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   >   >>


Commentary
How SolarWinds Busted Up Our Assumptions About Code Signing
Dr. Jethro Beekman, Technical Director,  3/3/2021
News
'ObliqueRAT' Now Hides Behind Images on Compromised Websites
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  3/2/2021
News
Attackers Turn Struggling Software Projects Into Trojan Horses
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/26/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-26788
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-08
Oryx Embedded CycloneTCP 1.7.6 to 2.0.0, fixed in 2.0.2, is affected by incorrect input validation, which may cause a denial of service (DoS). To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to have TCP connectivity to the target system. Receiving a maliciously crafted TCP packet from an unauthentic...
CVE-2021-23351
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-08
The package github.com/pires/go-proxyproto before 0.5.0 are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via the parseVersion1() function. The reader in this package is a default bufio.Reader wrapping a net.Conn. It will read from the connection until it finds a newline. Since no limits are implemented in ...
CVE-2009-20001
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-07
An issue was discovered in MantisBT before 2.24.5. It associates a unique cookie string with each user. This string is not reset upon logout (i.e., the user session is still considered valid and active), allowing an attacker who somehow gained access to a user's cookie to login as them.
CVE-2020-28466
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-07
This affects all versions of package github.com/nats-io/nats-server/server. Untrusted accounts are able to crash the server using configs that represent a service export/import cycles. Disclaimer from the maintainers: Running a NATS service which is exposed to untrusted users presents a heightened r...
CVE-2021-27364
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-07
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel through 5.11.3. drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c is adversely affected by the ability of an unprivileged user to craft Netlink messages.