Analytics

10/23/2015
09:30 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Passing the Sniff Test: Security Metrics and Measures

Cigital dishes dirt on top security metrics that don't work well, why they're ineffective and which measurable to consider instead.
Previous
1 of 9
Next

Image: Adobe Stock

Image: Adobe Stock

 

Security metrics are one of the key pillars of establishing a mature cybersecurity program. We’ve spilled a lot of digital ink over the years at Dark Reading discussing some of the top security metrics that organizations should consider collecting and analyzing. But are all security metrics good ones? According to Caroline Wong, security initiative director at Cigital, the short answer is, ‘Nope!’ She’s seen organizations waste resources on measuring things that don’t really matter to the business and do nothing to help drive improvement.

“I've really been doing security metrics for about ten years, so I've had more time to think about stuff,” she says. “And one of the things that I've realized is that there are some metrics which organizations track that I really just don't think are useful.”

Caroline gave us the lowdown on metrics effectiveness. She started by offering some key sniff tests for determining if your metric is a stinker. Then she offered up some examples of ineffective metrics, as well as alternatives that will better help move the needle for security.   

 

 

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 9
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
10/26/2015 | 8:01:43 AM
Displaying Value
Whenever you are trying to devise important metrics of either a tool you own or a process think of the metric by the value it provides. Does it delineate cost savings, does it help to point out a broken business process, etc.
copleydt
50%
50%
copleydt,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/24/2015 | 10:39:51 AM
Practical Advise
Your article was right on the spot; very pragmatic and useful. I've been in security a long time and am currently a CISO for a large healthcare provider and I've seen some metrics which I consider to be of no value.  I speak on security fairly often and I was just contemplating assembling a presentation on this same topic -  what security metrics NOT to use and what you SHOULD be measuring.
Election Websites, Back-End Systems Most at Risk of Cyberattack in Midterms
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/14/2018
Intel Reveals New Spectre-Like Vulnerability
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  8/15/2018
Data Privacy Careers Are Helping to Close the IT Gender Gap
Dana Simberkoff, Chief Compliance and Risk Management Officer, AvePoint, Inc,  8/20/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-15601
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-21
apps/filemanager/handlers/upload/drop.php in Elefant CMS 2.0.3 performs a urldecode step too late in the "Cannot upload executable files" protection mechanism.
CVE-2018-15603
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-21
An issue was discovered in Victor CMS through 2018-05-10. There is XSS via the Author field of the "Leave a Comment" screen.
CVE-2018-15598
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-21
Containous Traefik 1.6.x before 1.6.6, when --api is used, exposes the configuration and secret if authentication is missing and the API's port is publicly reachable.
CVE-2018-15599
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-21
The recv_msg_userauth_request function in svr-auth.c in Dropbear through 2018.76 is prone to a user enumeration vulnerability because username validity affects how fields in SSH_MSG_USERAUTH messages are handled, a similar issue to CVE-2018-15473 in an unrelated codebase.
CVE-2018-0501
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-21
The mirror:// method implementation in Advanced Package Tool (APT) 1.6.x before 1.6.4 and 1.7.x before 1.7.0~alpha3 mishandles gpg signature verification for the InRelease file of a fallback mirror, aka mirrorfail.