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.
All businesses, job roles, departments and functions require performance management. Security is no different and this is now being seen as critical within the compliance and audit functions as part of the management of cyber risk.
Security management processes typically revolve around understanding the level of spend, the resources deployed, the rate of alerts or incidents or service level measures around the length of the queue of security issues. They also often relate to mapping of spreadsheets containing compliance standards to the perceived reality of the network – with non-compliance and policy non-conformity being tracked.
These are all security performance measures – details about response times and levels of coverage of the management system itself. They can be high-level, they are often assessed manually and they can be infrequent. More likely than not, they are where security reporting starts.
At the other end of the scale, are more technical assessments of security. Driven by a range of techniques such as vulnerability scanning or penetration testing, these aim to find all of the technical issues at the most granular level; lists of vulnerabilities or mis-configurations of servers, details of missing patches and users or datasets with the wrong access rights.
The challenge with these is often that there are a high number of findings (depending on the day of the assessment) and that for each individual “issue” the risk might not be obvious as the attacker will make use of a sequence of smaller technical issues to compromise a network. Some might appear benign, but affect critical servers or impact sensitive data sets, others might seem serious but might be little more than false positives.
As a way of creating a master “to do” list of individual items this has some value, but the volume or distribution of issues can be misleading (in particular if “known” issues are deliberately excluded because the business is already aware of them – even if this has been the case for some time).
The danger with these approaches is that they are often labour-intensive in terms of either the generation of the results (in the first case) or in dealing with the numbers of them (in the second). This effort overhead can mask issues or make things appear better or worse than reality.
In security there is a danger that over-exaggerating problems makes the performance of a security function look bad (and hence less credible when asking for increases in budgets to address growing numbers of issues).
Likewise, reporting based on the numbers of policies or controls in place might mean that the effectiveness of processes and mechanisms designed to stop breaches is assumed to be higher than it is.
A “lucky” business might avoid breaches even if controls are missing or if they are poorly implemented and ineffective. But being lucky isn’t a realistic way to handle one of the biggest risks facing the business. An unlucky one will not avoid the risks and could face a big fine.
If we consider what these approaches lack it is relatively easy to formulate a better way to track security performance. Here is a list of widely documented perspectives from cyber security performance managers:
As such, the future of security performance management MUST make greater use of systematic, direct, and more frequent or continuous measurement of security control configuration and performance. From inspection, comparison of today/yesterday or actual settings versus “known good” states and using records of activity to build trust in the outputs.
This is a burgeoning area of technology, called variously RegTech (especially if there is a compliance angle), Computer Assisted Audit Technology (CAAT) or Robotic Process Automation – RPA (if it has been driven by an excited marketing function). Whatever it is called, the need for business to invest in technology that can better answer and report on these questions is self-evident and clear.
There simply isn’t a human-based way to provide the quality, accuracy and frequency of reporting on security performance that business managers require.
<<< 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.