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.

Risk

1/10/2020
10:00 AM
Joshua Goldfarb
Joshua Goldfarb
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

5 Tips on How to Build a Strong Security Metrics Framework

The carpentry maxim "measure twice, cut once" underscores the importance of timely, accurate, and regular metrics to inform security leaders' risk decisions.

When designed appropriately and measured objectively, metrics are an indispensable part of a mature security program. Solid metrics can help an organization measure and track risk and performance as well as make educated adjustments and decisions as required. While most security professionals recognize and understand this, in practice, only a few organizations actually realize significant benefits from security metrics. There are many approaches to building an effective security metrics program. In this piece, I'd like to share some thoughts on a framework that has worked well for me.

Tip 1: Know your audience. Years ago, when I took a presentation seminar, I was given some very good advice: Know your audience. This advice applies to many areas, including metrics. The first step toward building a strong metrics framework is to understand who you're building it for, even if there are multiple audiences. The metrics reported to the board and executives will be different than those you use to make operational improvements and tactical adjustments. The metrics provided to customers showing that their data is protected will be different than the metrics for security management to make well-informed decisions. A good metrics framework provides the right metrics to the appropriate audiences, even when there are multiple audiences.

Tip 2: Aggregate: One great way to provide the right metrics to the appropriate audiences is to aggregate strategically. Each tier is more detailed than the tier above it, and more granular metrics roll up into broader, more strategic metrics as you move up through the tiers. As an example, consider four tiers of aggregation that I have found helpful in building out a sound security metrics framework:

œ Group: The highest-level aggregate is the group. Each group should be a broad area within security made up of different functional areas. Some examples of groups might include "Compliance," "Vulnerability Management," and "Security Monitoring," among others.

œ Area: The next-level aggregate is the area. Each area should be a specific function within security that contains one or more risks that need to be measured. Areas might be "Application Risk Assessment," "Vendor Risk Assessment," and "Training and Awareness," among others.

œ Key risk: The next level aggregate is the key risk. Each key risk should represent an area of concern and focus for the business where security is expected to measure, monitor, manage, and mitigate that specific risk. Each key risk should measure whether or not the organization has incurred an unacceptable risk. Within each key risk are one or more metrics that can help shine light onto whether or not controls are effective.

œ Metric: The metric level is the lowest level — and, in fact, isn't really an aggregate at all. Metrics should be as granular, scientific, and objective as possible, while allowing the security team to measure specific risks. Each metric should be mapped to a control and should help to measure whether or not the control is mitigating risk appropriately.

Tip 3: Map to controls. Ultimately, a good metric will help assess whether or not a control is effective at reducing risk. This has many benefits, including allowing the security organization to gain an understanding of where gaps may exist or where controls may need to be either designed or implemented differently. Of course, these benefits are only attainable when metrics are mapped to controls. It is a bit of a time investment to do so, though it is well worth it.

Tip 4: Designate acceptable values and objective ranges. If you've ever had your home or car inspected, you know that there are acceptable levels for radon in a home or emissions from a car. It isn't black or white or on or off. There is a range of levels within which the home or car passes the test, and outside of which, it fails. The same should be true for metrics. Once you have a solid set of metrics, define acceptable values for those metrics together with ranges that define different levels of risk (for example, low/medium/high, green/amber/red, or any other set of groupings that suits your organization). That will allow you to more objectively calculate risk levels for each metric, different aggregates of metrics, and in total across the organization.

Tip 5: Measure and report regularly. The carpentry proverb, "measure twice, cut once" can help us understand the importance of timely, accurate, and regular metrics. Metrics should be living and dynamic, rather than snapshotted and static. Just as accurate measurements inform the carpenter's cutting decisions, accurate security metrics inform the security leader's risk decisions. It's important to remember that the value of a given metric represents an accurate measurement only in the moment it is measured. Because of this, it's important to measure frequently and report metrics regularly. This allows the security organization to trend over time, spot abnormalities early on, and prevent additional risk from entering the organization unnecessarily.

Related Content:

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading's new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today's top story: "In App Development, Does No-Code Mean No Security?"

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 8/14/2020
Lock-Pickers Face an Uncertain Future Online
Seth Rosenblatt, Contributing Writer,  8/10/2020
Hacking It as a CISO: Advice for Security Leadership
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 New Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities That Could Put Your Enterprise at Risk
In this Dark Reading Tech Digest, we look at the ways security researchers and ethical hackers find critical vulnerabilities and offer insights into how you can fix them before attackers can exploit them.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-17475
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of authentication in the network relays used in MEGVII Koala 2.9.1-c3s allows attackers to grant physical access to anyone by sending packet data to UDP port 5000.
CVE-2020-0255
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2020-10751. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2020-10751. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2020-10751 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-14353
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2017-18270. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2017-18270. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2017-18270 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-17464
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none.
CVE-2020-17473
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of mutual authentication in ZKTeco FaceDepot 7B 1.0.213 and ZKBiosecurity Server 1.0.0_20190723 allows an attacker to obtain a long-lasting token by impersonating the server.