Analytics

3/16/2015
06:00 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

10 Ways To Measure IT Security Program Effectiveness

The right metrics can make or break a security program (or a budget meeting).
Previous
1 of 10
Next

As CISOs try to find ways to prove ROI to higher ups and improve the overall effectiveness of security operations, the right metrics can make or break their efforts. Fortunately, infosec as an industry has matured to the point where many enterprising security leaders have found innovative and concrete measures to track performance and drive toward continual improvement. Dark Reading recently surveyed security practitioners and pundits to find out the best time-tested metrics to prove security effectiveness, ask for greater investment, and push security staff to improve their day-to-day work.

Average Time To Detect And Respond

Also referred to as mean time to know (MTTK), the average time to detect (ATD) measures the delta between an issue occurring—be it a compromise or a configuration gone wonky—and the security team figuring out there's a problem. 

"By reducing ATD, Security Operations Center (SOC) personnel give themselves more time to assess the situation and decide upon the best course of action that will enable the enterprise to accomplish its mission while preventing damage to enterprise assets," says Greg Boison, director of cyber and homeland security at Lockheed Martin.

Meanwhile, the mean time to resolution or average time to respond, will measure how long it takes for the security team to appropriately respond to an issue and mitigate its risk.

"Average Time to Respond (ATTR) is a metric that tells SOC management and personnel whether or not they are meeting objectives to quickly and correctly respond to identified violations of the security policy," Boison says. "By reducing ATR, SOC personnel reduce the impact (including the cost) of security violations."

Tracking these two metrics continuously over time can show how well a security program is improving or deteriorating. Ideally they should be growing smaller over time.

(Image: Freeimages.com)

 

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 10
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
RyanSepe
100%
0%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
3/17/2015 | 8:44:18 AM
Vulnerability Assessment
Many of these ways focus around and IRT(reactive) and Vulnerability Assessment Process(both proactive and reactive). These are two reactive measures that if handled effectively can increase an organization's security posture expontentially. However, many organizations do not employ these effectively. The reasons for this vary, bandwidth, personnel, expertise, etc. This is why sometimes outsourcing to an MSSP is beneficial. This argument can be made using the statistic aggregation denoted by this article.
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
New Mexico Man Sentenced on DDoS, Gun Charges
Dark Reading Staff 5/18/2018
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
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-2018-1067
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-21
In Undertow before versions 7.1.2.CR1, 7.1.2.GA it was found that the fix for CVE-2016-4993 was incomplete and Undertow web server is vulnerable to the injection of arbitrary HTTP headers, and also response splitting, due to insufficient sanitization and validation of user input before the input is ...
CVE-2018-7268
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-21
MagniComp SysInfo before 10-H81, as shipped with BMC BladeLogic Automation and other products, contains an information exposure vulnerability in which a local unprivileged user is able to read any root (uid 0) owned file on the system, regardless of the file permissions. Confidential information suc...
CVE-2018-11092
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-21
An issue was discovered in the Admin Notes plugin 1.1 for MyBB. CSRF allows an attacker to remotely delete all admin notes via an admin/index.php?empty=table (aka Clear Table) action.
CVE-2018-11096
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-21
Horse Market Sell & Rent Portal Script 1.5.7 has a CSRF vulnerability through which an attacker can change all of the target's account information remotely.
CVE-2018-11320
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-21
In Octopus Deploy 2018.4.4 through 2018.5.1, Octopus variables that are sourced from the target do not have sensitive values obfuscated in the deployment logs.