Attacks/Breaches
8/29/2014
12:31 PM
50%
50%

How To Create A Risk 'Pain Chart'

Consultant John Pironti outlines how to execute a risk-based approach to defending corporate assets.

If security and business operation requirements seem somewhat out of synch sometimes, it is because in many enterprises, they are. Yet aligning those two mandates can be critical for effectively protecting enterprises.

Next month at the Interop conference in New York, John Pironti, president of consulting company IP Architects, will be leading a workshop on aligning a risk-based approach to security to business needs and use it to better defend the organization and minimize risk. This process requires the creation of information risk profiles, threat and vulnerability analysis, vulnerability management, and business resiliency capabilities such as incident response. But many organizations are still falling short of this nirvana state of security, he says.

"I think that I would say that we have all the best intentions, but we're still following the shiny object in execution," he says.

While security professionals acknowledge the idea that they should be more business-aligned and better at applying an understanding of risk to their security strategy, the focus remains on trying to buy new technologies to solve all of an enterprise's problems, explains Pironti.

The key, he says, is to create a risk profile -- a pain chart for security that chronicles when an incident starts to hurt.

"First I figure out what my appetite is [for risk]," he says. "When does something become material to the organization? When does it come to the point where the organization says, 'enough is enough, we can't have this.' Then I build security frameworks, control models to reach to that level."

"That's how I turn the corner with the business, because now I'm not in contention with the business," he adds. "Now I can go back to the business and say, this is what you said…I built this to that level of capability. If that seems…too expensive to you or too much of an investment, then we need to recalibrate our expectations on what our risk appetite is."

The risk profile Pironti pitches includes the types and priority of information risks an organization finds acceptable and unacceptable. Organizations also need to take into account the legal standard of due care for the organization: the accepted minimum the organization would need to prove it was not reckless and did what a similar organization would do to secure its assets.

Every industry has a different tolerance for risk, Pironti says. For example, after TJX was breached several years ago, the company announced it had recorded strong sales even as it publicly acknowledged a significant jump in the costs associated with the incident. People tend to be harder on healthcare organizations however because healthcare records are viewed as more personal than credit cards, he argues.

"I can change credit cards; I can't change health records," Pironti says."So the impact is different."

The goal of the talk is to minimize the impact of an attack, he says.

"Let's understand that the inevitability is that something probably is going to happen within the operating career of an organization… Everything we're going to try and do is to shrink the problem. We are going to minimize impact, and our goal is to turn incidents into operational anomalies," he says.

Interop will run from September 29 to October 3 in New York.

Brian Prince is a freelance writer for a number of IT security-focused publications. Prior to becoming a freelance reporter, he worked at eWEEK for five years covering not only security, but also a variety of other subjects in the tech industry. Before that, he worked as a ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
JasonSachowski
50%
50%
JasonSachowski,
User Rank: Author
9/3/2014 | 11:50:07 AM
Re: How To Create A Risk 'Pain Chart'
@MarilynCohodas, everything security always comes back to the business it supports which would be no different with determining risk/pain priorities.  A "committee" of decisison makers should be made up of people who can translate the techie-talk into meanful business language and consists of stakeholders throughout the organization (ex. InfoSec, Privacy, Legal, etc), shareholders, and executives.
GonzSTL
50%
50%
GonzSTL,
User Rank: Ninja
9/3/2014 | 11:40:31 AM
Re: Providing relatable value
This is classic Risk Management, and is nothing new. I believe that the ultimate sign off should lie in the hands of someone responsible for the entire organization, such as the CEO, COO, CRO, etc. As long as the proper personnel are involved in the risk assessment team, the security officer makes recommendations based on a well informed decision process conducted by the team. Mind you, the assumption is that the risk assessment is conducted properly. If the security office is empowered to make the decision, then certainly the officer has the final say, with the implied consent of the CEO through delegation of authority.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
9/2/2014 | 2:06:47 PM
Re: Providing relatable value
I would think that everyone on a security team would have the ability to determine what has a higher risk value than others. Its a group effort. However, you need an authoritative head to sign off on these decisions. I would say the person who signs off on corporate security policy would be the authoratative head here. Most likely the CSO/CISO. 

I think a good way to look at this principle is you wouldn't construct a $1000 fence to guard a $10 asset. Realistic safeguards need to be a priority.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
9/2/2014 | 9:50:14 AM
Re: Providing relatable value
Concept sounds great to me, but who woud the decisionmakers be in determining risk/pain priorities? Thoughts anyone?  
Stratustician
50%
50%
Stratustician,
User Rank: Moderator
9/2/2014 | 9:09:50 AM
Re: Providing relatable value
I agree, I especially love the idea of assigning a risk or impact value to each specifically since as pointed out, some assets have more value than others.  Treating all risks as the same threat level is no longer a way to ensure that you are prioritizing the right areas of your security plan.  It's also a great way, as illustrated in the article, to ask for the funding you really need for each project based on the real risks and costs associated to protect those assets.
JeremiahT680
50%
50%
JeremiahT680,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/1/2014 | 12:28:28 PM
Sandboxing data inside an encrypted application layer
If you sandbox each record or entity within and create an interface in your own coding language the perhaps you could create so many layers or barriers to cross that the intrusion would be detected and prevented.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
8/29/2014 | 2:38:49 PM
Providing relatable value
This is great! For years now, Information Security has been progressing to the point where we can display extreme value to the business side of the operation. Not that we were irrelevant in the past, but I feel that we are getting the the point where non-security people can easily relate as to why security measures are so important.

In years to come I feel that this exercise will be quite prevalent and most likely already be ingrained in the minds of business owners. Educative repetition and relation analysis is the key.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-6090
Published: 2015-04-27
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the (1) DataMappingEditorCommands, (2) DatastoreEditorCommands, and (3) IEGEditorCommands servlets in IBM Curam Social Program Management (SPM) 5.2 SP6 before EP6, 6.0 SP2 before EP26, 6.0.3 before 6.0.3.0 iFix8, 6.0.4 before 6.0.4.5 iFix...

CVE-2014-6092
Published: 2015-04-27
IBM Curam Social Program Management (SPM) 5.2 before SP6 EP6, 6.0 SP2 before EP26, 6.0.4 before 6.0.4.6, and 6.0.5 before 6.0.5.6 requires failed-login handling for web-service accounts to have the same lockout policy as for standard user accounts, which makes it easier for remote attackers to cause...

CVE-2015-0113
Published: 2015-04-27
The Jazz help system in IBM Rational Collaborative Lifecycle Management 4.0 through 5.0.2, Rational Quality Manager 4.0 through 4.0.7 and 5.0 through 5.0.2, Rational Team Concert 4.0 through 4.0.7 and 5.0 through 5.0.2, Rational Requirements Composer 4.0 through 4.0.7, Rational DOORS Next Generation...

CVE-2015-0174
Published: 2015-04-27
The SNMP implementation in IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) 8.5 before 8.5.5.5 does not properly handle configuration data, which allows remote authenticated users to obtain sensitive information via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2015-0175
Published: 2015-04-27
IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) 8.5 Liberty Profile before 8.5.5.5 does not properly implement authData elements, which allows remote authenticated users to gain privileges via unspecified vectors.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Join security and risk expert John Pironti and Dark Reading Editor-in-Chief Tim Wilson for a live online discussion of the sea-changing shift in security strategy and the many ways it is affecting IT and business.