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.

Analytics

8/26/2013
05:31 PM
Mike Rothman
Mike Rothman
Commentary
50%
50%

Incentives And Organizational Alignment (Or Lack Thereof)

The lack of incentives for security effectiveness remains a problem for security professionals. Until we define legitimate success criteria as the basis to align the organization around security, nothing will change

Salespeople are very predictable. They will act in the best interest of their wallets, at all times. I don't say that in a judgmental or critical fashion; I'm just stating fact. That's why corporate executive teams painstakingly spend weeks generating sales compensation plans each year. The comp plan defines how the sales force will behave, what they will sell, and, more importantly, what they won't. If a senior team gets the comp plan wrong, the chances for success are limited.

It's just human nature. Incentives drive behavior. And such is the problem of doing security. What's the incentive for doing security well? How do you even know if you're doing security well? If you beat back the attackers, what happens? Nothing. Actually, you don't get kicked in the teeth that day. So there's that. If you miss something and it results in data loss or downtime, get ready to take your lumps. It's a thankless job. And your incentive to excel is keeping your job -- which on most days doesn't feel like an incentive, right?

So how do we solve this problem? We have to define proper incentives for a security team. It certainly can't be stuff that doesn't impact the business. So if your MBO is based on shortening patch windows or full AV coverage, that's a huge fail. How about a bonus for achieving PCI compliance? Yeah, since PCI is such a high bar for security, you should definitely be incenting the security team to achieve mediocrity.

Likewise, if your success criteria (and associate bonus plan) hinges on having no data losses or breaches, you are being set up for failure. The fact is incidents happen. Whether we like it or not. You could do everything right and still get pwned. You want an incentive plan that doesn't ignore failure, but also puts a bulk of the incentive on things within your control.

Given that fact, what would be most impactful to the business? Maybe time to remediate an incident? Set a baseline and set objectives for improvement. That would impact the business, no? Of course, that can be a little squishy, but you have to start somewhere. How about something that prevents train wrecks before the train leaves the station? By that I'm referring to application security. Maybe something like number of security defects identified and fixed before applications go to production. That's not exactly in your control, but it's pretty important to the business.

You can quibble all you want about whether your security awareness training helps secure your environment. Yet with rampant social engineering attacks, how can you not spend some time training the weakest link in the chain -- your users? How about tracking the results of your internal social engineering simulations and providing incentives for improvement in the rank and file?

And it's not just the security team who need incentives to achieve security objectives. What about the operations folks who drag their heels on a firewall change (or, even worse, make a mistake), causing a potentially exploitable situation? What is their incentive to take a chance the firewall change causes downtime by closing a critical port? And how do you expect developers to write secure code when their incentive is to ship working code on time and within the budget? Right, they won't. Incentives create alignment within organizations as well. Without that alignment, achieving security goals is mission impossible.

This sounds an awful lot like a metrics discussion -- and it is. We, as an industry, have done a poor job of standardizing on a set of success criteria that indicate acceptable security posture. Without that success criteria and accompanying metrics to drive that behavior, you can't really design incentive programs to get both the security team, operations, developers, and the employee base to do the right things.

By the way, it's not like I have a lot of answers to address this issue. In my varied travels, it's hard to find folks who are happy with the incentive programs for the security team. Incentives are either nonexistent or based on activity that doesn't really reflect security posture or help the business. Until we get a much better handle on these incentives, folks will continue to ignore the need to secure things. That means we'll continue to repeat Groundhog Day over and over again.

Although I guess we could go all Game of Thrones and parade the head of the latest phishing victim on a stick in the cafeteria. That would certainly get everyone's attention, no? Mike's bold perspectives and irreverent style are invaluable as companies determine effective strategies to grapple with the dynamic security threatscape. Mike specializes in the sexy aspects of security, like protecting networks and endpoints, security management, and ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Drew Conry-Murray
50%
50%
Drew Conry-Murray,
User Rank: Ninja
8/28/2013 | 12:29:54 AM
re: Incentives And Organizational Alignment (Or Lack Thereof)
Glad to see you raising this discussion. You're right that the current incentive infrastructure (i.e., nothing bad happened today so you get to keep your job) is a poor one. I'd love to see folks weigh in with some examples of successful incentives they've rolled out at their own organizations.
Sodinokibi Ransomware: Where Attackers' Money Goes
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  10/15/2019
Data Privacy Protections for the Most Vulnerable -- Children
Dimitri Sirota, Founder & CEO of BigID,  10/17/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
2019 Online Malware and Threats
2019 Online Malware and Threats
As cyberattacks become more frequent and more sophisticated, enterprise security teams are under unprecedented pressure to respond. Is your organization ready?
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-18198
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
In the Linux kernel before 5.3.4, a reference count usage error in the fib6_rule_suppress() function in the fib6 suppression feature of net/ipv6/fib6_rules.c, when handling the FIB_LOOKUP_NOREF flag, can be exploited by a local attacker to corrupt memory, aka CID-ca7a03c41753.
CVE-2019-18197
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
In xsltCopyText in transform.c in libxslt 1.1.33, a pointer variable isn't reset under certain circumstances. If the relevant memory area happened to be freed and reused in a certain way, a bounds check could fail and memory outside a buffer could be written to, or uninitialized data could be disclo...
CVE-2019-4409
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
HCL Traveler versions 9.x and earlier are susceptible to cross-site scripting attacks. On the Problem Report page of the Traveler servlet pages, there is a field to specify a file attachment to provide additional problem details. An invalid file name returns an error message that includes the entere...
CVE-2019-13545
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
In Horner Automation Cscape 9.90 and prior, improper validation of data may cause the system to write outside the intended buffer area, which may allow arbitrary code execution.
CVE-2019-13541
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
In Horner Automation Cscape 9.90 and prior, an improper input validation vulnerability has been identified that may be exploited by processing files lacking user input validation. This may allow an attacker to access information and remotely execute arbitrary code.