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.

Threat Intelligence

5/17/2017
04:30 PM
David Damato
David Damato
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Why We Need a Data-Driven Cybersecurity Market

NIST should bring together industry to create a standard set of metrics and develop better ways to share information.

Imagine you're the chief information security officer (CISO) of a big bank. You've just implemented a new cybersecurity program and you want to see how your metrics stack up against those of your peers. It should be easy, right? It's not.

Unfortunately, there is no standardized process for measuring and reporting on cybersecurity metrics that all organizations can access. I can give my firsthand experience, or they can hire one of the big consultancies. Even then, the available data sets are too small and in different formats.

The NIST Cybersecurity Famework — put forward by the US Department of Commerce and widely adopted by businesses and government agencies — is the ideal mechanism for setting these standards. That's why I was glad to see the Department's updated draft — which was released earlier this year, and for which comments were due in April — even added a section on metrics and measurement. But the National Institute of Standards and Technology doesn't go far enough. It should use its convening power to bring together stakeholders across industries and develop a set of common metrics, authorize and approve third parties to audit them, and develop ways to share this information.

This is not unprecedented.

Take the energy sector. Business owners are constantly looking for ways to make their buildings run more efficiently. But for a long time, they had no way of knowing how their energy use stacked up against building owners of a similar size and region. The Energy Department put forth a solution: a national database of anonymized real-life buildings and their energy data, to which any organization can submit their building portfolio's data, and which anyone can access to analyze and compare data from a similar subset of buildings (say, in their region). This allows users of the data to gain a better understanding of trends and market conditions. Equipped with this information, they can make more-informed investment decisions.

NIST can do the same for cybersecurity metrics. They should coordinate with the Homeland Security Department, which has done some preliminary work in this area.

Of course, this is no easy task. The sensitivity of cybersecurity data adds a number of complexities that must be addressed, but the immense value this would provide would be worth the effort. It would allow everyone from CISOs to policymakers to cyber insurance companies to inform their decisions with real-world data. There's a path forward, but it will require a concerted effort by government, cybersecurity vendors, and businesses.

First, NIST must put forth a core set of common metrics that all organizations should strive toward knowing about their IT and cybersecurity capabilities. These don't need to be exhaustive or mandatory. But they should cover the basic and most meaningful components of cyber hygiene, such as the ratio of managed to unmanaged assets, the mean time to remediate an incident, and the mean time to implement a patch across an organization's network. NIST should engage industry and government to develop and agree on these metrics.

Second, NIST should develop standardized criteria for third-party auditors to verify organizations' cybersecurity metrics. Rather than acting as an auditor itself, NIST could certify third-party auditors and give them the federal government's stamp of approval, creating a system that could work at a national scale.

Third, NIST, working with Congress and industry, should develop the necessary market and legal incentives and infrastructure – such as a publicly accessible database managed by NIST or a nonprofit organization and accessible to industry — for organizations to share these metrics. Any data that private organizations choose to submit to the database must be done so voluntarily, and must be cleansed and anonymized. Businesses should receive full certainty that they will never be legally punished for submitting data.

If implemented correctly, these efforts could spur an entirely new approach to cybersecurity — one that's market-driven and data-backed.

CISOs would have not only consistent metrics to measure performance but also an industry standard to strive toward. Just as some utilities now include on your energy bill data about your neighbors' energy usage, CISOs would know the average time to patch their systems, based on organizations of similar size and sector.

Policymakers would have hard data to shape cybersecurity policies. Currently, they're forced to rely on meetings with vendors, who might tell them a dozen different indicators they should focus on. This solution would fix that, helping create policy supported by real-world evidence of what constitutes best-in-class, and what's no longer acceptable in today's threat environment.

The fast-growing cyber-insurance market would also benefit. With a standardized framework and metrics for measuring cybersecurity, insurers could better assess organizations' risk and develop standard report procedures, like a 10-K report businesses submit to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Of course, for this approach to work, organizations must first be able to access these key metrics about their networks and do so in a timely and accurate manner. Although many organizations are certainly making progress in this regard, many will have to adopt software solutions to enable them to collect this data.

As breaches abound, it's become all too clear our current approach to cybersecurity is failing. Instead of more regulations, what we need is more data, better access to that data, and a framework by which to collect it and compare it across companies and industries. If we do that, we will go a long way toward securing the devices and networks on which our economy relies.

Related Content:

David Damato is Chief Security Officer at Tanium, where he provides strategic product direction over module development for the Tanium Platform and manages the company's internal security program. David brings a wealth of security expertise, spanning incident response and ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Data Leak Week: Billions of Sensitive Files Exposed Online
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  12/10/2019
Intel Issues Fix for 'Plundervolt' SGX Flaw
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  12/11/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
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-2019-5252
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-14
There is an improper authentication vulnerability in Huawei smartphones (Y9, Honor 8X, Honor 9 Lite, Honor 9i, Y6 Pro). The applock does not perform a sufficient authentication in a rare condition. Successful exploit could allow the attacker to use the application locked by applock in an instant.
CVE-2019-5235
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-14
Some Huawei smart phones have a null pointer dereference vulnerability. An attacker crafts specific packets and sends to the affected product to exploit this vulnerability. Successful exploitation may cause the affected phone to be abnormal.
CVE-2019-5264
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
There is an information disclosure vulnerability in certain Huawei smartphones (Mate 10;Mate 10 Pro;Honor V10;Changxiang 7S;P-smart;Changxiang 8 Plus;Y9 2018;Honor 9 Lite;Honor 9i;Mate 9). The software does not properly handle certain information of applications locked by applock in a rare condition...
CVE-2019-5277
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
Huawei CloudUSM-EUA V600R006C10;V600R019C00 have an information leak vulnerability. Due to improper configuration, the attacker may cause information leak by successful exploitation.
CVE-2019-5254
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
Certain Huawei products (AP2000;IPS Module;NGFW Module;NIP6300;NIP6600;NIP6800;S5700;SVN5600;SVN5800;SVN5800-C;SeMG9811;Secospace AntiDDoS8000;Secospace USG6300;Secospace USG6500;Secospace USG6600;USG6000V;eSpace U1981) have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. An attacker who logs in to the board m...