Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Careers & People

8/21/2018
02:30 PM
Ira Winkler
Ira Winkler
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

How to Gauge the Effectiveness of Security Awareness Programs

If you spend $10,000 on an awareness program and expect it to completely stop tens of millions of dollars in losses, you are a fool. If $10,000 prevents $100,000 in loss, that's a 10-fold ROI.

Back in 2013, I was perhaps one of the most visible defenders of awareness programs during a time period when many in the industry questioned the need for their presence as a security strategy at all. I still firmly defend awareness programs, and the arguments are still relevant.

To reiterate one of the stronger justifications: the measure of any countermeasure is if it provides a greater return on investment than what you are spending. If you spend $10,000 on an awareness program and expect it to completely stop tens of millions of dollars in losses, you are a fool. If that $10,000 prevents $100,000 in loss, it is a 10x return on investment.

On the other hand, most awareness programs are set up poorly. But just because a single firewall can be misconfigured and is, therefore, ineffective, it doesn't mean that all firewalls are ineffective. The reality is that few organizations know how to implement awareness programs effectively. Awareness is not about throwing phishing simulations at people until they recognize the simulations or forcing them to watch videos. That may be a piece of it, but awareness requires an ongoing program of reinforcing desired behaviors, well beyond phishing.

However, the underlying problem is not that awareness programs are poor but that users exhibit behaviors that are insecure. The point of my recent article was that the most effective security awareness effort occurs when security professionals examine business processes and attempt to proactively prevent or mitigate the problematic behaviors. The article offers two methods for that: specifically defining behaviors in governance to eliminate options, and the implementation of technologies to remove, prevent, or mitigate insecure behaviors.

You can never downplay the importance of governance, which is more than simply placing documents on the shelf. Good governance should define specific actions that are implemented throughout the organization. While individuals may not follow defined procedures to the letter, if you do not have such defined procedures, harmful actions on the part of users are again your fault.

Ideally, technology prevents users from making insecure decisions, such as creating bad passwords or perhaps removing the need for passwords at all. The implementation of technology should be determined in the context of an organization's business processes and the likelihood that the technologies will mitigate a user's failures to properly implement governance.

I will continue to argue that defining user actions within business processes is as important as an awareness program. That is true with any security countermeasure. An effective awareness program is still critical, however. The ultimate goal of awareness is to reduce the loss from areas where governance and technology eventually will fail.

Related Content:

 

Learn from the industry's most knowledgeable CISOs and IT security experts in a setting that is conducive to interaction and conversation. Early bird rate ends August 31. Click for more info

Ira Winkler is president of Secure Mentem and author of Advanced Persistent Security. View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
I 'Hacked' My Accounts Using My Mobile Number: Here's What I Learned
Nicole Sette, Director in the Cyber Risk practice of Kroll, a division of Duff & Phelps,  11/19/2019
6 Top Nontechnical Degrees for Cybersecurity
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  11/21/2019
Anatomy of a BEC Scam
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  11/21/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-18610
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-22
An issue was discovered in manager.c in Sangoma Asterisk through 13.x, 16.x, 17.x and Certified Asterisk 13.21 through 13.21-cert4. A remote authenticated Asterisk Manager Interface (AMI) user without system authorization could use a specially crafted Originate AMI request to execute arbitrary syste...
CVE-2019-9536
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-22
Apple iPhone 3GS bootrom malloc implementation returns a non-NULL pointer when unable to allocate memory, aka 'alloc8'. An attacker with physical access to the device can install arbitrary firmware.
CVE-2013-6811
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-22
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the D-Link DSL-6740U gateway (Rev. H1) allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that change administrator credentials or enable remote management services to (1) Custom Services in Port Forwarding...
CVE-2013-6880
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-22
Open redirect in proxy.php in FlashCanvas before 1.6 allows remote attackers to redirect users to arbitrary web sites and conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via the HTTP Referer header.
CVE-2019-15652
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-22
The web interface for NSSLGlobal SatLink VSAT Modem Unit (VMU) devices before 18.1.0 doesn't properly sanitize input for error messages, leading to the ability to inject client-side code.