytical methods to a program audit.  We must understand questions like,  “What is in that program and how is it structured?”  before we can answer questions about “how (good/bad) are we at managing risk?”

There are many ways to structure an IRM program, but as an example - below is a graphic shared with me by Adrian Seccombe.  For those who know Adrian and the Trust Model - this is classified as “white” so it’s OK for public display and consumption.  But here’s what Adrian is trying to build at a high level:

So regarding Adrian’s program diagram:

1. Is a governance framework.  Think ITIL.
2. Is a risk framework.  Think ISO 27002 using FAIR as an analytical engine.  To be fair (pun) I believe this is really issue management, and it’s a process, but that’s OK.
3. Reg compliance should be self explanatory.  That’s essentially what GRC products do for you.
4. With architecture, I think Adrian is inclined towards TOGAF.
5. Security is the ISMS in place (27001, ISM^3, PCI, whatever…)
6. Are the processes that drive execution
7. Monitor (audit) is creating a State of Nature and Evaluate is creating a State of Knowledge from that State of Nature around items 1-6.

EVALUATE - CREATING A STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE IRM PROGRAM

That evaluate is Hansei/Kaizen.  Evaluation, done effectively, will drive actual organizational risk exposure.  Evaluate will even answer those four questions we raised in the “What Should We Be Reflecting About” section above:

1. Once you have a seat at the table, what is the nature of that relationship?  Who are you reporting to and what are their concerns? What and how are you reporting and how might that be addressing their concerns?
2. What processes are in place?, How do you know that those are the processes that should be in place? If they are, what kind of job am I doing at those processes?
3. What is the quality of the skills and resources I have from a people perspective, and how do I know if they are adequate?
4. Are the Technology solutions I have in place effective, are we managing them effectively, and what sort of States of Wisdom do they provide me with (to make good decisions and execute upon them, from above)?

If we could have a nice metric (or set of metrics) that answers these questions, we might call it something like “My Ability To Manage Risk” or MATMR for short.

GETTING TO A STATE OF WISDOM

What’s then missing is how you create a State of Wisdom around the State of Knowledge developed - your “MATMR” metric.  That is, given the current State of Knowledge - how can I be most effective?  This State of Wisdom requires proper models for what risk is, and what you can do to manage it applied in a probabilistic manner (because we can’t intrinsically *know* the future, we can only say with some degree of certainty what the desired course should be).

So the outcome of Hansei/Kaizen should be to create a State of Wisdom about Risk Management.  This is why reflection must be relentless - because your wisdom must be similarly abundant.

This is no small part of the reason RMI exists, why we build software and help organizations understand the things they do.

I realize that security is a system level issue and it takes a long time to change things at that level, but what's more concerning to me is that the typical infosec mindset remains the same. Should we be surprised by rampant phishing and fraud? I am frankly surprised the numbers are so low given the opportunities that the attackers have via the glacial pace of security improvements. Its been three years since that list and I could write the same exact one today for SOAP, REST, SOA, Web 2.0 whatever. Maybe the main reason, beyond failure of imagination, why infosec is so far behind developers is that infosec lacks tools. Developers automate everything possible. Security doesn't. The most promising thing about static analysis is not the ability to find everything, its the ability to find many important things in an automated way. Infosec needs to stop giving people fish and teaching people to fish. Look at Fortify's vulncat site which has a Taxonomy of Coding Errors. Fortify's Seven (plus one) pernicious kingdoms are:

1. A situation model of a complex event is an abstract representation of a described or experienced situation that we wish to detect in real-time.

2. Situation models are composed of four primary objects:

a. A spatial-temporal reference framework (spatial locations, time frames, window size)
b. Entities objects (people, objects, system)
c. Properties of entities objects (velocity, amount, size, price, direction)
d. Object relational information (spatial, temporal, causal, dependence, proximity, network, taxonomy, classification)

3. Situation models of complex events may have three levels of model representation:

a. Situation model (event-specific)
b. Episodic model (coherence sequences of events)
c. Comprehensive model (a comprehensive collection of episodes)

Hence, in a nutshell, it is imperative that we have a situation model for representing complex events if we are going to move CEP forward.    The simple model in this post may or may not be the right one to develop, but at least we have something to talk about.  Ideally, the model should be object-oriented, althought it does not have to be.

When we have a workable model for situations in the context of event processing, we will have a working model for complex events.   Then, with a working model of complex events, we can build a working model for complex event processing. 

References: The New Theory for Situation Models

Had a great time Sunday with Rob Newby. We solved the world’s problems over deep fried whitefish and french fries (fish & chips to him).  It was a very good time, even if my driving did make him a bit uneasy.  If I may quote myself (said in an attempt to soothe Rob’s uneasyness about being lost in the car of a complete stranger in a strange country):

If your life doesn’t imitate the surreal aspects of a Douglas Adams book at least once a day, you’re just not living right.

Aside:  Bruce Scheier already has too many awards and too much recognition, so go vote for Rob instead :)   :  http://robnewby.blogspot.com/2008/07/award-up-for-grabs.html

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND (CURRENT) STATE

Rob and I spent some time discussing risk and security,  and our conversation circled around the (now) recurring blogo-topic concerning the State of the Practice.  It’s a favorite topic of mine, so I’ve been delighted that it has reappeared in blogodom.

Rob writes about it some here in PCI the Priest.  LonerVamp’s and Richard Bejtlich’s blogs talk about Galileo, his confrontation with his church, and lessons we can learn from history (there’s nothing wrong with them recycling the meme, IMHO - because I, for one, never got closure the first time). Jon added a nice quote from Feynman today that’s also inline with the meme.

I’m not going to belabor the analogy, the “art vs. science” misnomer, nor discuss the problems with our various canon (PCI, ISO, CoBTI, COSO, blah, blah, blah).  Rather I’d like to talk about some essential things I think our industry needs to “sort out”  before it can move on towards a more scientific view of the world.  And by “sort out” of course, I mean agree with me on

CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

1 - Can we agree that risk is a probability issue?
Now obviously, you can retreat in probability theory a century or so and claim that risk is a Knightian uncertainty and that we just can’t “know” it.  Have fun.  But you should know that there’s the catch - “security” is also a probability issue.  So I’m betting that you can’t know “secure” for much of the same reasons Frank Knight would argue we can’t know “risky”.

But if risk (and security) is a probability issue, however, then we’re going to have to do better than “A’s in three college courses in statistics” to address the problem.  We will have to do as Curphey (and others) suggest and bring elements of other disciplines to bear on our problem space.  Let me suggest probability theory and economics as fine, fine places to start.

2 - Can we agree to stop measuring stupidly?
We have to agree that Ordinal Scales are not measurements, and Interval Scales are not useful measurements?

I had a post titled “More Ways To Confuse Your Auditor/Assessor” but it turned out to be a pretty cruel discussion about how we tend to try to act like our calculations based on ordinal or interval scales are useful (hint:  insist that your auditor/assessor/consultant replace the label “one” with the label “zero”).

Note that if risk is a probability issue, then we’re going to have to throw out the concepts of measuring in any scale other than a ratio anyhow.

3 - Can we agree on a (good) taxonomy?
We’re going to have to do (much) better than ISO 27005 (nudge, nudge).

4 - Can we agree we need to do a better job with our data?
We’re going to have to do better with measurements, metrics, models and testing.

It’s a shame that honeypots tend to be under appreciated.

5 - Can we agree to test that data and share it with each other?
We may not need to share specific data, but we will need to share when a model falls down.

I’d like to be as idealistic as some of my fellow ‘New Schoolers’ and suggest we’ll someday all be sharing data together, but I’m skeptical.  But that doesn’t mean we can’t demonstrate where results from the models we use are not repeatable, consistent or logical.   One thing Rob and I talked about at length yesterday was the ability to disprove a model using realistic but “substitute” or sanitized data.  There’s gonna be a TON of work to be done here, and that work will take not years but careers.  Which begs a great question:

Is it the sharing of data that we need, or the sharing of models?

HELP ME OUT, HERE
That’s my list of 5 fundamental concepts I wish we could move past.  Let me ask you - what else am I missing?  What’s it going to take to get past our current malaise?  How does the New School reach critical mass?  Who is going to help us agree in a centralized manner?

Your comments or own blog posts are most welcome (please include a trackback or post here)

Next, insert appropriate morbid jokes <here> for "IDS is dead", "NAC is dead", "GRC is dead", everybody is dead... WTF? Are we at the cemetery or what? Is "dead" dead? Yeah, but it came back as a zombie :-) So, "dead" is a "living dead" "dead" now. Ha*3.

Finally, think! Why were you thinking of buying a SIEM? 'Cause the big "G" in the sky said so? And while you are thinking, check these fun points out:

1. Does your SIEM require 17 beefy servers to operate? How many gallons of foreign oil have to go up in smoke to power that mammoth up? And you know what happened to mammoths, don't you?
2. If your "high-performance" SIEM appliance can only run 5 correlation rules at the same time, what "high" do they mean, really? Hold this thought....
3. Is five field engineers, two developers and CTO enough to install it? Who else needs to help? Ah, sorry, I missed the DBA :-)
4. Do you know when "If CustomVariable17 = Value5" condition matches? Will you still remember it in a year?
5. Can you tell "taxonomy" from "ontology"? You can now? Good for you. Are you more secure now? More efficient? Compliant?
6. How many shifts of security analysts do you have watching the shiny consoles 24/7? If zero, then why - oh - why those consoles are running in the first place? "If a tree falls..." - you know how this one ends. Correct! You get hit by the bough.
7. When was the last time you built a custom agent for parsing and normalizing, say, SAP logs? Did it work? What did you do after it didn't? Cried? And did it help? Then a burly vendor SE showed up, charged you $37,600 and left? Happy now?
8. Do you automatically correlate IDS/IPS alerts with vulnerability data ... for client-side attacks? Really? :-)
9. There are dozens of firewall, IDS/IPS, router, etc brands, each with its own log type. This is actually simple! But there are thousands upon thousands of applications in use today. Some have logs. All are different. Care to build rules for that? Now you finally know why SIEM vendors don't parse their own Java logs (no shit!)
10. Do you know what "threat x vulnerability x random()" equals to? Yup, it still equals random(). Automated prioritization, you say?
11. Do you know why some SIEM vendors are migrating to IT GRC now? So they can go and die there ... quietly.

All in all, I have to agree with Raffy to a large extent!  The world has evolved - and SIEM has not. It might not be dead (as old attacks and defenses never really die and large organization still build and man massive SOCs where SIEM is "a must"), but in this age of web application hacking, CSRF and XSS, phishing, PCI DSS, massive bot armies, client-side 0-days, stealth malware, etc, paying $x,000,000 for a pile of ugly Java code is insane ... As a result, SIEM has greatly diminished in importance and has become just one small thing you might do with logs and some other data. What made it so? Mostly implementation complexity - but a slew of other factors mentioned above as well.

So, consider this instead:

• Compliance? "Sorry, buddy, you need this for compliance, not that. "
• Want to simplify your incident response? Get log management and fly through all your logs, not crawl through some of them.
• Have a very real need to dig into your logs for troubleshooting or tracking that pesky user? Log management works.

Now, what if you have a latent and vague desire to "correlate something" and a million nice greenbacks to flush down the drain? OK, go get your SIEM toy for $780,000 + 20% maintenance/year ... a true bargain (price valid today only).

Finally, I would like to end this on an optimistic note. Do we need more intelligence to analyze the log data we have collected? Of course! Do we have a widest set of log use cases from today's security  to tomorrow's regulations? You bet. And, for you Raffy, I'd add "... we also have other data to analyze together with logs." So, can we "reinvent SIEM?" Yes, I think so! It just hasn't been done yet ... For now, just use log management.

CISCO WEBINAR UPDATE
First, Jack’s Webinar with Cisco is Thursday.  If you were lucky enough to get a slot, be sure to catch it.  If you didn’t get a slot but would like to still go, let me know (info –at– riskmanagementinsight–dot–com - subject Webinar).

RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARDS AND FAIR

Second, The Open Group has a Press Release out this morning:

“The Open Group Security Forum Initiates Development of Risk Management and Analysis Taxonomy”

You might know The Open Group from their efforts with UNIX or SOA or helping the Jericho Forum.  You’ll recall that a while back I had mentioned that RMI was working withThe Open Group, and today’s announcement is a culmination of about a year and a half worth of effort there.   Today The Open Group formally announces our (we’re members) intent to put a stake in the ground concerning risk and risk management.

Our goal is common language and common models to create meaning.  This has the capacity to change everything - the way we audit, the way we talk to other lines of business, the way we gather metrics… a Herculean effort, to be sure, but I think that The Open Group is one organization that can effect change because it is:

• Open & Participatory - Unlike many organizations developing security standards, anyone can join and anyone can contribute.  Because there are real people (doing real risk work) as members of the forum, you won’t sit back at the end of some work day working on risk and think, “Who are these people, and why are they making my life so miserable with all these unnecessary hoops to jump through?”

• Authoritative and Structured - That is, change is welcome but carefully instituted.

These are important qualities to me.  When you look around at some of the risk management efforts out there, too often you’ll find that the people instituting models and standards are removed from the actual practitioner, and/or the institution creating these standards are autocratic.  The change our profession needs cannot happen from one vendor or from one  bureaucracy that takes little account for the wishes and opinions of it’s constituency.

YET ANOTHER RISK MANAGEMENT EFFORT?

Some folks may be thinking “do we really need another risk management effort?” And really, I sympathize with the thought.  There’s ISO risk management stuff, there’s OCTAVE and NIST 800-30 and AS/NZ 340 and CRAM and FRAP and others…

And this is where I think FAIR and The Open Group have a good fit.  FAIR as a model for analysis, does not compete but rather compliments OCTAVE and NIST 800-30 and ISO 2700x (That reminds me, Rybolov, I’ve got to respond to your 800-30 article). In fact, one of the goals for the work with The Open Group is supporting documentation (call them white papers or guidance letters or whatever) that talks about how to use FAIR and the work of The Open Group Forum with ISO 27001 or as probability determination within OCTAVE, or in context with COSO efforts, etc…

SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU?

Well, it means a couple of things.  First, you have somewhere to go where people are vetting the models.  There is a forum of users and people with the same risk management issues and challenges as you have, but that are committed to working together to make things better.  A forum in which you can contribute and work to vet models against experience.  A forum that is a “vendor- and technology-neutral consortium” with experience building standards that work to interoperate across organizational and industrial boundaries.

Second, it means that you have a nice reference point for people who want it.  Defending the use of FAIR over some other analysis method got a little easier thanks to the increased credibility of The Open Group.

Third, new and exciting things are already happening at The Open Group in the Security Forum surrounding new standards and new ways of doing business.  Even if Risk Analysis isn’t your primary passion, let me encourage you to get involved with The Open Group’s Security Forum. Mike Jerbic and Ian Dobson there both have a passion to help codify what works and what helps security and risk management departments, regardless of “silo” or discipline.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO RMI?
If you’re an employee, or client, or just a well-wisher, today’s announcement is just one culminating factor of the past year of changes RMI has undergone.  The announcement means that we’re now no longer the sole custodians of FAIR, but simply part of a larger effort to drive a better understanding of risk in our industry.  We (RMI) have a responsibility support and contribute to the effort, but the journey is no longer ours alone.  We’ve got friends.

New Website

I think our new website reflects who we are and what we do better now.  It takes into account not just what we can do because of FAIR, but also what we’ve been able to synthesize because of it (and the use of our other models and frameworks to create a whole picture of what is Risk Management).  The primary focus of our message no longer needs be that we’ve got something new and cool that makes you better - we’re freer to talk about our experience and abilities - very much reflecting the maturity we’re experiencing as a company.