Security & Risk

Identity management projects do not have a good reputation for successful delivery. Too often, the final implementation fails to live up to promises. Identity management projects can deliver genuine value to a business, including: compliance with regulation, improving customer satisfaction, or reducing risk. But if the business is not driving the project, then the project is probably off the rails and heading for failure. In this situation, CIOs must seriously consider terminating the project because a project not driven by the business is one being imposed on it – it is the tail wagging the dog.

IT security strategies are an invaluable resource as a means of coordinating security efforts and in improving funding approval for security projects – because they can be shown to be following a coherent consistent strategy. The process to create them is an overlooked source of value for the information that it uncovers. An IT security strategy must be closely aligned with what the business believes its security and risk priorities to be. The process of uncovering business impact against various systems is likely to bring up unexpected gaps in knowledge for both IT and the business, and it is here you will find additional gold.

Patching is now considered a standard part of IT operations. Vendors release patches either to mitigate against new risks, or to introduce new functionality. However, the application of a patch can not only result in the intended outcome (risk mitigation or expanded functionality), it can also have unintended consequences. Organisations looking at creating a patching strategy should ensure that the business stakeholders are clear on the potential impact of both patching, and non-patching. Either choice carries risk. What will make the difference for organisations are security professionals who can crisply articulate the balance of these technical risks as they pertain to the business requirements of the organisation.

Up to this point I’ve been a supporter of data breach notification. Coming at the issue as an industry analyst, I think that transparent information on the local experience of data breaches (such as what information is targeted by attackers, how much it costs a company to deal with a breach, the frequency of breaches, the avenues of attack, and so on) would be extremely valuable to the in...

As cloud services - typically Software as a Service - become increasingly accepted, the IT industry is gaining valuable experience in the actual risks of putting data in the cloud. Most of these risks centre around data confidentiality. Knowing the actual risks, rather than the fear, uncertainty and doubt that vendors and security consultants can throw at the cloud, enables CIOs to make informed choices and recommendations to the business on cloud usage.

Most vendors emphasise their strengths and obfuscate to hide their weaknesses when responding to an RFT (Request for Tender) for IT products and services. Detecting their weaknesses by unravelling their obfuscation is often a major task for the evaluation team or panel. Failure to detect weaknesses could lead to the wrong vendor (tenderer) being selected and reflect poorly on the team.

Whether in the domain of IT security, or in corporate fraud, when an organisation has been successfully attacked, what makes the difference is knowing that the attack occurred, and knowing as soon as possible. For organisations working to make their IT security budget go further, having a third party service provider check security logs is proving to be a cost effective form of selective outsourcing. Of course, this service doesn’t make an organisation perfectly secure, but early knowledge is vital to incident response and loss minimisation.

Organisations are finding that there are potentially many benefits to deploying a single smartcard that can perform multiple functions. A unified smartcard carries the possibility to reduce costs, improve security, and improve user experience. However, the complexity of a smartcard deployment is a function of the number of business units and processes that will be touched, and so thorough research and planning is essential. Strong political will from an executive sponsor is also imperative to success, and can be generated with a business case that is explicit on what the intention, and ranked objectives, of the deployment are.

Despite the apparent value of the DSD’s Top 35 Mitigation Strategies report, organisations considering executing its recommendations will have to weigh up the business impact of implementation. In some instances, a mitigation strategy may be too intrusive on business operations. For some, the cost of ongoing support may be too high. However, the most significant barrier will be communicating risk to the business, and the need for a given strategy (particularly the more intrusive ones!). In order to realise the benefits of this resource in improving an organisation’s security posture, the report will need to be translated into business impact in order to gain executive buy-in.

There are three key areas of risk to an organisation in enabling staff access to social networking sites. These three areas relate to: the data being shared with the site, the people using the site, and adherence to organisational policies. The point of greatest impact to address all three areas of risk is in training the users to interact with these social networking sites safely and securely. The employees are consumers of IT both at work and at home and their personal risk appetite will guide their behaviour in both locations, so education is vital in order to change behaviour. The importance of this point will become increasingly obvious as organisations explore mobility and BYOD (bring your own device) initiatives.