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.

Comments
Why Are Security Pros Blas About Compliance?
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Alison_Diana
100%
0%
Alison_Diana,
User Rank: Moderator
8/28/2014 | 2:28:06 PM
More Details Please
I'd love to know more about who responded to the studies. Focusing as I do on healthcare, many organizations don't have CSOs or CISOs, meaning there's no specific executive responsible for overseeing the overall security realm. That means they don't have a top-level exec partnerhing with chief counsel (inhouse or contract) -- and that means governance and compliance get shunted on to the CEO, COO, or other exec who has a gazillion other things going on. Since compliance involves a whole lot more than technology, it's important that ownership extends to someone who oversees security as a whole, not just tech.
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.
Franois Amigorena
50%
50%
Franois 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.
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.
GonzSTL
50%
50%
GonzSTL,
User Rank: Ninja
8/29/2014 | 12:42:24 PM
Re: More Details Please
I agree, Tim; security pros are not necessarily blase' about compliance. in fact, I'm sure that the vast majority of them take compliance and security very seriously. In my opinion, the biggest challenge they face can be summed up in this scenario:

Executive: Are all the boxes checked?

Security: Yes

Executive: Then we are done.

Security: But there is so much more that we should do to enhance security!

Executive: We are compliant, and that's all we are required to do. We have other priorities.

How many of you have experienced this, or something similar? I know I have, and in more than one instance. The really sad thing about all this whole compliance/security thing is that if an organization cultivates a culture that includes secure practices in all aspects of its business, they will be compliant. When I examine the requirements of standards like PCI-DSS and the security and privacy sections of HIPAA, I cannot help but note that these are simply known security practices - none of them are novel ideas! Furthermore, if a CEO or CIO or any other C-level person does not promote this type of culture, then I submit that that executive does not have the best security interests of the organization at heart, and by extention, place their organizations in jeopardy. I admit that most C level executives are not security or even tech savvy, but in today's connected environment, they must wake up and smell the coffee.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
8/29/2014 | 2:42:35 PM
Re: More Details Please
@GonzSTL, I have brought this fact to the surface countless times and agree with you whole heartedly. This is why the need for a CISO/CSO is so important. They need to be the drivers of forcing policy, improving standards, and things of that nature to the VP's and Execs. 
Robert McDougal
50%
50%
Robert McDougal,
User Rank: Ninja
8/29/2014 | 2:52:17 PM
Re: More Details Please
In my experience it boils down to money.  We have spent all of this money to become compliant, why would we want to spend more on a line item that does not add to the bottom line.  Executives must be educated to the value of security and not just the necissity of it.
GonzSTL
50%
50%
GonzSTL,
User Rank: Ninja
8/29/2014 | 3:56:38 PM
Re: More Details Please
Years ago, the hot topic was to align IT objectives to the goals of an organization. That remains true today, but in addition, security must also align with the goals of the organization. This is more difficult a task because most effects of security are so intangible. In reality, security aligns with IT goals, which in turn align with organizational goals. It really boils down to communicationg security objectives not just in way fit that is for executive consumption, but also to show how security itself aligns and supports organizational goals. To be fair, this is not a one sided task because in order to succeed, executive management must be receptive to the message. Again, in today's connected sociery, with the almost daily news of breaches, executives must listen.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
8/28/2014 | 3:19:25 PM
Regulators
I just commented about this in a previous article. As you say in the article, many corporations just strive to be compliant. This is setting the bar very low and definitely doesn't ensure data saftey which has been delineated by the recent breaches. 

What needs to happen is that higher compliance and security measures need to become standards. If this is set as the minimal requirement than organizations will follow shortly behind. Its unfortunate, but unless stringent repercussions are in place. In seems that frivolous corporate America will continue to cut corners.

**Above is a generalized statement. Does not apply to all organizations.
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?
Franois Amigorena
50%
50%
Franois 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.
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.
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.
Franois Amigorena
100%
0%
Franois 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.
Ed Telders
50%
50%
Ed Telders,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/29/2014 | 1:14:38 PM
Re: The culture of the organization.
Actually PCI DSS is a standard and not a regulation at all.  In some ways though, it has bigger impacts.  This standard is a requirement because of contractual agreements your organization has agreed to for card processing.  There are a few jurisdictions that have mandated PCI compliance to conduct business but they are only a few.  Compliance with PCI is a business and contractual issue.  They have the impact of fines, sanctions, and public disclosure of PCI compliance status. 

All good, still needs to be done, but let's be clear this is not a regulation. 
gwavajeff
50%
50%
gwavajeff,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/8/2014 | 1:49:07 PM
Re: The culture of the organization.
I know you were focused on a couple specific compliance regs. I wanted to point out that there are a number of other compliance regulations of which many organizations are not aware. Most notably Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).  The FRCP requires companies to archive their electronic communications, which most assume is email, but has now expanded to mobile device messages (SMS/MMS), instant messaging, as well as employee's social media messages. 

Regulatory and investigation litigations have more than doubled in the last year. According to ESG almost half of businesses surveyed had an eDiscovery request in the last 12-months, and Gartner expects that to be around 75% by the end of the year. 

The Norton Rose Fulbright Annual Litigation Trends Survey found that regulatory litigations and investigations are the largest increase on concern for respondends in the last year, and regulatory litigation over the last year has more than doubled. 

Here are a few more compliance regulations for those that are interested:

Financial Industries Regulations
  • FINRA, SEC, MiFID and FSA government rules
  • Dodd-Frank Act (which requires that you produce communications within 72 hours of an auditor request)

Governmental Entities Regulations
  • The Freedom of Information Act, "Sunshine Laws" (vary from state to state)

Education Institution Regulations
  • Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

Healthcare Facility Regulations
  • HIPAA, HITECH

 
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
9/8/2014 | 3:31:25 PM
Re: The culture of the organization.
Who enforces there regulations @gwavajeff and do they have any teeth?
gwavajeff
50%
50%
gwavajeff,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/8/2014 | 4:00:04 PM
Re: The culture of the organization.
The entities involved in the investigations and litigations are varied, but the top three were the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Healthcare, technology/communications, and energy companies were the prime target of the DOJ. Surprisingly, energy companies were two times more likely than financial services to be the primary target of the SEC. Energy companies were also the target of the EPA, with manufacturing also having been a heavy target.

Rounding out the top ten list of agencies targeting businesses in regulatory investigations was the State Attorney General, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the US Attorney's Office, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the State District or County Attorney. 

I have a whole post about the issue on our blog, with links to the surveys I mentioned, and go into more, but I not trying to be spammy. First half of username dot com slash blog
GonzSTL
100%
0%
GonzSTL,
User Rank: Ninja
9/8/2014 | 4:30:06 PM
Re: The culture of the organization.
I think enforcement is as follows:

HIPAA - Office of Civil Rights, Department of Health and Human Services
HITECH - Office of Civil Rights, Department of Health and Human Services
FERPA - Family Policy Compliance Office, Department of Education
FOIA  - Federal Court, Department of Justice (states have similar regulations)
Dodd-Frank - Securities and Exchange Commission
FINRA - FINRA (check a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)
FRCP - Federal Court, Department of Justice
MiFID - European Union Countries
aws0513
50%
50%
aws0513,
User Rank: Ninja
9/9/2014 | 10:48:07 AM
Re: The culture of the organization.
Those are some of the big regulatory players for sure.

If there were anything to add, specifically in the US, it would be state laws or regulations.
More and more I am running into situations where states have established statutory requirements for the protection and handling of specific categories of data that may exceed or augments some of the regulatory directives you listed.

So many fingers in the regulatory security jar. 

Not complaining...  any regulatory requirement from any angle helps in the effort to gain resources and support for security controls that are necessary.  But the complexity of bringing all of the requirements together and addressed accordingly can be daunting at times.
Franois Amigorena
50%
50%
Franois 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. 
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!


Data Privacy Protections for the Most Vulnerable -- Children
Dimitri Sirota, Founder & CEO of BigID,  10/17/2019
Sodinokibi Ransomware: Where Attackers' Money Goes
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  10/15/2019
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-2019-18216
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-20
** DISPUTED ** The BIOS configuration design on ASUS ROG Zephyrus M GM501GS laptops with BIOS 313 relies on the main battery instead of using a CMOS battery, which reduces the value of a protection mechanism in which booting from a USB device is prohibited. Attackers who have physical laptop access ...
CVE-2019-18214
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-19
The Video_Converter app 0.1.0 for Nextcloud allows denial of service (CPU and memory consumption) via multiple concurrent conversions because many FFmpeg processes may be running at once. (The workload is not queued for serial execution.)
CVE-2019-18202
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-19
Information Disclosure is possible on WAGO Series PFC100 and PFC200 devices before FW12 due to improper access control. A remote attacker can check for the existence of paths and file names via crafted HTTP requests.
CVE-2019-18209
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-19
templates/pad.html in Etherpad-Lite 1.7.5 has XSS when the browser does not encode the path of the URL, as demonstrated by Internet Explorer.
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.