Skip to main content

Mandating Protection, Society and Seatbelts

There are a number of discussions happening regarding the differences in risk based security vs compliance based security. These mostly have grown from discussions around PCI and other imposed standards of control. My opinion is that risk and compliance are two necessary actions.

Agusto, over at securitybalance blog is the latest to discuss the merits of compliance based security. I share his opinion that creating prescriptive measurable requirements goes a long way to improve the security of a large number of organizations. This is a given - I compare this other compliance programs like laws regarding the use of seat belts in automobiles. They exist because it is better to protect everyone to the same level of protection than it is to measure the specific protections required based on the roads that are being driven on that day, or the specific use of the vehicle, etc.

What this doesn't mean is that there isn't some degree of risk management being performed - its just that its not being performed at the vehicle operator level - where in many cases people would chose not to wear them out of inconvenience.

Like the laws for seatbelts, the larger risk which needs to be managed is not at the corporate level but at the societal level. The consequences of security failures at the organization level do not usually gain enough attention to warrant the appropriate protection, but I would argue that the consequences of systematic security failures across our society's infrastructure are the basis of massive harm.

Protecting our society at this level is the responsibility of our governments - and laws should be enacted to require adequate security protection, and impose legal penalties where they are not sufficient.

The identification of information warranting this protection is a required risk-based process. What types of information need to be protected in order to protect our people, our intellect, our industries and our livelihood?

To drive out the waste of objective-less risk management processes Anton asks the question on his blog-

"What is the risk-driven, correct frequency of changing my email password?"

Attempting to measure specific risks to a combination of the frequency of a control's failure and the existence of a real threat is for sure the wrong way to measure risk. But I think there still is a valid risk discussion regarding the use and standards of password use in protecting certain types of information. Lets rephrase:

"Should passwords be managed for systems that are used to communicate financial transaction data?"

This subjective question is far easier to qualify - and debate the merits and extent of compliance requirements associated with it. Will it make sense in every scenario in every organization? No. But will its application across the majority of scenarios in the majority of organizations help protect our livelihoods as a society? If the answer is yes - it should become a standard.

We need to define a scope of information which should be protected, create the standards to which the information should be protected, and institute formal legal processes to enforce compliance.

This is exactly what the FIPS and NIST standards describe? But these programs need to be extended to more than just federally controlled information types, and begin enforcing these rules on all data we value as a society.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Local Classified Penny Auction Scam

While there are a lot of new posts regarding the new ways to exploit people using novel techniques and 0day exploits, there continues to be a rash of tried and true methods of coercion.  I want to just walk through a simple example and reflect on how effective these methods continue to be.

Many people turn toward online classified sites to buy and sell items online.  This example starts with kijiji.ca which even I've used on occasion to find used electronics and other items.  Doing a search on the site for a "Samsung Galaxy Note 2" returns a posting from today with someone selling one for an unreasonably priced unit.



$125 for a $500 phone?, but what if it's for real?  No harm in just asking some simple questions.  Email sent with some obvious questions regarding the condition and location.

About an hour passes before I get a response from what appears to be a legit seller.


Notice no answer to the questions I asked, but a friendly pointer at where the unit came from …

Announcing new team member - Benoit Desforges

I'm very pleased to announce that we've added another significant resource to our team.  Our new advisor Benoît Desforges brings international experience and a fresh perspective on information risk management.

Prior to joining, Benoît worked for KPMG's advisory group, he holds several professional designations including CISSP, CISA, GCIH, and GAWN.  When he's not teaching advanced networking courses for a local university, Benoît enjoys travel and time with his family.

Benoît will be providing our clients with security advice and building out a number of new and improved professional service offerings.  He'll also be regular contributor to our blog.  Congratulations Benoît!

Touch ID - Distributed Fingerprint Lookup

All the press regarding the new Touch ID fingerprint biometric on Apple's new iPhone has brought some insight into how to misuse this service.  Most of the critics have focused on circumventing the device to gain access or Apple deciding to share the data with the Government.

One interesting perspective that I haven't seen covered yet is if the system could be used as a distributed matching system for existing fingerprint image systems.  In an over simplified view of the process, a law enforcement agency can take an acquired fingerprint and search for patterns in the database of collected prints and spit out possible matches.

Although Apple states that an API won't be available for apps, it is conceivable that such an interface might exist, and provide the ability to take an acquired print (either from the iPhone hardware or from software) and check it for validity against the stored print.

There are some limits to this, as there is likely only going to be one print store…