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.
A recent KPMG Report suggests that protecting against and dealing with cyber risks will be the major challenge for senior executives in 2024. It is clear that despite high levels of security investment, organisations continue to suffer from cyber attacks.Read more
The Australian Signals Directorate’s (ASD) recent publication of their Cyber Threat Report 2022-2023 unearthed a range of areas for concern for government departments and critical infrastructure entities at local, State and Federal level.Read more
As cyber risks increase, organisations are encountering the longer life cycle of insurance renewals and the need to demonstrate better management of security controls and their effectiveness.Read more
Highlights and insights from the recent Managed Services Summit in London & the ISACA Central Chapter Conference on Digital Trust, in Birmingham, UK. With two recent conferences in the space of three days, some interesting challenges were very evident in the topics discussed. Being very different events, the challenges were quite different, but interestingly they […]Read more
In early August 2023, the latest joint advisory on persistent vulnerabilities was issued by the intelligence and security agencies of the “Five-eyes” community. These joint advisories are becoming more common. Perhaps recognising the growing importance of shared security information and the common nature of many of the threats faced – the weight they carry makes […]Read more
The quality of your risk assessment and the security information it provides is important; if you plan to use it to actively manage your operational and cyber resilience activities. Organisations are constantly exposed to a rapidly changing threat environment, so you really need a similarly rapid evidence-based feedback system that informs you of the ongoing […]Read more
The UK market has its own regulators, security standards and challenges. And while rulings from SEC in the US or the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in Australia don’t apply to UK companies, for the most part, the observations are undoubtedly relevant and the resulting advice instructive. It would be wrong to think UK financial […]Read more
<<< 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
Read by directors, executives, and security professionals globally, operating in the most complex of security environments.