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.
The importance of accurately identifying and communicating a business’s risk exposure has never been more critical. This is particularly true for audit and security managers who undertake cyber security audits.
In this blog post we look at the key factors affecting cyber security audits including audit accuracy, sampling and coverage, timeliness, resources and costs. We then go on to provide some insights into how technology can help with the digital transformation of the process.
There has been a huge rise in the pressures being applied to business by laws and regulation, such as the privacy requirements of GDPR. These pressures affect not just IT and technical areas, and the volume of work they need to deal with – they impose responsibility to consider cyber security in marketing, operations, HR, finance and audit and compliance functions that are now such a critical part of corporate governance. It is now vital that a wide range of stakeholders are well informed about the organisation’s security posture and any potential or actual breaches.
As workloads expand and the timeliness of assessments come under growing pressure from mandatory requirements placed on businesses, resources are often stretched to breaking point. This has an effect on staff welfare, can become a compliance issue and a massive risk exposure.
Across all aspects of business, digital transformation is a guiding strategy to reduce the amount of human intervention in repetitive or laborious processes and streamline workflows so that the majority of transactions or cases are automatic or customer-driven. The goal is to enable managers or operators to get involved only for oversight or to handle specific instances – to receive the outputs from processes that are reliably and algorithmically defined, rather than having to manually drive them.
Traditional audit processes utilise sampling. This works well when you are trying to identify errors or faults in controls or processes. You can take a set of representative examples, check them and then extrapolate the likely error rate or likelihood of failures. In cyber security, however, the error condition is often a deliberate or forced act.
Cyber security risks often have their root causes in oversights, mistakes or human failings; and they are then often exploited or manifest deliberately as an attacker looks for a vulnerability or an open door. So, the omission of just one failure from a sample may specifically be the target of an initial attack – a sample will be “choosing x from y” whereas an attacker will check “all of y” for a weakness. Using audit sampling methodology leaves the cyber risk door wide open.
Many organisation’s undertake audit checks once per year – it’s a big investment in time and resources. Given the dynamic nature of a cyber security environment the reality is that an organisation’s security posture can be perfectly fine one day but compromised the next.
Many cyber attacks take seconds to mount, coupled with the fact that many defensive processes like security configurations, patching, backups and group memberships are continuous in nature. It is not only possible, but highly likely that an environment will, over time, “drift” away from a secure state. This means that annual/quarterly audits or health-checks may well be too infrequent to provide an accurate view of risk exposure or assurance.
Also, infrequent or annual audits can be “prepared for” – with a spring cleaning exercise often preceding them; thereby obfuscating a “true” view of risk exposure. How can audit and risk managers execute audits more frequently and cost effectively?
There is no doubt that machine generated workloads require machine generated processing – no matter what industry you look at. In the world of cyber risk auditing, a manual response to regulatory requirements such as ‘regular’ and ‘ongoing’ audits cannot be met without tools; the digital transformation of compliance and cyber resilience needs to maximise coverage and scope so that obscure or hidden cyber vulnerabilities are not missed, masked or simply not included in a chosen sample.
The emergence of audit tools, that have the ability to support regular audit cycles by gathering data and generating reports with minimal human intervention, is more important than ever. This provides assurance to stakeholders and supports the fulfilment of regulatory requirements. Automated approaches are more efficient than manual ones. They are less prone to subjectivity, reporting bias and fallibility.
No matter what regulation, standard or framework you are auditing against, there is a common set of security controls that you need to check are in place and operating effectively. These generally include: application whitelisting, application patching, operating system patching, restricting administrative privileges, multi-factor authentication, user application hardening and taking daily back-ups. The image below shows an example of the valuable information our Essential 8 Auditor product can communicate regarding the effectiveness and maturity of the application whitelisting security control.
Essential 8 Auditor – Application Whitelisting Security Control Summary
The Essential 8 Auditor delivers an immediate view of an organisation’s cyber posture against 8 fundamental security controls, recognised by Australian Government as the ‘Essential Eight‘. The solution automatically gathers data from ongoing security operations and through direct connections to systems and configuration interfaces to determine coverage, identify weak points and policy failures against each of the controls.
You can read more regarding the Essential 8 Auditor on the web page: https://www.huntsmansecurity.com/products/essential-8-auditor/
<<< 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.