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.

Perimeter

2/23/2012
11:23 AM
50%
50%

Five Dangerous Compliance Assumptions

Many businesses fool themselves about their compliance problems

After 20 years of working with clients, I am still left shaking my head at the number of companies that declare with great confidence they are “fully compliant” when it is obvious they are not even close.

I think we all understand that compliance means conforming to applicable rules, typically specifications, policies, standards, or laws. Seems simple enough, right? Apparently not.

I find many organizations, especially those with fewer than 200 employees, that are claiming full compliance but have rarely even read the full requirements. This is particularly true in industries where compliance has no official compliance certification, such as HIPAA. They may have skimmed over a summary of the requirements, usually choosing to ignore certain parts by convincing themselves these rules don’t apply to them. These decisions are often made by a single employee, who then proclaims the company compliant and enables his or her fellow employees to blindly accept, and even promote, this convenient, but false, claim.

Companies that incorrectly claim compliance are usually making too many assumptions, some that benignly support their arguments, but others that dangerously fuel false beliefs concerning these companies’ capabilities or security.

Here are five dangerous compliance assumptions I see frequently:

1. “We’re secure -- that makes us compliant. We use passwords and firewalls.”
Whether I uncover it in an onsite assessment or in casual discussions with management, this belief is surprisingly common. Even if the IT team knows it not to be true, if management “feels safe,” they “feel secure.” It is an easy stretch to assume “feeling” secure means legitimate compliance with meaningful security standards.

2. “The IT manager said we are complaint.“
I think the old Russian proverb addresses this one best: Trust but verify. Every good organization has checks and balances throughout, even small organizations.

Bookkeepers are checked by accountants, who are checked by external CPAs. When I write, I have someone proofread my work and then an editor checks it. Having more than one point of confirmation is critical, as even the best of us can miss something important.

3. “Strong physical security is not really necessary here, we are all trustworthy.”
While that is admirable to think, it is usually just a lazy excuse to avoid restricting access to those who don’t actually need it. Or sometimes it can be a social problem: “Oh, Sally will think we don’t trust her if we restrict her access to the server room or that database.” Security is not about trust. It is about following a process designed to protect everyone, including Sally, and your other employees.

4. “Really complex, frequently changing passwords are the most secure.”
This assumption totally ignores the human component of security. Is a really complex password more secure from hacking tools? Sure. But far more security breaches come from access to passwords written down because they are too complex to remember. I don’t know many people who can remember “Er55%P22eRq12121z,” and to expect anyone to is foolish.

5. “The computer has a login, so it is secure.”
Unrestricted physical server and computer access is incredibly common in small organizations and retails stores. It is not uncommon in medical practices for the server room to be a closet, with the door left open so the equipment won’t overheat. If someone steals the server or a computer, they will then have as much time as they want to bypass your login. Your equipment might be more easily stolen than you realize.

Naturally, there are dozens of dangerous assumptions a company can make -- some more obvious than others. Because compliance requires a specific mindset, including changes to routines and embracing new habits, it can be like eating healthier or getting more regular exercise: We know it is very important, possibly even lifesaving, but often we don’t take action until it’s too late.

Glenn S. Phillips, the president of Forte' Incorporated, works with business leaders who want to leverage technology and understand risks within. Glenn works with business leaders who want to leverage technology and understand the often hidden risks awaiting them. The Founder and Sr. Consultant of Forte' Incorporated, Glenn and his team work with business leaders to support growth, increase profits, and address ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Florida Town Pays $600K to Ransomware Operators
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  6/20/2019
Pledges to Not Pay Ransomware Hit Reality
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  6/21/2019
AWS CISO Talks Risk Reduction, Development, Recruitment
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/25/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-10133
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
A flaw was found in Moodle before 3.7, 3.6.4, 3.5.6, 3.4.9 and 3.1.18. The form to upload cohorts contained a redirect field, which was not restricted to internal URLs.
CVE-2019-10134
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
A flaw was found in Moodle before 3.7, 3.6.4, 3.5.6, 3.4.9 and 3.1.18. The size of users' private file uploads via email were not correctly checked, so their quota allowance could be exceeded.
CVE-2019-10154
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
A flaw was found in Moodle before versions 3.7, 3.6.4. A web service fetching messages was not restricted to the current user's conversations.
CVE-2019-9039
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
The Couchbase Sync Gateway 2.1.2 in combination with a Couchbase Server is affected by a previously undisclosed N1QL-injection vulnerability in the REST API. An attacker with access to the public REST API can insert additional N1QL statements through the parameters ?startkey? and ?endkey? of the ?_a...
CVE-2018-20846
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
Out-of-bounds accesses in the functions pi_next_lrcp, pi_next_rlcp, pi_next_rpcl, pi_next_pcrl, pi_next_rpcl, and pi_next_cprl in openmj2/pi.c in OpenJPEG through 2.3.0 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash).