The other day, I learned a great lesson about security metrics while getting a haircut. Initially, this may sound like a bit of an odd statement, but I promise it will make sense in the end. The woman cutting my hair asked me: “Should I cut off one-half inch?” Putting aside my preference for the metric system and dislike of the imperial system, I found this question to be quite fascinating.
To the woman cutting my hair, the question was a scientific one. Depending on how I answered, she would choose the appropriate scissors and clippers and proceed accordingly. From my perspective, however, the question was meaningless, or at the very least, difficult to parse. I didn’t know how to answer because I have no idea what length I like my hair -- at least not in absolute terms like inches or centimeters.
What does this have to do with security metrics? Let’s begin to answer that question by examining the definition of the word “metrics.” A metric is defined as “a method of measuring something, or the results obtained from this.” In order for me to understand and subsequently answer the question, I had to translate into a method of measurement that I could understand. After a small amount of research, I learned that hair generally grows one-quarter inch per month. In the context of this example, the question translated into relative terms I could understand would be: “Should I cut off two months of growth?”
As security professionals, we tend to get used to a certain way of thinking, speaking, measuring, and communicating. What we sometimes forget is that to many people (most notably leaders such as our executives and boards), the value we bring is not always easy to understand. It’s not that we aren’t working hard, doing more with less, adding value to the organizations we serve, and sometimes working small miracles. Rather, it’s that we struggle to translate those efforts into a meaningful context. What’s missing is a way for us to communicate our value in terms that non-security professionals can understand and evaluate.
To illustrate this point, let’s work through some examples. Many security organizations regularly report a familiar set of metrics to their leadership. These metrics tend to be absolute in nature. What do I mean by that? Absolute metrics are metrics that involve quantitative measures that are not relative to or dependent on anything else. For example, absolute metrics that some of us might be familiar with include:
- Number of infected endpoints during a specific time window
- Number of brute force attempts during a specific time window
- Average length of time a ticket remains in the “open” or “unresolved” state
Although these metrics may seem familiar, they represent a critical disconnect with the prioritized list of risks and threats security-aware leaders are most concerned with. Preventing damage to the organization from those very risks and threats is likely a top priority for these individuals on a daily basis. It is against those priorities that the security-aware leader will likely evaluate the successes of his or her security organization, along with determining areas for improvement.
When we look at the subject of metrics from this perspective, it becomes a bit easier to see why traditional, absolute metrics do not fit the task at hand. What’s missing from the discussion is a mapping between the tactical and operational work going on within the security organization and the strategic view taken by leaders. Enter relative metrics.
Relative metrics are metrics that involve quantitative measures that are “translated” or “mapped” to the priorities of leadership. Relative metrics allow the security organization to effectively measure and communicate its successes and areas for improvement in terms that leadership can internalize. Taking the three illustrative absolute metrics referenced above and converting them into relative metrics might result in the following examples:
- Amount of sensitive data exfiltrated via infected endpoints during a specific time window
- Risk and exposure as a result of critical assets successfully compromised via brute force attacks during a specific time window
- Median-time-to-remediation (MTTR)
As we can see, these relative metrics more precisely speak the language of our leaders. They do this by taking the absolute metrics and mapping them to the risks and threats that most concern our leadership. Of course, each organization will have its own unique concerns. That prioritized list should guide the development of relative metrics inside each organization.
It’s hard to imagine how a conversation between two people speaking two mutually unintelligible languages could result in the productive exchange of ideas. Yet, in the security world, we often live this very experience daily. Tactically and operationally focused security teams speak metrics that are unintelligible to their strategically focused leaders. In my experience, in order for effective communication to occur, everyone needs to be speaking the same language. Metrics and measurement are no exception.