Operations
4/18/2017
06:04 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

CISOs, Board Members Have Widely Divergent Views on Cybersecurity

Boards often want a lot more business-relevant reporting than CISOs provide, Focal Point Data Risk study shows.

For all the talk about cybersecurity needing to be a board-level issue, security executives and corporate directors continue to have very different views on just about every critical aspect of the security function.

Research released this week by Focal Point Data Risk shows that CISOs and board members often have different perspectives on the value of cybersecurity, on how to assess the effectiveness of security programs, and how to measure and express risk.

While C-suite members for example often viewed data and brand protection as the primary value of cybersecurity to the organization, CISOs somewhat surprisingly viewed their primary functions as guiding and enabling the business and in ensuring loss avoidance.

For the report, Focal Point conducted one-on-one interviews with more than 50 CISOs, 25 corporate directors and 10 subject matter experts. The goal was to try and identify how corporate directors and CISOs viewed each other’s roles and responsibilities on the cybersecurity front. Interview questions were open-ended and were conducted by Cyentia Institute, which also wrote the report.

One of the key discoveries was that CISOs—at least those interviewed for the report—generally tended to view the security function as having less to do with data and brand protection than board members.

A lot of that, according to the report, may simply have to do with CISOs trying to position cybersecurity as a business enabler rather than a cost center in meetings with board members. While security executives know that protecting data is one of their primary functions, many feel pressured to demonstrate how that helps the bottom line, the report noted.

Board members and CISOs also had substantially divergent views on the effectiveness of their organization’s security program. While 46% of security executives in the Focal Point study expressed confidence in their security controls, only 5% of board members shared that sentiment. Conversely, 49% of board members expressed a lack of confidence in their organizational security controls compared to 13% of security executives who felt the same way.

“CISOs have a challenging time proving a negative, that if they didn’t exist [it] would result in a material weakness and bad outcome,” says Yong-Gon Chon, CEO of Focal Point Data Risk. The board’s lack of confidence also stems from the continuing habit by security executives to present cyber jargon to board instead of business language, Yong-Gon Chon said. Meetings with security executives often leave board members with the impression that no matter how much they spend, they will still get breached.

Similarly, the metrics that CISOs use to convey the status of the organization’s security program to the board tend to be more operational in nature while board members are far more interested in big picture metrics such as peer benchmarking.

One surprising finding from the report is the relatively low desire among board members to see risk expressed in terms of financial losses over a specific time frame.

“I hear it said a lot that the ‘language of the board is dollars,’ and assumed that meant they’d want to hear cyber risk discussed in those same terms,” says Wade Baker, co-founder of Cyentia Institute. “But I think there’s a lot of skepticism on the ability to accurately measure cyber risk, and so they prefer a clear explanation of where things stand.”

John Pescatore, director of emerging security trends at the SANS Institute says much of the disconnect stems from a failure by CISOs to communicate. “CISOs [are] very good at presenting ‘blood in the streets’ and very bad at presenting strategy on how to avoid it,” Pescatore says. Many are weak at using trend data to give the board confidence that the business could avoid or minimize the risks facing them.

CISOs have to learn to show the connection between security expenditures and business impact. “That doesn’t always mean ROI, but it does mean more than ‘bad things are happening. If we don’t get more people or spend more money, it will happen to us,’” he said.

Framing things in terms of risk and business enablement can help enable a better conversation with the board, adds Christopher Pierson, general counsel and chief security officer at online payment service Viewpost.

“Showing the board a bunch of flowcharts, diagrams, and numbers on how much malware was blocked does not answer or address their fundamental question,” Pierson says. What the board wants to know is how the security organization is mitigating risk and what its directors can do to help.

“A [board member] favors metrics combined with an intuitive story. But it has to be a narrative they can understand,” says Daniel Kennedy, an analyst with 451 Research. “The somewhat difficult, technical problem of security needs to be described in layman terms that go just deep enough for very intelligent people, who happen not to be security experts [to understand],” Kennedy says.

Related stories:

 

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
4/24/2017 | 7:37:31 PM
Re: Boards do look at the financial risk
> This research is interesting but it misses an important point. Boards and CISOs generally speak different languages.

Ultimately, today's CISO/CSO has to be able to have those "soft skills" of communication.

More to the point, the increasing trend of having CISOs report to boards is part of the acknowledgement that having the CISO report to the CIO represents a conflict of interest in the CIO's office.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
4/24/2017 | 7:36:17 PM
Re: Boards do look at the financial risk
Ultimately, cybersecurity is a risk-management and risk-assessment issue.

InfoSec, data privacy, and data compliance are all three separate circles in the Venn diagram of data stewardship; even though they overlap in many areas, they often do not -- and sometimes they outright conflict with each other!

So at the end of the day, it's all about risk-benefit analysis, risk tolerance, and frameworks for risk assessment/risk governance.
PeterCohan
50%
50%
PeterCohan,
User Rank: Author
4/21/2017 | 12:59:23 PM
Re: Boards do look at the financial risk
This research is interesting but it misses an important point. Boards and CISOs generally speak different languages. Rather than expecting CISOs to understand the board perspective, CEOs should appoint translators who can help CISOs understand the issues that are of most concern to boards and help CISOs identify what they can do to help board members address those key issues and communicate in a way that board members will understand.
vladdight
50%
50%
vladdight,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/20/2017 | 9:47:57 PM
Re: Instagram Followers For Free | Get Instagram Followers
Thanks for sharing! Had no idea this was happening.
JulietteRizkallah
50%
50%
JulietteRizkallah,
User Rank: Ninja
4/20/2017 | 12:00:24 PM
Boards do look at the financial risk
In some cases, boards do look at the potential financial risk from a cyber attack. More and more they advise to transfer that risk to a cyber insurance company.  Though they do not weight on decisions to buy security infrastucture, they are side by side with the top exec to recommend and decide on purchasing cyber security insurance.  This was presented by Diligent and the NYSE governance services at their San Francisco Conference in February 2017.  This trend though reinforce the article's mention that Board and CISO do not speak the same language, one speaks risk and mitigation, while the other stays at a technical level and has difficulty translating their points in business term. And that needs to change.
TerazTVSeriale
50%
50%
TerazTVSeriale,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/20/2017 | 6:11:55 AM
thank
Thanks Jai. Very useful information, i'll share it with my friends
Marilyn Cohodas
100%
0%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
4/19/2017 | 1:17:11 PM
Re: Title
You have a good eye. Thanks for calling our attention to this. It's fixed! -- The editors
JohnDJohnson
50%
50%
JohnDJohnson,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/19/2017 | 12:01:07 PM
Title
Your editorial staff should have fixed the apostrophe in the title. CISOs is plural and not possessive. I'd like to share this because it is informative, but others will be critical of the title on social media and not continue on to read the article.
abbottanderson
50%
50%
abbottanderson,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/19/2017 | 7:23:56 AM
Microsoft
Thanks for sharing about cybersecurity
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: just wondering...Thanx
Current Issue
Security Operations and IT Operations: Finding the Path to Collaboration
A wide gulf has emerged between SOC and NOC teams that's keeping both of them from assuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of IT systems. Here's how experts think it should be bridged.
Flash Poll
The Dark Reading Security Spending Survey
The Dark Reading Security Spending Survey
Enterprises are spending an unprecedented amount of money on IT security where does it all go? In this survey, Dark Reading polled senior IT management on security budgets and spending plans, and their priorities for the coming year. Download the report and find out what they had to say.
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-0290
Published: 2017-05-09
NScript in mpengine in Microsoft Malware Protection Engine with Engine Version before 1.1.13704.0, as used in Windows Defender and other products, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (type confusion and application crash) via crafted JavaScript code within ...

CVE-2016-10369
Published: 2017-05-08
unixsocket.c in lxterminal through 0.3.0 insecurely uses /tmp for a socket file, allowing a local user to cause a denial of service (preventing terminal launch), or possibly have other impact (bypassing terminal access control).

CVE-2016-8202
Published: 2017-05-08
A privilege escalation vulnerability in Brocade Fibre Channel SAN products running Brocade Fabric OS (FOS) releases earlier than v7.4.1d and v8.0.1b could allow an authenticated attacker to elevate the privileges of user accounts accessing the system via command line interface. With affected version...

CVE-2016-8209
Published: 2017-05-08
Improper checks for unusual or exceptional conditions in Brocade NetIron 05.8.00 and later releases up to and including 06.1.00, when the Management Module is continuously scanned on port 22, may allow attackers to cause a denial of service (crash and reload) of the management module.

CVE-2017-0890
Published: 2017-05-08
Nextcloud Server before 11.0.3 is vulnerable to an inadequate escaping leading to a XSS vulnerability in the search module. To be exploitable a user has to write or paste malicious content into the search dialogue.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
In past years, security researchers have discovered ways to hack cars, medical devices, automated teller machines, and many other targets. Dark Reading Executive Editor Kelly Jackson Higgins hosts researcher Samy Kamkar and Levi Gundert, vice president of threat intelligence at Recorded Future, to discuss some of 2016's most unusual and creative hacks by white hats, and what these new vulnerabilities might mean for the coming year.