Perimeter
7/18/2012
02:26 PM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%
Repost This

Risks Deferred Are Risks Accepted

Decisions to delay compliance and security efforts do not delay the risks

The client did something I’ve seen many times before. The staff considered addressing obvious compliance and security issues, and then decided to postpone that work. While they said they were simply going to push the work back a few months, as typically happens, the postponement became indefinite.

Or perhaps more accurately, the postponement will be indefinite until a costly problem exposes these ignored risks as real, costly and immediate.

Like most clients, they claimed a number of reasons to postpone this work: cash flow, timing, budget restrictions, pending new projects, disruption to other projects, and the time required by management and staff.

Sounding sincere about their need to address these compliance and security issues, clients say, “This is going to be a lot of work, and we need to take care of other matters first so we can better focus on this with less distraction.”

Yet despite claiming to believe compliance and security work is important, clients usually minimize their concerns about risk. After all, they say, as they’ve grown their business, the risks have never materialized, and they really need to put their cash into the growth of the business.

As a business owner, I realize there are times you must make risky decisions. I know there are times where you do have to postpone important work because of something as simple as cash flow or lack of manpower. However, these risky decisions should be made with a sincere evaluation and acceptance of the risks, not by turning a convenient blind-eye and manufacturing emotional justification.

Too many leaders become overwhelmed by the size of the risks they have created -- or allowed to be created -- over time. When these issues become obvious, for whatever the reason, the most common response unfortunately is not to attack these risks full-blast or even to start whittling them down. No, the most common response is to push all these risks into the back of a dark closet where they can be ignored, where they can be put out of sight and out of mind.

Business leaders who decide to defer addressing real security and compliance risks must understand they are essentially self-insuring this risk. They have accepted the risks, even if that acceptance is by default or denial.

If a problem develops from these ignored compliance and security risks, it will be the business that pays the cost, whether it be cash, distraction, reputation, and, perhaps even, sanctions. Perhaps some risks are worth taking, but in most cases I see few leaders acknowledge the true risks and actual consequences. Apparently ignorance is bliss even when the ignorance is by choice.

Glenn S. Phillips, the president of Forte' Incorporated, works with business leaders who want to leverage technology and understand the often hidden risks within. He is the author of the book Nerd-to-English and you can find him on twitter at @NerdToEnglish.

Glenn works with business leaders who want to leverage technology and understand the often hidden risks awaiting them. The Founder and Sr. Consultant of Forte' Incorporated, Glenn and his team work with business leaders to support growth, increase profits, and address ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-3946
Published: 2014-04-24
Cisco IOS before 15.3(2)S allows remote attackers to bypass interface ACL restrictions in opportunistic circumstances by sending IPv6 packets in an unspecified scenario in which expected packet drops do not occur for "a small percentage" of the packets, aka Bug ID CSCty73682.

CVE-2012-5723
Published: 2014-04-24
Cisco ASR 1000 devices with software before 3.8S, when BDI routing is enabled, allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via crafted (1) broadcast or (2) multicast ICMP packets with fragmentation, aka Bug ID CSCub55948.

CVE-2013-6738
Published: 2014-04-24
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM SmartCloud Analytics Log Analysis 1.1 and 1.2 before 1.2.0.0-CSI-SCALA-IF0003 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via an invalid query parameter in a response from an OAuth authorization endpoint.

CVE-2014-0188
Published: 2014-04-24
The openshift-origin-broker in Red Hat OpenShift Enterprise 2.0.5, 1.2.7, and earlier does not properly handle authentication requests from the remote-user auth plugin, which allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and impersonate arbitrary users via the X-Remote-User header in a request to...

CVE-2014-2391
Published: 2014-04-24
The password recovery service in Open-Xchange AppSuite before 7.2.2-rev20, 7.4.1 before 7.4.1-rev11, and 7.4.2 before 7.4.2-rev13 makes an improper decision about the sensitivity of a string representing a previously used but currently invalid password, which allows remote attackers to obtain potent...

Best of the Web