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.

Operations

4/27/2016
11:30 AM
Joshua Goldfarb
Joshua Goldfarb
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

8 Signs Your Security Culture Lacks Consistency

Organizations that practice what they preach and match their actions to their words do far better achieving their goals than those that do not. Here's why that matters.

Recently I interacted with someone who was friendly, tolerant, and accepting in public, but in private turned out to be unfriendly, intolerant, and hateful. I’m sure nearly all of us have come across this type of person at one time or another. But rather than let interactions such as these anger or frustrate me, I always try to learn a life lesson from them.  In this case, in addition to a life lesson, there is also a security lesson. It’s about consistency.

Consistency is a critical trait that successful security professionals, security leaders, and security programs all share but is too often overlooked and underestimated.  How many people have we met that can confidently fast talk their way through an interview or a meeting, only to have their true lack of skills become evident at the most inopportune of times?  How many security leaders have we seen publicly profess expertise and experience, only to privately reveal that in fact they lack those two important aspects?  How many security programs have been marketed and sold to us as “world class” only to have a peek beneath the covers reveal the extent to which this is not actually the case?

The common trait that is lacking in all of the above situations is consistency.  Lack of consistency can become a cultural blight within an organization that will actually impede security maturity and harm the organization’s security posture in the long run.  Before we can understand these ramifications, we need to understand some of the signs of a culture lacking consistency. They include:

  • Talk without action: As the old sayings go, “talk is cheap” and “actions speak louder than words.”  Sometimes, an organization, and particularly an organization’s leadership, talk a big security game.  But sadly, that talk isn’t always backed up by action.
  • Do as I say, not as I do:  Often, those who lecture on security or set security policy don’t actually practice what they preach.  This is an unfortunate circumstance that occurs far too often.
  • We have to do something:  I can’t keep track of how many times I’ve heard the phrase, “well, we *have* to do *something*”.  Anyone can do “something”, but doing the right thing, something that is both constructive and helpful, is something different entirely.
  • We have the finest people:  Almost all organizations tout the quality of their people.  The security organization is usually no different in that regard.  But backing that assertion up with consistent action is important to an organization’s security posture.
  • Our customers’ privacy is extremely important to us:  This assertion reminds me of those automated phone system messages, such as “your call is important to us”.  Really?  If my call was important to you, wouldn’t you have a human answer?  It’s one thing to say that customer privacy is important to the organization, but another thing entirely to actually mean it and work to safeguard that sensitive information.

Unfortunately, inconsistency within a security team can have cascading effects that impede growth and maturity of the entire organization:

  • Talk without action: I’ve heard plenty of people talk a big security game.  But that talk needs to be backed up by action. Are investments in people, process, and technology made at a level becoming of a world class security program? Are security staff addressing issues and challenges that will truly improve the security posture of the organization? Does leadership truly understand and support the strategic goals and priorities of the security organization?  If the answer to any of these questions is no, it’s going to be hard to achieve the desired results because actions are not consistent with words.
  • Do as I say, not as I do:  People aren’t naive.  If security leaders and security organizations don’t lead by example, no one will follow.  If what we do is inconsistent with what we say, we can’t realistically expect anyone to heed our word and follow our advice.  And that doesn’t bode very well for the security posture of an organization.
  • We have to do something:  Knee jerk reactions never solve anything. In fact, they almost always impede the progress of a security team and lower the security posture of an organization.  Diverting resources to the current shiny object is inconsistent with a strategic, holistic approach to security based upon risk mitigation.  To my knowledge, that is the only way to build a successful security organization.
  • We have the finest people:  If you say it, mean it.  Train your people.  Equip them with the right tools to do their job.  Educate up the management chain and laterally so the team can do their jobs.  Support them when politics, conventional wisdom, knee jerk reactions, or other distractions threaten to divert focus and progress away from where it needs to be.  Be consistent for the good of the team and the good of the program.
  • Our customers’ privacy is extremely important to us:  Really?  Are you prioritizing mitigating the risk that customer data will be stolen, or are you merely paying lip service to this sensitive subject?  Are you adequately prioritizing this risk and working to mitigate it with the right mix of people, process and technology?  What customers want with respect to the privacy of their data is consistency.  If you say that protecting their data is important, they want you to mean it. 

Consistency is an important but often overlooked trait in security. Security professionals, leaders, and programs that practice what they preach and match their actions to their words do far better in the long run than those that do not. Fast talking may fool some people in the near-term, but in the long-run, the truth usually surfaces.  Be consistent -- your security program will be better off for it.

Related Content: 

Gain insight into the latest threats and emerging best practices for managing them. Attend the Security Track at Interop Las Vegas, May 2-6. Register now!

Josh (Twitter: @ananalytical) is an experienced information security leader who works with enterprises to mature and improve their enterprise security programs.  Previously, Josh served as VP, CTO - Emerging Technologies at FireEye and as Chief Security Officer for ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...