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.

Database Security
Authentication
Mobile
Privacy
Compliance
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
Comments
Why Are Security Pros Blasé About Compliance?
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>
Alison_Diana
50%
50%
Alison_Diana,
 User Rank: Moderator
8/29/2014 | 11:40:18 AM
Re: The culture of the organization.
Not to be nasty or mean, but it's good to hear some executives are losing their jobs because organizations aren't meeting security or compliance goals or needs. As I say, I don't want to be horrible about this, but sometimes the impetus for change is putting a person's name and personal responsibility (as in their job, jail time, or a personal fine -- not a corporate fine that can be passed off to taxpayers or consumers) onto a failure to comply. Only then, perhaps, will compliance expand across most, if not all, organizations. Really, executives should worry. After all, their information is at risk in other companies, if not their own!
François Amigorena
100%
0%
François Amigorena,
 User Rank: Author
8/29/2014 | 11:11:40 AM
Re: The culture of the organization.
Actually HIPAA is another case in point. I hadn't highlighted it in the article as the sample size was too small to really call it significant, but of the relatively small sample of IT decision makers in healthcare I mentioned earlier just over 50% didn't know whether they were compliant with HIPAA. Interesting to hear your experiences about the motivations as to why organisations aren't paying attention to it. As @aws5013 says, if there's no obvious or immediate financial implication then often the board level struggle see it as a priority. Hopefully that is changing.
François Amigorena
50%
50%
François Amigorena,
 User Rank: Author
8/29/2014 | 11:11:12 AM
Re: The culture of the organization.
Thanks for your comment. I absolutely agree. Management must set an example and it's interesting to hear about your experience where that has far from been the case. I know that security teams can often have difficulty explaining the necessity of meeting certain security measures, and of course it's hard to get the message across when it's not something that affects the organisation's bottom line.

Really, management should be getting a big red warning sign that this should really matter to them, as top level executives at huge businesses are losing their jobs as a result of security related issues. 
DarkReadingTim
50%
50%
DarkReadingTim,
 User Rank: Strategist
8/29/2014 | 9:55:33 AM
Re: More Details Please
I'm not sure I agree that security pros are blase' about compliance. In many organizations, it's compliance, not security, that drives budget/funding for many security-related projects. CEOs understand that they must prove compliance in order to operate in their industries, so they sometimes are willing to part with budget for compliance in a way that they won't do for security alone. In those cases, compliance becomes the driver for a security project, because there is budget there.

I think your two examples represent the extremes of compliance. SOX requires security but offers almost no specifics on how to achieve it. PCI, on the other hand, requires that enterprises meet more than 100 specific requirements, and even mandates the use of specific technologies such as WAFs. Security professionals may feel ambivalent about SOX, primarily because there is not much direction for them to work with. PCI, conversely, means implementing specific controls before the auditor arrives.
François Amigorena
50%
50%
François Amigorena,
 User Rank: Author
8/29/2014 | 9:05:31 AM
Re: More Details Please
Hi Alison, thanks for your comment. The sample was designed to be representative across industries, and a total of 57 out of the 500 identified as being in healthcare. You're quite right though, too often these issues are left to be dealt with by individuals with 100 other things on their plate. But even when there is a CISO the CEOs and COOs have to take some responsibility and ownership; as you say technology alone can't solve the problem so you do need commitment from the very top.
François Amigorena
50%
50%
François Amigorena,
 User Rank: Author
8/29/2014 | 9:04:20 AM
Re: Regulators
Thanks for your comment. I agree, it's always tempting to cut corners and perhaps we do need more stringent standards. Technology that can help organisations meet those standards more easily has a part to play too though.
Alison_Diana
50%
50%
Alison_Diana,
 User Rank: Moderator
8/29/2014 | 9:02:41 AM
Re: The culture of the organization.
You are right on the money. I remember when HIPAA first came out, and security and compliance experts were excited that they finally had a stick to wave. Well, they didn't -- because nothing happened when companies were not compliant with HIPAA. Now the government is finally taking action against organizations that aren't HIPAA-compliant, they do have something to back up their cautionary words; in the case of smaller organizations, which are equally culpable, a $100K fine can be make or break. But in the case of a huge multi-million dollar operation, that fine may be cheaper than actually being compliant. Unless the culture demands compliance and is committed to security, governance, and security -- and that has to come from the top.
aws0513
50%
50%
aws0513,
 User Rank: Ninja
8/29/2014 | 8:39:42 AM
The culture of the organization.
In my IT security experiences, the level of attention to compliance by the security team was directly affected by the amount of management emphasis on the need for security and security compliance.

I am all about security compliance.  As a matter of fact, I tend to focus on not just compliance, but operationalization of compliance.  The establishment of policies and standards is first, followed closely by procedures and processes.  But it is the persistent utilization of those procedures and processes that really make security programs effective.

I also use compliance as a stick when I need to convince system owners and management that a certain control solution is necessary.  Often, it is the only stick I have.

The problem has commonly been that some organizational management still sees security as just overhead.  Security rarely contributes to the bottom line unless the organization business is security.  I have been in situations where the marketing team had more respect for the security aspects of the business than the corporate management.

The lax attitude by management directly affects the security team.  Even if a security team is ambitious about compliance, they quickly lose any motivation when running into a wall of management that falls asleep during discussions about security.  This demotivation is also augmented when management is slow to assist in obtaining resources to implement necessary controls to meet compliance.  It is the classic "why should I even try anymore" attitude that eventually defines the compliance culture of the security team and the entire organization.

It all comes down to the corporate culture established by the top management team.  If they consider security to be integral to their entire operations, then compliance will be much more evident in the security team plans and activities.
Cybdiver
50%
50%
Cybdiver,
 User Rank: Apprentice
8/29/2014 | 8:36:28 AM
Re: More Details Please
A perfect answer in my opinion.  The lack of technical understanding and support at the top levels of managment are usually the source of lack of compliance. 

Unfortuantly while they tout how much they want to be in compliance they forget the human factor is part of the securtiy too and fail to enforce the very rules of compliance required.  Getting a computer to cooperate is easy,  getting the board of directors and C level officers to follow rules is another trick.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
 User Rank: Strategist
8/29/2014 | 8:07:25 AM
Re: Regulators
There is a definitely a disconnect between being compliant enough to meet a low regulatory bar and being compliant to a regulation to improve an organization's'security profile. But @RyanSepe, do you think its an enforcement problem? In other words, will companies take better precautions if they know the penalties (outside of the cost of a breach) will be tougher?
<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>


Why Cyber-Risk Is a C-Suite Issue
Marc Wilczek, Digital Strategist & CIO Advisor,  11/12/2019
DevSecOps: The Answer to the Cloud Security Skills Gap
Lamont Orange, Chief Information Security Officer at Netskope,  11/15/2019
Attackers' Costs Increasing as Businesses Focus on Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  11/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: "Looks like the Trojans are evolving into a more focused attack mode."
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 industry’s conventional wisdom. Here’s a look at what they’re thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19071
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-18
A memory leak in the rsi_send_beacon() function in drivers/net/wireless/rsi/rsi_91x_mgmt.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.11 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) by triggering rsi_prepare_beacon() failures, aka CID-d563131ef23c.
CVE-2019-19072
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-18
A memory leak in the predicate_parse() function in kernel/trace/trace_events_filter.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.11 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption), aka CID-96c5c6e6a5b6.
CVE-2019-19073
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-18
Memory leaks in drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/htc_hst.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.11 allow attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) by triggering wait_for_completion_timeout() failures. This affects the htc_config_pipe_credits() function, the htc_setup_complete() function, ...
CVE-2019-19074
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-18
A memory leak in the ath9k_wmi_cmd() function in drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/wmi.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.11 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption), aka CID-728c1e2a05e4.
CVE-2019-19075
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-18
A memory leak in the ca8210_probe() function in drivers/net/ieee802154/ca8210.c in the Linux kernel before 5.3.8 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) by triggering ca8210_get_platform_data() failures, aka CID-6402939ec86e.