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

9/25/2019
03:35 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

When Compliance Isn't Enough: A Case for Integrated Risk Management

Why governance, risk, and compliance solutions lull companies into a false sense of security, and how to form a more effective approach.

The governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) approach to risk management is proving insufficient as companies grapple with myriad tools amid a false sense of security. Instead they now are turning to integrated risk management (IRM) and risk quantification to inform strategies.

"What we are seeing, and have seen over the last five years, is a pivot away from more of a compliance-focused approach around IT and security risk that you'd typically find in a GRC program, or even in utilizing GRC technology," says John Wheeler, global research leader for Gartner's Risk Management Technology division. His focus is on IRM, which involves different ways to address risk and potentially transfer risk vehicles; for example, cyber insurance.

GRC, now around for nearly two decades, stemmed from a growing need to address the broad landscape of compliance mandates security pros face year after year, Wheeler says. While helpful in meeting said mandates, companies that invested more in GRC-specific tools found themselves in a "potpourri" of products either purpose-built to address a specific compliance requirement or limited in its ability to understand risks unique and specific to the organization.

"For many organizations, they may have a false sense of security," he adds. "If they think they are compliant with regulations, risks are addressed … [this] couldn't be further from the truth."

It is imperative companies understand their individual risk profile, Wheeler continues; out of that will come a greater ability to meet compliance mandates that are relevant to the business. Rather than focus on GRC, many are turning to IRM so they can comprehend how IT risk, and cybersecurity requirements and posture, fits into and aligns with broader operational risk.

"[IRM is] taking it beyond technology into the realm of people and process risk, and ultimately all the way up to overall strategic risk of an organization, such that they can understand their security and IT risk aligned with where the organization is headed strategically," he explains.

IRM is a "forward-looking risk posture" in that it considers the most strategic initiatives a business is taking on, and where it's headed, as opposed to reporting on historical security incidents. While past events are important and can inform an enterprise approach to security, they make up only a small piece of the picture – and one senior executives and board members can't fully appreciate as it has little relevance to what they're hoping to achieve in the future.

Context is Key: Why IRM is Different  

The core of IRM is the ability to perform risk assessment at an asset-based level, which aligns with the IT or cybersecurity world, says Wheeler, who spoke about the approach at this week's FAIR Conference, held in Washington, D.C. Most IT and security pros assess the risk of their hardware, software, and data assets to determine which of these are most critical.

"That is important, but what they lack is context of how those assets are also tied into the broader business," he says. They need to take the risk assessment of a given process, and the people involved, and tie those into asset-based risk assessment to realize how they intersect.

For example, you may have a server on the network deemed critical, but in reality, it doesn't support any critical business processes, so it doesn't need to be highly ranked. At the same time, you may have an asset labeled non-critical, located outside the core network and tied into a highly critical business process. For that reason, it will need to be treated differently. These risk assessments can help IT better understand how different systems relate to one another; in doing this, they can better prioritize their work efforts and resource allocation, he adds.

IRM is helpful in informing the development of new products and services, says Wheeler, as it provides a vertical view of risk through the company. This is "essential" in helping businesses address digital risk management as it relates to the creation and delivery of new digital products and services, an issue of great importance to CEOs who want to use these to grow.

"To do that effectively, they need to have that vertical view of risk down through the organization to give them better understanding and visibility into the risk they face with digital products and services," Wheeler says. "Not only for developing a business case, but then as it progresses from business case to design and delivery, understanding how risk profile changes."

Navigating Shifts and Challenges

Wheeler acknowledges adopting IRM comes with its obstacles: while security pros can use tools and methodologies to better quantify risk, he says, it will never be precise in its calculation.

"It's unlike, say, financial risk, when you get into credit risk or market risk, where you can be very precise in the amount of risk that needs to be mitigated or transferred," he explains. The goal of this exercise should be "directionally correct," as he puts it, instead of entirely exact. With that expectation, organizations can focus on creating and maintaining a dialogue around IT and cybersecurity risk, and make decisions based on the directionally correct data they have.

He also points to a shift occurring within many organizations, which are seeing more and more risk borne by people within the business as opposed to technology experts and leaders. As this is happening, tech is moving into a frontline activity as it supports products and services. This accountability will drive a desire within the business to be engaged and understand the risk.

With that engagement, an understanding must be made. IT and security pros can provide risk data, but everyone must keep in mind the focus of the risk itself as opposed to the process of calculating the risk amount. In his personal experience, Wheeler says much of the conversation between business and technology devolves into a discussion of how a risk amount was calculated – which avoids the goal of addressing risk in a way that drives the business forward.

Related Content:

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading's new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today's top story: "The Beginner's Guide to Denial-of-Service Attacks: A Breakdown of Shutdowns."

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance & Technology, where she covered financial ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
DevSecOps: The Answer to the Cloud Security Skills Gap
Lamont Orange, Chief Information Security Officer at Netskope,  11/15/2019
Attackers' Costs Increasing as Businesses Focus on Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  11/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: -when I told you that our cyber-defense was from another age
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2011-3350
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
masqmail 0.2.21 through 0.2.30 improperly calls seteuid() in src/log.c and src/masqmail.c that results in improper privilege dropping.
CVE-2011-3352
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
Zikula 1.3.0 build #3168 and probably prior has XSS flaw due to improper sanitization of the 'themename' parameter by setting default, modifying and deleting themes. A remote attacker with Zikula administrator privilege could use this flaw to execute arbitrary HTML or web script code in the context ...
CVE-2011-3349
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
lightdm before 0.9.6 writes in .dmrc and Xauthority files using root permissions while the files are in user controlled folders. A local user can overwrite root-owned files via a symlink, which can allow possible privilege escalation.
CVE-2019-10080
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
The XMLFileLookupService in NiFi versions 1.3.0 to 1.9.2 allowed trusted users to inadvertently configure a potentially malicious XML file. The XML file has the ability to make external calls to services (via XXE) and reveal information such as the versions of Java, Jersey, and Apache that the NiFI ...
CVE-2019-10083
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
When updating a Process Group via the API in NiFi versions 1.3.0 to 1.9.2, the response to the request includes all of its contents (at the top most level, not recursively). The response included details about processors and controller services which the user may not have had read access to.