Attacks/Breaches

1/7/2016
10:30 AM
Joshua Goldfarb
Joshua Goldfarb
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

The Matrix Reloaded: Security Goals v. Operational Requirements

Building a matrix that measures people, process, and technology against security goals is a proven method for reducing risk in an organization. Here's how.

Those of us who work in the information security field have grown accustomed to a certain level of hype and noise. While I could certainly wax poetic about this topic, I’d like to take a slightly different angle. Where there is hype, there is a need to cut through that hype. With the overwhelming amount of noise in the security marketplace today, how can organizations make any sense of it?  I’d like to try and answer that very question.

In my experience, building out a matrix of operational requirements can assist greatly in the task of evaluating security products and services.  It helps organizations ensure that they improve their security posture, rather than damage or impede it.  But how can an organization build out such a matrix?  And what additional benefits does this matrix bring an organization?  Let’s take a look at those questions in additional detail.

Understand Risk

Every organization faces threats to its security.  In turn, those threats introduce some amount of risk to the organization. Each organization faces different threats, and each threat will introduce a different amount of risk. The goal of a security program should ultimately be to minimize and mitigate risk, with the understanding that risk can never be eliminated.

It therefore follows that before an organization can understand its operational needs, it must first understand the risk it faces. That understanding begins by understanding the threat landscape the organization is facing. What types of attacks do similar organizations (perhaps by industry vertical, geographic location, size, or otherwise) face?  What sensitive, confidential, and/or proprietary information are attackers after?  What are some of the ways in which attacks succeed, persist, and result in theft of coveted information?  These are just a few of the many ways in which the threat landscape can be analyzed.

Understanding the threat landscape is a start, but without being able to map it to an understanding of risk, it doesn’t do an organization much good.  How would the organization detect an intrusion or other illicit activity?  What gaps in telemetry exist that could prevent or inhibit detection or analysis?  What skill sets are lacking or in short supply?  What procedural shortcomings exist?  How can the workflow be improved or made more efficient?  There are many ways in which an organization can work towards understanding the risks it faces, of which these questions represent just a few different perspectives.

Set Goals

Understanding the risks and threats to the organization is a first step, but it is still too abstract to facilitate the buildout of a matrix of operational requirements.  What is needed is an intermediary step. This involves breaking the enumerated list of risks down into goals and priorities.

Goals and priorities are much more tangible, specific, and focused than the list of risks.  Each one describes a step along the journey to mitigating a given risk. This is a one to many relationship here. For each risk, there may be many goals and priorities required to properly address it.  Once a list of goals and priorities has been assembled, it can be used to build out the desired matrix of operational requirements.

Enter The Matrix

The goals and priorities enumerated for each risk form the building blocks for the matrix of operational requirements.  On one axis goes people, process, and technology, while on the other axis, the consolidated, de-duplicated goals and priorities.  The resulting matrix spells out what is needed operationally to ensure an adequate security posture for the organization. 

In some cases, people, process, and technology that can be leveraged to mitigate certain risks may already be in place.  In other cases, you may need to develop a specific solution. Using the matrix to identify where gaps exist allows an organization to strategically acquire the necessary people, process, and technology to address the remaining challenges.

There are two additional benefits to using this approach that the astute reader may pick up on:

●     Value is maximized: The security budget can be put to its most efficient use by acquiring the minimum number of solutions that meet the maximum number of requirements.

●     Complexity is reduced:  Acquiring fewer solutions reduces complexity.  Success is much less likely with a haphazard pile of products and services that don’t work well together and don’t meet operational requirements.

The concern organizations have for their security postures has grown considerably over the last few years.  In many cases, budget has increased along with those concerns. But -- not surprisingly -- this has resulted in a noisy, hype-filled marketplace that can be confusing to operational information security professionals.  You can cut through the hype by approaching the challenges of technology acquisition and gap analysis with a matrix of operational requirements

Josh (Twitter: @ananalytical) is an experienced information security leader with broad experience building and running Security Operations Centers (SOCs). Josh is currently co-founder and chief product officer at IDRRA and also serves as security advisor to ExtraHop. Prior to ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Want Your Daughter to Succeed in Cyber? Call Her John
John De Santis, CEO, HyTrust,  5/16/2018
Don't Roll the Dice When Prioritizing Vulnerability Fixes
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer, Dark Reading,  5/15/2018
Why Enterprises Can't Ignore Third-Party IoT-Related Risks
Charlie Miller, Senior Vice President, The Santa Fe Group,  5/14/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: "Security through obscurity"
Current Issue
How to Cope with the IT Security Skills Shortage
Most enterprises don't have all the in-house skills they need to meet the rising threat from online attackers. Here are some tips on ways to beat the shortage.
Flash Poll
[Strategic Security Report] Navigating the Threat Intelligence Maze
[Strategic Security Report] Navigating the Threat Intelligence Maze
Most enterprises are using threat intel services, but many are still figuring out how to use the data they're collecting. In this Dark Reading survey we give you a look at what they're doing today - and where they hope to go.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-11232
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-18
The etm_setup_aux function in drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm-perf.c in the Linux kernel before 4.10.2 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (panic) because a parameter is incorrectly used as a local variable.
CVE-2017-15855
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-17
In Qualcomm Android for MSM, Firefox OS for MSM, and QRD Android with all Android releases from CAF using the Linux kernel, the camera application triggers "user-memory-access" issue as the Camera CPP module Linux driver directly accesses the application provided buffer, which resides in u...
CVE-2018-3567
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-17
In Qualcomm Android for MSM, Firefox OS for MSM, and QRD Android with all Android releases from CAF using the Linux kernel, a buffer overflow vulnerability exists in WLAN while processing the HTT_T2H_MSG_TYPE_PEER_MAP or HTT_T2H_MSG_TYPE_PEER_UNMAP messages.
CVE-2018-3568
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-17
In Qualcomm Android for MSM, Firefox OS for MSM, and QRD Android with all Android releases from CAF using the Linux kernel, in __wlan_hdd_cfg80211_vendor_scan(), a buffer overwrite can potentially occur.
CVE-2018-5827
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-17
In Qualcomm Android for MSM, Firefox OS for MSM, and QRD Android with all Android releases from CAF using the Linux kernel, a buffer overflow vulnerability exists in WLAN while processing an extscan hotlist event.