NetSPI Blog

Posts Tagged ‘risk’

Secure360

Deke George | Friday, May 21st, 2010

We held the Secure360 conference in the Twin Cities last week. Presentation topics included PCI, cloud computing, and problems within the security industry. While it can get tiring discussing the industry’s problems, I like trying to understand the difficult nature of information security and enjoy the challenge of trying to overcome the obstacles related to rationally dealing with risk.

On this topic, Rich Mogull had a very good presentation, “Putting the Fun in Dysfunctional,” about the inherent problems with information security. I appreciate insights from someone with both an IT and a physical security background and I thought he did a nice job discussing why security is such a difficult area for a business to understand.  I agree with the points he made that at the most simple level security and risk are abstract, long-term concepts that require a rational approach.  Rich did a good (and entertaining) job of illustrating that, as humans, we are often not rational. Generally we deal in the short-term and prioritize with our basic needs. In the context of a corporate environment, understanding and dealing with risk is extremely difficult.  

I’d add to Rich’s discussion that in most organizations building mature risk management is essentially like playing a game of telephone across functional departments, most of which find risk and security to be totally foreign concepts (except, of course, at financial institutions).

Rich’s thesis created a nice framework for the other core topics at the conference. A number of presentations dealt with the dangers of cloud computing. Because we created the cloud without rationally dealing with risk and security, it’s an afterthought; there are huge holes in cloud computing security and therefore significant risk.  David Bryan had a great presentation on the subject.

The other core topic, PCI, is generally thought of as a compliance issue.  Anton Chuvakin put some context around PCI and how it fits as a basis for a security program.  I’ve seen a number of organizations do this, and Anton did a nice job outlining the gaps related to using the standard as a basis. While no standard is ideal, it’s a start and generally kick starts a maturation of risk management within organizations that adopt the approach.

Overall, the Secure360 conference was very good and the speakers both local and national were great.  Kudos to the organizers. I look forward to next year.

Permalink | Email the Author

Compliance vs. Risk

Deke George | Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

As a company, we’ve tried to understand which organizations are most likely to mature their information security programs. It seems that the answer should be obvious: organizations with valuable assets or the need to have data highly available should be very concerned about information security. This could translate into organizations that have a lot to lose, ones that have high profit margins, or those involved with the nation’s critical infrastructure.

Interestingly, this is generally not the case. In fact, the primary drivers for maturing information security within an organization are regulations or contractual standards with strong penalties for non-compliance.

Why is this? One problem is that risk is very subjective. In a downturn, the risk equation can change dramatically. If you are fighting for the survival of a firm, it’s easy to justify not investing in information security. Compliance, however, is not as subjective. While there is room for some interpretation, compliance regulations and standards are stable, detailed, and consistent. This means that compliance is easier to justify, easier to plan for, and easier to assess.

But while meeting compliance standards can be a very good thing, it does create a problem: risk is often left out of the equation. For example, payment card industry (PCI) data often gets more attention at hospital systems than does protected health information (PHI). Based on risk, the patient-related data and services should be classified as at least as important as the credit card information. It usually is not, however. Without a risk-based approach or a strong compliance standard like PCI, PHI won’t get the attention it deserves. (The PHI standards are being tightened somewhat, by provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA, passed this year by Congress.)

Compliance can help speed the maturation process, and it is valuable in other ways, but it lacks the depth and breadth of a risk-based approach. Additionally, creating regulations and standards for all things that should be secured just isn’t possible. In an ideal world, organizations will take a more holistic, risk-based approach that includes compliance, but this may have to wait until the economy turns around.

Permalink | Email the Author