Our cyber security products span from our next gen SIEM used in the most secure government and critical infrastructure environments, to automated cyber risk reporting applications for commercial and government organisations of all sizes.
There is a growing range of ways to provide security control metrics and assessments for businesses. The intended audience of these solutions tends to be non-security people, for example senior board members (for enterprise security and the associated risks) and procurement or risk/compliance managers (for third party security risk exposures) who need an understanding of cyber risk and security control effectiveness to monitor performance, improvements or exceptions.
There are 3 primary uses cases for this sort of measurement:
In general, there are two main ways in which this type of output is generated:
Indirect assessment solutions sit outside the corporate network, perhaps run by a service provider or in the cloud. They collect external (hence public) information in some cases from the organisation itself but also from wider sources (e.g. if company email addresses can be found on public internet forums).
This external assessment has the advantage of being very simple to do and easier to set up (there is nothing to install or connect) – it becomes a centrally operated service – but it also suffers from its non-invasive nature, from the fact that all it sees is the external facade of the organisation.
It might tell you that your web server is configured in a way that can introduce risk, but that is probably hosted by a third party. While you can tell them to fix it if they want to keep your hosting business, it is nowhere near your corporate network where users might sit and access data. So the external nature of the results provides little assurance as to the level of security from some of the most common threats like insider misuse, user susceptibility to phishing, internal access control or privileged account management or the levels of patching on internal systems.
The indirect approach is a bit like the people in Plato’s famous cave – sitting looking at the back wall watching shadows from the world outside. It’s a very incomplete, vague, indirect view of, in this case, cyber risk. If you want to know what your cyber posture is, stand up, leave Plato’s cave and look at the world directly.
Taking a more direct approach to security measurement inevitably means getting closer to the systems, users and data that you are trying to protect. This means something more “invasive”, which can sound like negative thing until you realise that actually it’s the accuracy and completeness of information you specifically want.
This might be a one off “execution” of an application or some form of scanner or data collector/audit tool, or an ongoing and continuous solution that provides scope to operate on a scheduled basis or to continuously monitor and observe relevant metrics of cyber security operational data as they happen. For example, checking the configuration and activity of security controls, measuring the coverage of things like patch application or backup processes, allowing the “now” state to be compared to the “before” state or the “intended” state and checking whether the security priorities that should have been implemented and be operating actually have been.
The main difference in the two approaches is that one reports cyber posture based on actual measurements, real observations, the actual settings or records of control effectiveness whereas the other makes deductions based on ancillary facts that indicate where problems might be.
It’s certainly true that a corporate email address in the public domain might be useful to an attacker to carry out a spearfishing attack, but that attack has to get past the content gateways, reach the user, look convincing, be clicked on and then whatever gets clicked on has to be able to exploit the operating system to install its payload.
Web servers are very exposed systems – deliberately so – and keeping them up to date with the latest patches is important. But they are also often well protected by firewalls and IDS, only accessible on a narrow range of ports and routinely penetration tested. So finding out which patches are missing is useful to an attacker, but it might not be a viable route to attack the system if the configuration prevents the vulnerability from being exploited to compromise the network or data. In fact, on a web server that has had all the latest patches installed you could easily find yourself exposed to a very specific application level SQL injection attack – and that would be down to your local development quality assurance, hence unlikely to be picked up by a general assessment.
If your internal servers and user endpoints are not patched to the latest versions then even a trivial intrusion or piece of malware, the dumbest ransomware example on the planet, could not only gain a foothold in your network but spread from system to system destroying data as it goes.
When it comes to measuring cyber security posture, think about buying a house.
You don’t make a purchase based just on the real estate agent’s photographs or by standing outside and looking at it. You go inside to look around properly, open the cupboards, get surveys done, carry out site searches for problems etc. You measure, you inspect, you quantify how many things and how much work might need to be done. You check yourself – directly, you don’t just ask the previous occupants what it was like to live in.
The validation or establishment of security posture or control effectiveness is similar. If you want to avoid costly mistakes or making expensive assumptions – look closely.
The difference to the house buying analogy is you might only buy a house once every few years, security moves fast so you need to be able to keep up. If you had to buy a house every week you’d find a way to get the same assurance, but automatically – you’d build the checks into a system that did them for you, in a trustworthy and repeatable way.
<<< Part 2a: Australia’s Essential Eight: Beyond Endpoint Control <<< Part 2b: Activating UK NCSC & US NIST Guidelines: Beyond Endpoint Control Part 4: Systematic Measurement of Cyber Controls >>> As much as we invest into cyber security controls, external threats are inevitable. In a recent Notifiable Data Breaches Report from the Office of the […]Read more
Keen campers, scouts and even the Swiss Army know – that a good penknife is indispensable. This simple device has mitigated many a disaster at one point in time or another. Whether it’s to cut through a bit of string, tighten a screw or simply to solve the problem of no bottle opener in the […]Read more
Supply chain risk is an area of cyber security that demands the ongoing attention of every enterprise; because it can make the difference between being resilient or not. It’s no surprise that insurers warn that the vulnerability of supply chains is potentially a systemic risk that can quickly propagate across supply chain dominated industries. Organisations […]Read more
It took a “tripartite cyber assessment” by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to identify that a sample of financial organisations had inadequate cyber security: poor security control management, a lack of business recovery planning and inadequate 3rd party risk assessment. Why were there gaps? Where is the failure? Clearly the common practice of unsubstantiated […]Read more
The discussion over data-driven vs qualitative cyber security assessment has been going for some time. Nowadays, it is at the top of the priority list for many security and senior executive teams. Managing cyber security has always been a noble ambition but without reliable measurement, the lack of actionable information makes evidence-based management decisions almost […]Read more
Attack Surface Management (ASM) characterises a business’s security risks as the monitoring and risk mitigation of a constantly changing and vulnerable “risk-surface”. Importantly, this attack surface extends to both internal and external assets and services. Some ASM solutions deliver clear visibility across both Internet facing and internal assets. Others do not. Instead, they assess external […]Read more
The UK Government has released its annual “Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2023”. It provides some valuable insights into how cyber security is currently being managed in the UK, by a range of organisations. It also speaks to how current competing economic priorities are impacting the effectiveness of some cyber security management efforts. The full report […]Read more
Solving the mismatch between cyber security reporting and directors’ requirements You are undoubtedly familiar with the headlines; you may have even become in part desensitised to them: ‘Cyber-attacks are increasingly damaging’, or ‘large amounts of personal data are most at risk’. The important take-away, however, is that modern day thieves can easily gain access to […]Read more
A system to address the untrustworthy security environment Zero trust approaches to security have been talked about for a while; but in recent times they have certainly gained more currency. As a model for protecting data and services, the simplicity of the concept is its biggest strength – assume, as a default position, there is […]Read more
The ongoing protection of Critical Infrastructure from cyber-attacks has implications for us all – whether it’s supporting our health, well-being or simply our way of life, there is good reason to reflect on the effectiveness your cyber security. Cyber security risks are nothing new and the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to them (and the heightened […]Read more
Read by directors, executives, and security professionals globally, operating in the most complex of security environments.