Partner Perspectives  Connecting marketers to our tech communities.
SPONSORED BY
9/7/2017
09:00 AM
Raymond Pompon
Raymond Pompon
Partner Perspectives
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
100%
0%

CIO or C-Suite: To Whom Should the CISO Report?

Five reasons why the chief information security officer needs to get out from under the control of IT.

According to a 2015 study by Georgia Tech Information Security Center, 40 percent of CISOs reported to the CIO or CTO rather than directly to upper leadership. A forthcoming F5 Ponemon CISO research report will show that the trend is shifting away from CISOs reporting into the IT organization.

Why the shift? From a legacy point of view, it made sense to have the CISO under the technology department. Typically, CIOs and CTOs are responsible for maintaining viable and acceptable IT systems for the enterprise. Security is just one of many critical properties that IT systems must always have, so security has traditionally fallen under IT. However, this structure doesn’t provide a real seat at the executive table and thus reduces a CISO’s effectiveness. As a result, organizations are beginning to see that there is much to be gained from getting a CISO out from under IT. Let’s look at some of the reasons why.

Reason 1: Operational Conflicts
The primary mission of the IT department is to keep systems running and implement new technology projects that support the organization. The CISO’s job is to keep IT risk to an acceptable level. These are similar goals but they don’t always align. Sometimes the CISO is the one who must say "no" (or, at least, "slow down") to some of the riskier IT projects. However, IT tends to be less risk averse and more willing to blaze ahead to fulfill a business mission. This can lead to conflicts between pleasing users versus protecting the organization.

There are also times when IT may lower the priority of security operational tasks, like patching systems or rolling out multi-factor authentication, which could affect uptime and access. In general, IT cares more about system availability and providing access to resources while security seeks to restrict access even in favor of uptime. In most cases, in the event of a systems breach, it is the CISO who will take the blame, not the IT department.

You can also run into budget conflicts if security and IT are drawing from the same well. In a perfect world, every IT system would incur a "security tax" based on the controls required to bring its risk down to acceptable standards.

Reason 2: Risk
When it comes to information security, some risk decisions and mitigations fall far outside the domain of the IT department, for example, those that involve facilities security, human resources, and the legal department. The security group works with these and other departments at an operational level while IT works primarily with other departments in a supportive role. But, because the scope of risk is often enterprise-wide, some risk decisions need to be made at the executive level. Therefore, the CISO needs to have direct access to high-level decision makers to assist in those decisions. And, while we know that the CIO can operate effectively at the executive level, he or she will not have the same perspective and priority as someone in charge of security.

Reason 3: Insider Action
One of the jobs of the CISO is to hunt down malicious insiders — and it turns out some of the most dangerous insiders are within the IT group. Sometimes they’re even in charge of IT. A famous case in Seattle in the late 1990s involved the head of IT at a large international law firm perpetrating fraud. To hide her illicit activities, she fired her security consultants and kept her IT staff in the dark. Her actions helped bring about the ruin one of the Seattle’s largest and oldest law firms.

Reason 4: Effectiveness
Sometimes the CISO needs to solve problems without technology, but rather by revising or updating policies, reworking processes, or providing education. IT primarily solves problems with technology, which may not always be the best security solution.

Just because someone is skilled in IT doesn't mean he or she fully understand the principles of security. A key skill that CISOs and security professionals have is in threat modeling and understanding how attackers operate. Many IT personnel aren’t experienced or trained in this adversarial mindset, which can lead to misunderstandings. Compliance and privacy - two other major areas that are not typical IT disciplines – can fall into a similar gap.

Reason 5: Regulations
The potential for CISO conflict of interest is such a problem that some jurisdictions require CISO independence. For example, in the US, to protect investors, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) regulates the integrity of financial records for public companies. SOX audits can and have cited CISO reporting structure as a control design weakness under its "separation of duty" requirement.

Organizations holding or processing data pertaining to European Union (EU) citizens, must also adhere to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by May 25, 2018. GDPR requires appointing a data protection officer when business activities involve processing large scale or sensitive data such as health data or criminal records.

GDPR is a consolidation and refinement of existing data protection laws of European member states. One of those existing laws is the German Federal Data Protection Act (FDPA), which states that the DPO must not have other duties which conflict with the monitoring obligations of the DPO under the FDPA. It's likely that the intent of this law will be reflected in some way in GDPR. Similarly, Israel's Privacy Protection Regulations state that a CISO must report directly to senior management as well as be independent, free of conflicts, and sufficiently resourced.

Some organizations have made half steps towards CISO independence by adopting "dotted line" reporting structures where the CISO reports both to the head of IT as well as another executive such as the chief operating officer. As time goes on, I expect more CISOs to move out from under IT, especially as the importance of cybersecurity becomes more critical.

Get the latest application threat intelligence from F5 Labs.

Raymond Pompon is a Principal Threat Researcher Evangelist with F5 labs. With over 20 years of experience in Internet security, he has worked closely with Federal law enforcement in cyber-crime investigations. He has recently written IT Security Risk Control Management: An ... 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
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
F5 makes apps go-faster, smarter, and safer. With solutions for the cloud and the data center, F5 technology provides unparalleled visibility and control, allowing customers to secure their users, applications, and data. For more information, visit www.f5.com.
Featured Writers
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
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.