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
KPMG Study: Breaches Up, Security Spending Down
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
8/1/2016 | 7:30:37 AM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
@Ryan: For that matter, how do you feel about the relationship between the CISO, the CCO, and the CPO?  In many organizations, one of these does the job of another -- if not all three.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
7/31/2016 | 10:15:55 PM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
Also a divorce of the roles is probably for the best.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
7/31/2016 | 10:08:15 PM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
I've put a lot of thought into this conflict of interest in the past between the CIO's goals and the CISO's. As you stated in your article, the success metrics for each is different. Cyber Security is more of a cost saving mechanism than a revenue earning mechanism, and unfortunately for InfoSec professionals the latter is held in higher regard.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/30/2016 | 7:26:56 AM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
Indeed, even the federal government has taken note of the CIO-CISO conflict of interest.  Capitol Hill Republicans have proposed having the CISO of the Department of Health and Human Services answer to the General Counsel, as can be seen in this report from last year: energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/114/Analysis/20150806HHSinformationsecurityreport.pdf

Now, a bipartisan bill before Congress proposes separating the office of the DHHS CISO entirely -- completely divorcing the role of the CIO.  See, e.g., fcw.com/articles/2016/05/27/hhs-ciso-hearing.aspx
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/30/2016 | 7:23:30 AM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
@RyanSepe: The notion isn't novel -- and one of the primary justifications for it is that the CISO and the CIO have an inherent conflict of interest.

I wrote about it for InformationWeek last year, in fact: informationweek.com/strategic-cio/cyber-security-and-the-cio-changing-the-conversation/a/d-id/1320660
GonzSTL
50%
50%
GonzSTL,
User Rank: Ninja
7/29/2016 | 3:47:59 PM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
Personally, I think that cybersecurity has come to the point where it really is its own discipline. When it comes to protecting an organization, cybersecurity has to have an equal voice at the table, and any tiebreaker should come from the one who is responsible for the organization as a whole. That usually falls on the shoulders of the CEO. Anytime you place security under another line, it takes a back seat and no longer has a fair voice at the table. For instance, if the CISO falls under the CIO, there is an inherent conflict of interest. IT is tasked with delivering technology to enable the business, whereas security needs to ensure that the technology is safely delivered (an oversimplification, I know, but it illustrates the point). If a situation arises where those come into conflict, IT generally overrules security. I have seen this happen. I have seen a CIO reclassify a security position because IT needed another FTE and did not have an open req. How does that help security? In that particular case, the security position that was reclassified was never reinstated or replaced. It was a permanent loss for security.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
7/29/2016 | 1:54:47 PM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
That's an interesting point of view that I have yet to hear having the CISO under the CFO. Definitely seems plausible. Typically what I have seen is the CISO under the CIO. Do you think it would be more beneficial to have the CISO under the CFO, like you stated, or on the same level as the CFO all under the CEO?
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
7/29/2016 | 1:52:20 PM
Re: 20% ?
Yes, I have heard variations of this same premise elsewhere. I do agree with this to a certain extent. I think what it comes down to was how severe was the hack.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/29/2016 | 1:29:13 PM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
@Dr.T: Yet another (of many) reasons the CISO should report directly to the CFO.  If security comes more directly under the CFO's purview, the fallout of a breach or data loss/compromise will hit the CFO more directly.  Then they'll start budgeting better.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/29/2016 | 1:27:23 PM
Re: 20% ?
An MIT Professor and cybersecurity expert I know, Stuart Madnick, always has this quip to share at every presentation he gives: "There are two types of organizations: Those that know they've been hacked, and those that don't know they've been hacked."
Page 1 / 3   >   >>


Attackers Leave Stolen Credentials Searchable on Google
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2021
How to Better Secure Your Microsoft 365 Environment
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/25/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: We need more votes, check the obituaries.
Current Issue
2020: The Year in Security
Download this Tech Digest for a look at the biggest security stories that - so far - have shaped a very strange and stressful year.
Flash Poll
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprises
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprises
COVID-19 has created a new IT paradigm in the enterprise -- and a new level of cybersecurity risk. This report offers a look at how enterprises are assessing and managing cyber-risk under the new normal.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-4815
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-27
IBM Cloud Pak for Security (CP4S) 1.4.0.0 could allow a remote user to obtain sensitive information from HTTP response headers that could be used in further attacks against the system.
CVE-2020-4816
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-27
IBM Cloud Pak for Security (CP4S) 1.4.0.0 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information, caused by the failure to properly enable HTTP Strict Transport Security. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability to obtain sensitive information using man in the middle techniques. IBM X-For...
CVE-2020-4820
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-27
IBM Cloud Pak for Security (CP4S) 1.4.0.0 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session.
CVE-2020-4967
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-27
IBM Cloud Pak for Security (CP4S) 1.3.0.1 could disclose sensitive information through HTTP headers which could be used in further attacks against the system. IBM X-Force ID: 192425.
CVE-2020-36012
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-27
Stored XSS vulnerability in BDTASK Multi-Store Inventory Management System 1.0 allows a local admin to inject arbitrary code via the Customer Name Field.