Year: 2014

Data generation is global, so why do different parts of the world react differently to the same threat of security breaches and backdoors?

Snowden’s revelations and the backlash that followed also illustrate the dramatic international differences in privacy vs. security values. Working with customers in both the US and in Europe, I’ve seen firsthand how those differences impact how security systems are architected. Beginning with “what is the data being protected?” vs. “how do we keep the bad guys out?” will lead to two very different security solutions.

While Europe has some of the strictest data privacy protection rules worldwide, the US security design principle primarily seeks to protect and prevent attacks toward the system. In Europe, strict rules enforce how companies can and should disclose and store personal information. From a national level, governments are pushing for even stronger regulations, coming together within the European Union to sign a common statute that outlines privacy practices around the disclosure and storage of personal information along with remedies for violations and independent government agencies that provide oversight. Additionally, corporations commonly add an additional privacy layer by establishing employee councils with the purpose of safeguarding employee information.

By comparison, US companies are more autonomous in their ability to deal with the disclosure and storage of personal information. In comparison to Europe, the US government does little to limit companies from tracking people across the web and selling their information to third-parties. Additionally, US companies can decide at their own discretion how much information they wish to reveal about their data practices. As it would seem, US companies seek primarily to secure sensitive information with the intent to protect and prevent attacks toward the system, without as much regard for the privacy of their customers and employees.

It’s all about culture and history
Data generation is global, so why do different parts of the world react differently to the same threat of security breaches and backdoors? Part of the reason is the distinctly different cultural-political heritage between the US and Europe. While European culture is more conservative and risk-adverse, the US is more risk-taking and innovative. Some US technology experts claim that stricter privacy regulations would stifle innovation. As an individualistic society, the US has mostly left it up to companies to decide how people’s online data should be handled. By contrast, Europe’s policies highlight the significance of privacy being safeguarded by the government.

Historical differences in the US and Europe can help explain the subtle aspects of their different trust cultures. European countries, specifically Germany after WWII, became sensitive to secret services spying on their citizens. As a result, very strict privacy rules have been implemented and governments and larger organizations must adhere to these standards when handling any personal data. Whether it is a national census or new electronic ID cards, Telecom data retention or email marketing databases, in general Europeans have had strongly held beliefs about individual privacy rights for a much longer time period than in the US where government spying has only recently become a public concern.

The controversy around data privacy extends beyond individual companies and also focuses on how much access the government should have to people’s private information. The NSA documents that Snowden leaked to the press revealed how US intelligence agencies routinely demanded access to US companies’ troves of consumer data.

For example, Microsoft recently lost a ruling against a US court to turn over a customer’s data stored in a European data center because the data was judged within reach of US search warrants. This case shows that the US government believes that it has the right to access US companies’ information, even if that information is stored overseas. What’s at stake here is the privacy protection of individual data and this ruling is the perfect manifestation of how European and US privacy laws have come to clash. The outcome of this and subsequent rulings will have a significant impact on US cloud service providers doing business internationally.

Schengen Cloud
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is at the forefront of the European Union which is seeking to fight back against what the EU considers the overarching reach of US intelligence agencies. Some European countries are trying to move forward with a data protection policy dubbed the “Schengen Cloud,” a Europe-only integrated electronic communication network. The idea behind Schengen Cloud is to give European countries control over its own networks without the US being a middleman. However, the US has come out stronglyagainst the proposal, saying that it provides an advantage to European-based information and communications technology (ICT) providers.

Data privacy differences between the US and Europe have already impacted business and political relations. Germany recently announced that it will not renew its contract with Verizon over fear that the company could turn over its communications to US intelligence agencies. The German government is now requiring telecom providers to sign contracts that confirm that they are not legally obligated to share information with foreign governments. In the face of such developments US companies run the risk of losing out on business deals if other governments follow suit and adapt to the German government’s stance on data privacy. In fact, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (IFTF) released a study in 2013 that estimated that the US cloud computing industry could lose up to $35 billion over the next three years as a result of the NSA spying revelations.Some US companies may even consider relocating their headquarters outside of the US to protect their data and their business contracts.

As more devices become Internet-enabled and the amount of data generated continues to skyrocket, organizations in the business of data protection will need to take a stance on privacy vs. security — no matter what side of the geographical border they are on.

Malte Pollmann successfully spearheaded Utimaco’s buy-out from the Sophos Group in September 2013. Prior to Utimaco’s independence, he served as VP of Business Development and General Manager of the company’s two business units: Hardware Security Module (HSM) and Lawful Interception and Monitoring Solutions (LIMS). Previously, he was product director and business unit leader at Lycos Europe NV (a Bertelsmann company) based in Germany and Paris. He was responsible for managing European product and marketing efforts and had a key role in driving the post-merger integration of French companies Multimania and Caramail SA. With a Master’s degree in physics from the Universities of Paderborn and Kaiserslautern in Germany, Pollmann also received a general management education at INSEAD in Fountainbleau, France. In parallel to his work at Utimaco, he also serves on the supervisory board of the International School of IT-Security, isits AG, Bochum.

[Source: DarkReading]

I spent 25 years in the Washington, DC area, and during that time I became a National Public Radio junkie. I guess I still am. I recently listened to a report on a comprehensive study about how people in the workplace react to the news about a coworker that’s been diagnosed with breast cancer.^[i] The results of the study shocked me. The worse the diagnoses and the closer employees physically worked to the diagnosed coworker, the less likely those working in close proximity were to seek cancer screening.

Similarly, as the conversation about the complexities, costs, and potential breaches is elevated to senior management, all too frequently, the more senior management learns, the less they want to know. I liken this to the person who frets over potentially getting cancer, while simultaneously avoiding cancer screening because they don’t want to hear bad news. Debates on screening methods aside, most would agree that this is a very dangerous approach regarding personal health. Taking “the less we know the better” approach when it comes to an organization’s information security health has broader implications on stakeholders and customers. Suffice it to say, this goes beyond a personal choice: It’s an inherent organizational responsibility.

There is a tendency to wait until something really bad happens before action is taken. Leadership wants to know the magic answer to questions like: When will be we secure? How many people and how much does it cost to secure the enterprise? There’s a perception that information security professionals are dodging these questions, and this perception can negatively impact an organization’s willingness to invest and take information security seriously. When senior leadership hears that providing a guarantee that the organization is secure isn’t possible, there’s a tendency to take chances and adopt the following mindset: What’s the point? We don’t want to bother screening to determine the health of our information security posture. If you can’t guarantee that we don’t have a problem, we don’t want to know. When it comes to personal health, if studies show a tendency to take an aversion to receiving bad news, why would it be any different for an organization to do the same?

Unfortunately, the geographical scope of cybersecurity attackers and their adversaries is expanding rapidly. Consequently, statistics show that the “hope nothing happens approach” is more and more likely to backfire. Organizations need a comprehensive approach that views information security programmatically. I frequently speak with (ISC)² members to elicit constructive feedback on how we can improve our products and services. Peppered into this feedback is a common theme that their respective organizations often do not take information security serious. They’ve hired a few security professionals, acquired some monitoring tools with limited staff available to review logs and take corrective action, etc.  It’s a common theme amongst our global membership. They struggle with a fairly pervasive management view that information security is a “once and done” endeavor, when in reality, it requires a systemic approach with sustained commitment (which comes in many forms). However, fundamentally it’s a sustained financial commitment and behavioral change within the organization. The information security professional deals with the inherent perception that security limits the business as opposed to enabling it.  This perception looms large in organizations that haven’t been or are unaware that they’ve been compromised. Just ask retailers and other industries whose security breaches have been widely covered in the media if they see security as an enabler or a roadblock to business operations. Granted, having an information security program does not guarantee that the enterprise will be secure: But not having an information security program can clearly lead to impacts that can threaten the viability of the organization.  Suffice it to say, information security breaches can end careers and ruin businesses.

Allstate Insurance has effectively weaved the concept that mayhem is all around us into their advertising campaigns. Creatively, they’ve also included some humor by having the guy that represents mayhem doing crazy things that put property owners at risk. Allstate hit a nerve with customers by creating a sense of urgency with fear (i.e., the term mayhem gets attention), and they add some levity with a consistent character making poor and/or careless decisions. It’s effective marketing in my opinion.

The information security profession has a similar challenge to effectively raise awareness about the enterprise being surrounded by cybersecurity mayhem. We often use the “we’re only as strong as our weakest link in the chain” mantra to explain information security. Today, the links in our enterprise chain involve people, devices, systems, networks, and access points to information assets. Unbeknownst to many organizations, external entities that wish them and their customers harm know the weakest links in their chain better than they do. When mayhem does strike, hopefully those being attacked will be “in good hands” in the form of qualified employees who are adequately resourced and trained.

Inspiring a safe and secure cyber world takes on many forms. From educating our children to educating senior management in our respective organizations about the value proposition of an information security program, our message needs to resonate with a broad and diverse audience. It’s going to take time to change the perception that information security means rules and policies that hinder business to information security being a business enabler. With the types of attacks we’ve seen recently, making the case that information security is fundamental to staying in business should no longer be a stretch.  However, we also need to be cognizant that people make up an organization and the collective individual psyche doesn’t typically respond well to bad news. That’s a barrier through which we all need to work.

Organizational denial that bad things are not happening 24/7/365 in the world of information security is not a wise business plan. Finding ways to present the value proposition of information security that resonate with leadership is critical. Moving the organization from a “we don’t want to know” to a “we need to know” mentality is essential in today’s cybersecurity threat landscape. Toward this end, we all need be persistent and stay the course. Hope is not a plan when it comes to information security.

[Source: (ISC)² Blog]

I tried my first green drink recently and found that after avoiding them for a long time, I actually did like it. Green drinks have grown to be popular for their health benefits—they are basically smoothies made with a variety of fruits and vegetables—but since the ingredients often include spinach, kale and green apples, they turn green, hence the name.

This comes to mind as the online version of COBIT is officially launched today. Many professionals have already used COBIT and found that it benefits their enterprises. But there are still some folks who hesitate—much like me with the green drink—because they’re not fully aware of just how much value is packed into it.

At its core, the new online platform helps increase the usability of COBIT by bringing together the key resources for the governance and management of enterprise IT. This is especially critical at this moment in time as we see the daily news of businesses worldwide having to address and recover from major incidents that could have been mitigated by appropriate oversight. No business can ever be 100 percent secure, but having solid governance and management in place can help reduce the risk of financial loss and reputation damage.

The good news is that according to a recent ISACA survey of 1,245 professionals from 50 countries who downloaded the COBIT 5 framework, close to 8 in 10 people (78 percent) said they see increased value in IT governance. Making COBIT 5 available in this online format extends the ability of enterprises to protect their information assets and improve business performance. Users can now:

• Personalize the new Goals & RACI Planner for their enterprise or clients.
• Quickly view timely content from ISACA and external sources covering top issues.
• Easily search, filter and export COBIT 5 publications.
• Comment and ask questions.

I encourage you to take a few minutes and check out the new online version of COBIT 5. Just like the green drink, it provides a big dose of value and benefits in a compact package.

Robert E Stroud, CGEIT, CRISC, international president of ISACA

[Source: ISACA]

Lately, it seems like a data breach, hack or cyberattack makes the news daily. I was at the recent ISACA/IIA Governance Risk and Control (GRC) conference when I read that hackers stole data on 4.5 million patients of a health system. With incidents like this occurring more frequently, there is an increasing demand for professionals who have the cybersecurity skills and resources to combat this growing threat. It is clear that bad actors have set their sights on the vulnerabilities of any type of enterprise, including medical, business and critical infrastructure.

Despite this growing need for cybersecurity skills, until recently the field was fragmented with no clear path set for those who want to pursue the cybersecurity profession. Recognizing this gap, ISACA conducted extensive research and planning with global business and cybersecurity experts. As a result, ISACA identified a need for a single, central location where security professionals and their enterprises can find cybersecurity research, guidance, certifications, education, mentoring and community. Subsequently, we launched the Cybersecurity Nexus (CSX) in April 2014.

The drumbeat for professionalizing cybersecurity is only getting stronger. A recent report from Salve Regina University’s Pell Centerfor International Relations and Public Policy also proposes an alternative to the current, ad hoc, decentralized approach to cybersecurity workforce development. The authors call for the creation of a professional association dedicated entirely to cybersecurity.

The Pell report notes that forming a new association focused on cybersecurity will take time—time that enterprises don’t have if they are to keep up with the rapidly expanding expertise of hackers. This is also one of the reasons why ISACA made the investment in creating CSX. ISACA is able to use much of its existing infrastructure and global subject matter experts to hit the ground running. ISACA, which has been serving IT professionals for 45 years, has been a highly respected provider of certifications, training and networking for global professionals for more than 30 years.

So when we established CSX, we made a commitment: We will do for cybersecurity professionals what we have done and continue to do for assurance and governance professionals. Whether you are a seasoned professional or new to the field, we will be your resource for the training, credentials, guidance and community to develop your cybersecurity career. In addition to other activities, we are offering the first Cybersecurity Fundamentals Certificate workshop and exam in October, which is also Cybersecurity Awareness Month—a cause for which we are a champion.

This is an exciting time in our industry and an extraordinary time for ISACA and our members. Organizations around the world are in need of skilled and knowledgeable cybersecurity professionals—and we’ll do everything we can to help you succeed in those roles.

Robert E Stroud, CGEIT, CRISC
International President, ISACA

[Source: ISACA]