Analytics

3/16/2015
06:00 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

10 Ways To Measure IT Security Program Effectiveness

The right metrics can make or break a security program (or a budget meeting).
Previous
1 of 10
Next

As CISOs try to find ways to prove ROI to higher ups and improve the overall effectiveness of security operations, the right metrics can make or break their efforts. Fortunately, infosec as an industry has matured to the point where many enterprising security leaders have found innovative and concrete measures to track performance and drive toward continual improvement. Dark Reading recently surveyed security practitioners and pundits to find out the best time-tested metrics to prove security effectiveness, ask for greater investment, and push security staff to improve their day-to-day work.

Average Time To Detect And Respond

Also referred to as mean time to know (MTTK), the average time to detect (ATD) measures the delta between an issue occurring—be it a compromise or a configuration gone wonky—and the security team figuring out there's a problem. 

"By reducing ATD, Security Operations Center (SOC) personnel give themselves more time to assess the situation and decide upon the best course of action that will enable the enterprise to accomplish its mission while preventing damage to enterprise assets," says Greg Boison, director of cyber and homeland security at Lockheed Martin.

Meanwhile, the mean time to resolution or average time to respond, will measure how long it takes for the security team to appropriately respond to an issue and mitigate its risk.

"Average Time to Respond (ATTR) is a metric that tells SOC management and personnel whether or not they are meeting objectives to quickly and correctly respond to identified violations of the security policy," Boison says. "By reducing ATR, SOC personnel reduce the impact (including the cost) of security violations."

Tracking these two metrics continuously over time can show how well a security program is improving or deteriorating. Ideally they should be growing smaller over time.

(Image: Freeimages.com)

 

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 10
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
RyanSepe
100%
0%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
3/17/2015 | 8:44:18 AM
Vulnerability Assessment
Many of these ways focus around and IRT(reactive) and Vulnerability Assessment Process(both proactive and reactive). These are two reactive measures that if handled effectively can increase an organization's security posture expontentially. However, many organizations do not employ these effectively. The reasons for this vary, bandwidth, personnel, expertise, etc. This is why sometimes outsourcing to an MSSP is beneficial. This argument can be made using the statistic aggregation denoted by this article.
Crowdsourced vs. Traditional Pen Testing
Alex Haynes, Chief Information Security Officer, CDL,  3/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Reading Schneier's Friday Squid Blog again?
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
Organizations are responding to new threats with new processes for detecting and mitigating them. Here's a look at how the discipline of incident response is evolving.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-6149
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-18
An unquoted search path vulnerability was identified in Lenovo Dynamic Power Reduction Utility prior to version 2.2.2.0 that could allow a malicious user with local access to execute code with administrative privileges.
CVE-2018-15509
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-18
Five9 Agent Desktop Plus 10.0.70 has Incorrect Access Control (issue 2 of 2).
CVE-2018-20806
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-17
Phamm (aka PHP LDAP Virtual Hosting Manager) 0.6.8 allows XSS via the login page (the /public/main.php action parameter).
CVE-2019-5616
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-15
CircuitWerkes Sicon-8, a hardware device used for managing electrical devices, ships with a web-based front-end controller and implements an authentication mechanism in JavaScript that is run in the context of a user's web browser.
CVE-2018-17882
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-15
An Integer overflow vulnerability exists in the batchTransfer function of a smart contract implementation for CryptoBotsBattle (CBTB), an Ethereum token. This vulnerability could be used by an attacker to create an arbitrary amount of tokens for any user.