Calling All CISOs: Speak the Language of Business

As a business executive or board member, how do you feel when you are talking to your organization’s CISO? Do you feel like you are on the same page, speaking the same language? Or do you feel overwhelmed by jargon and techno-babble that requires an interpreter?

If your answer is the latter, it’s not your fault. You shouldn’t have to know all of the jargon or speak in the language of a technologist. Rather, your CISO should be speaking the language of business in a way that is easy to understand, relatable to your needs and focused on the bottom line.

That’s the advice of Diane E. McCracken, and she should know. McCracken is a widely known and well respected chief security officer at a midsized bank located in the northeastern United States and, as she says, a technologist at heart. But although tech talk is her native language, speaking it in the boardroom is a definite no-no.

“In today’s environment, cybersecurity professionals need to learn a new language,” she says. “The language of money. That’s when board members and executive management pay attention. They need to know what the investment is really buying and whether it will protect the organization.”

McCracken offers advice to her colleagues and peers as a speaker at various conferences and, recently, as an author in the upcoming book Navigating the Digital Age, Second Edition, published by Palo Alto Networks. She also provides guidance for business leaders on what to expect and demand from their CISOs.

For CISOs the main advice is to learn the language of business. Use numbers, speak in specifics about risk, anticipate questions and use your imagination. In one particular case, she used an allusion to the pop icon Taylor Swift to make a point about cloud computing. But, If Taylor Swift doesn’t work, there are always two areas that will resonate: One is risk and its consequences; the other is business enablement.

Advice for Executive Management and Board Members

Just because the onus is on the CISO to speak in your language, that doesn’t let you off the hook as a business leader, says McCracken. You too have to be vigilant. You have to establish a regular cadence that includes the topic of cybersecurity in board meetings. You have to insist that the security teams present information in language and formats that are clear, simple to understand, relatable and focused specifically on the value to the business. Most of all, you have to support your cybersecurity leaders.

“They are fighting a nameless, faceless adversary on your behalf,” McCracken says. “They have to be right thousands of times a day; the bad guys have to be right just once. In order to be successful in the cyber world, both parties much be in sync, and only through these conversations will that be possible.”

The Language of Business Enablement

One of the more important challenges for CISOs is embracing the concept of cybersecurity as a business enabler—and then articulating that value so it captures the attention of business decision-makers. McCracken offers one example where the solution was to show the board the money.

In her organization, the tech teams had a desire to bring software development in-house as a means to improve quality assurance and accelerate speed to market. From McCracken’s perspective, the key was to ensure that security was factored in at every stage of the development cycle. To convince the board, she created a flow chart that showed the cost of remediation early, midway and at the end of the development cycle. The numbers told the story for her and the board fully funded the program.

“In a case such as this, it is clear that the role of the CISO is as a business enabler,” she says. “It’s not our job to say ‘No.’ Our job is to advise on the risk and put the controls in place to appropriately limit that risk. When the business needs board sign-off, I must be able to address the risk in language the board members understand. With business leaders and the board, money is the universal language.”

Source: https://www.securityroundtable.org/calling-all-cisos-speak-the-language-of-business/

Cybersecurity And The New CISO: The Leadership Enigma

As chief cybersecurity advisor, I regularly receive requests from recruiters working in the field. Acknowledging the economic forces at play, I appreciate that global demand for cyber professionals exceeds supply. Add to this the increasing rate of organizational breaches and explosion in technology and online services, and it is easy to see why demand has spiked.

All of these factors have no doubt fueled a boom in the cybersecurity industry, bringing with it the problem of questionable leadership. There are those who aspire to be cyber professionals, who may even have an IT background but do not have the necessary knowledge, experience, training and time at the coal face in cyber roles. Put simply, they lack good pedigree. The next time someone wants to talk to you about “risk,” ask them if they have ever conducted a threat risk assessment or managed incident response. More than likely, the answer is no.

How do we get the right cyber leadership?

Let’s first consider this through recruitment of a key cyber role — the CISO (chief information security officer).

Recruitment needs to start with well-constructed job descriptions and criteria. CISOs need to be able to develop and set strategic direction for cyber risk and information security. Their areas of responsibility should include:

1. Risk management/risk culture.

2. Documentation standards.

3. Relationships and communication — in particular, with senior management and industry.

4. Incident response and business continuity.

5. Third party management.

6. Compliance activities.

7. Technical capability and delivery.

A must-have requirement is the ability to maintain a current understanding of the cyber threat environment for their industry and related laws and regulations and the ability to translate that knowledge to identify risk and develop actionable plans to protect the business.

Similar challenges exist for project manager (PM) roles. A good PM can make a significant difference to the timely delivery of a cybersecurity, project ensuring it is within budget and delivers the intended outcome.

Along with project management ability, the PM needs acumen in IT and cybersecurity. This should be mandatory. Many PM job descriptions now explicitly specify such things as:

• Technical knowledge of ICT infrastructure (software and hardware) and experience with toolsets used by ICT organizations in the security, management and delivery of their services.

• Extensive understanding of ICT concepts and the system development life cycle management methodologies, including experience with agile application development teams.

Developing job criteria can be a challenge, but there are now a number of recognized national standards to help.

The Institute of Information Security Professionals Skills Framework (IISP) was developed in collaboration with public, private, academia and industry security leaders. The framework uses a consistent language in describing the range of competencies expected of information security and information assurance professionals in the effective performance of their roles.

The National Cybersecurity Workforce Framework is part of the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE), and NIST Special Publication 800-181 framework categorizes and describes cybersecurity work through the use of several components, using a common language.

Another tip in recruiting is the interview panel. It must include members who understand the specialized field within which they are interviewing and filtering candidates.

What makes an effective CISO?

To be effective, a CISO needs to have both a blend of technical knowledge, business acumen and cybersecurity skills, and an appropriate position within the organization that allows them to deliver on their mandate.

The CISO needs to be able to execute on all fronts of cybersecurity practice, through using their business and security acumen. They also need to incorporate prudent risk management through building and delivering on a risk-based portfolio strategy (including prevention, response, mitigation, insurance and measurement) or business-driven security. This means looking at the organization’s portfolio of risk and determining how cybersecurity plays into each risk.

While I am a big fan of qualifications and certifications, I also believe that informal qualifications are just as important — as long as they are relevant. The qualifications that go into a well-rounded CISO are a blend. Many organizations now require some baseline degree in a relevant discipline along with a range of hard and soft skills. Hard skills can include security concepts (authentication/authorization, operating systems, DNS routing), risk assessment methodologies, network architecture and compliance standards (such as PCI, NIST, GDPR), to name a few. Soft skills such as communications, interpersonal/negotiation skills and strategic planning are now hugely favored.

To effectively influence change and set direction in support of real business objectives, the CISO should be elevated to the equivalent of the CIO. Conflicts of interest aside, I have seen many times when the CISO role falls under the CIO, and their focus is diverted toward plugging security gaps and never actually leading and planning for the future. Moving from problem to problem is an indicator that the organization does not have a mature risk management culture.

The New CISO

The new CISO must know how to quantify risk and understand business as well as cybersecurity technologies. They should have a passion for technology and security. They need to be a champion, educating the organization about the latest security strategies, technologies and methods.

They are no longer just the keeper of secrets or guardian at the gate. They are integrated into the business and taking a risk-based detective/hunter-style approach.

As the CISO role evolves from exposure mitigation to incorporating broader business risk management, the cybersecurity apparatus must also change as well. This means that certain traditional security tasks should move into operational IT areas. Risk management/risk culture through data capture and analytics should become the core functional capabilities.

This will mean having to retool/rekit your organization’s skill set to support more analytical thinking and promote a greater awareness of operational risk management.

The mission today is beyond just exposure and encapsulates everything from protecting brand and reputation, revenues or market share to enhancing shareholder value. This is how you evolve from a compliance-driven model to an intelligence-driven, agile model.

Leonard Kleinman, Chief Cyber Security Advisor, spokesperson and cybersecurity “best practice evangelist” with a focus on cyber threats to IT systems.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/07/26/cybersecurity-and-the-new-ciso-the-leadership-enigma

Software-Defined Perimeter Architecture Guide Preview: Part 2

Thanks for returning for the second blog posting, providing a preview of the forthcoming Software-Defined Perimeter (SDP) Architecture Guide (Read Part 1). In this article, we focus on the “SDP Scenarios” section of the document, which briefly introduces the primary scenarios for SDP, explains why organizations should consider adopting SDP, and lists the benefits that SDP delivers for that scenario.

This section is—by design—concise. We’re passionate about SDP and network security, and could write an entire novel on this topic (in which our hero, network security architect Reavis Macdonald, uses SDP to prevail against a malicious adversary and save his organization from a record-breaking GDPR fine!). Sadly, our editor assures us that such a story wouldn’t be a bestseller, and that our Architecture Guide should likewise err of the side of brevity.

In this blog posting, we’ve chosen to elaborate on several of the scenarios and to provide some color commentary. Let’s get started!

SDP Scenarios at a Glance

Scenario 1: Identity-Driven Network Access Control

This scenario is the heart of the value that an SDP architecture provides. It enables organizations to fundamentally change the way they’re viewing security—shifting away from IP addresses and subnets, and toward identities and business systems. This is more than a technical shift—at least, it should be more than that. We’ll discuss this more in the SDP Policy section in the main document, but SDP allows for policies to be described in terms that are meaningful to the business, yet are enforced by the network.

Scenario 2: Network Microsegmentation

The concept of network microsegmentation—often part of a Zero Trust initiative—is driven by the imperative to enforce the principle of least privilege at the application and network level. But microsegmentation is only a means to an end. It requires a policy model, and a mechanism for automated enforcement of these microsegments in order to deliver efficient and effective value to the enterprise.

Shifting gears slightly, we now introduce several use cases that organizations commonly use to get started with Software-Defined Perimeter projects.

Scenario 3: Secure Remote Access (VPN Alternative)

Virtual private networks (VPN), while widely deployed, nevertheless suffer from a variety of shortcomings that frequently drive organizations to consider the Software-Defined Perimeter as an alternative. In addition to being disruptive to the user experience, VPNs typically provide too-broad network access, exposing far more services and protocols than necessary. VPNs are also difficult or awkward to use when people need to concurrently access many distributed resources —either across data centers or cloud environments. And finally, VPNs are a point solution. Because they are only used for remote access, their access policies are by definition unable to apply to on-premises users. SDP solves all these problems with VPNs, providing a single consistent and user-friendly platform that secures access for both remote and on-premises users with fine-grained control of access rights.

Scenario 4: Third-party User Access

Third-party access is another very common use case for SDP. While remote third-parties may fall under the VPN scenario, many organizations have considerable numbers of third-party users working on-premises. These users often need very specific (and limited) network access, while nevertheless using the same network as employees with broader access. A Software-Defined Perimeter provides a simple solution for this, which ensures that these third-party users have a consistently secured and managed set of network privileges, regardless of whether they are remote or on-premises.

Scenario 5: Enabling Secure Transition to IaaS Cloud Environments

Finally, we’re seeing many organizations leverage SDP to more easily and securely adopt IaaS cloud environments. Rather than relying on direct site-to-cloud connections (which provide too-broad network access), or traditional VPNs (which are awkward to use in multi-account or multi-site environments). SDP allows for precise access control to cloud environments, managed on a per-user basis.

Conclusion

We hope that this preview blog post gave you a good sense for some of the SDP scenarios, as well as a bit of expository context on our thinking around them. In our next blog posting, we’ll be reviewing the core concepts of the Software-Defined Perimeter , explaining their benefits, and listing some of the associated threats that they mitigate.

Jason Garbis is Vice President of Secure Access Products at Cyxtera, a provider of secure infrastructure for today’s hybrid environments, where he leads strategy and management for the company’s security solutions. Jason has over 25 years of product management, engineering, and consulting experience at security and technology firms including RSA, HPE, BMC, and Iona. He is co-chair of the Software Defined Perimeter (SDP) Working Group at the Cloud Security Alliance, holds a CISSP certification, is a published author, and led the creation of the Cloud Security Alliance initiative applying Software-Defined Perimeter to Infrastructure-as-a-Service environments.

Jason Garbis, Vice President/Secure Access Products, Cyxtera Technologies Inc.

[Cloud Security Alliance Blog]

FedRAMP: Friend or Foe for Cloud Security?

Cloud security is on everyone’s minds these days. You can’t go a day without reading about an organization either planning its move to the cloud or actively deploying a cloud-based architecture. A great example is the latest news about the US Department of Defense and its ongoing move to the cloud.

The US government is leading the charge by encouraging the private sector to provide secure cloud service offerings that enable federal agencies to adopt the cloud-first policy (established by the Office of Management and Budget in 2016) using FedRAMP. FedRAMP is a US government-wide approach for security assessment, authorization and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services. It sets a high bar for compliance with standards that ensure effective risk management of cloud systems used by the federal government.

There is even some chatter now about efforts to establish FedRAMP as a law, in an effort to encourage agencies to adopt the cloud at a more rapid pace. The delay in adoption is by no small measure related to the complexity, the intensive resource requirements of the current FedRAMP processes and finding providers that are FedRAMP-certified.

One of the main considerations to the adoption of FedRAMP on a wider scale is the difficulty for the industry, Third Party Assessment Organization (3PAO) and Cloud Service Providers (CSP) to determine what the profitability model is for engaging in the FedRAMP program.

Establishing such metrics can offer key drivers for industry adoption, perhaps by allowing CSPs to determine how offering FedRAMP-accredited IaaS/SaaS/PaaS can be truly beneficial and profitable for the company’s bottom line, at the same time allowing the agencies to determine the cost effectiveness of a move to the cloud.

While achieving FedRAMP accreditation has many challenges (as TalaTek learned over the past 18 months during deployment of its own cloud-based solution), there are clear benefits for the federal agencies and the industry to work with a FedRAMP-authorized service providers. At a high level, these include an established trust in the effectiveness of implemented controls and improvement of data protection measures.

Despite the many challenges for adoption, I am a big believer in the benefits outweighing the challenges of the FedRAMP program, especially in the long run, after the kinks are ironed out and the program maturity improves through increased adoption of both government and private industry.

The FedRAMP program provides significant value by increasing protection of data in a consistent and efficient manner – a key need among government organizations and especially among information sharing agencies – by providing these key benefits:

  • Enables a more successful move to the cloud for federal agencies;
  • Ensures a minimum security baseline for all cloud services;
  • Provides managed security continuity for a cloud offering versus a onetime compliance activity;
  • Standardizes requirements for all cloud service providers; and
  • Creates a 3PAO cadre that is capable, certified and can ensure quality assurance for cloud implementations.

By providing a unified, government-wide framework for managing risk, FedRAMP overcomes the downside of duplication of effort and inefficiency associated with existing federal assessment and authorization processes.

When considering a move to the cloud and the level of security that is necessary, we should all take risk management seriously and invest in skill development and knowledge, as well as in adapting the processes for the 21st century and getting ready for the reality of the dominance of the cloud in our near future. FedRAMP provides the roadmap for any organization to achieve these goals.

Baan Alsinawi, TalaTek founder and president

[ISACA Now Blog]

Threat Brief: Information on Critical Apache Struts Vulnerability CVE-2018-11776

Situation Overview

On August 22, 2018, the Apache Foundation released a critical security update for CVE-2018-1176, a remote code execution vulnerability affecting Apache Struts versions 2.3 to 2.3.34 and 2.5 to 2.5.16. The Apache Foundation has urged everyone to apply the security updates as soon as possible.

This blog is to provide information to help organizations assess their risk of the vulnerability and to inform Palo Alto Networks customers of protections in place that can help mitigate their risk until they can apply the security updates. Palo Alto Networks customers who have deployed the latest vulnerability signatures released on August 24, 2018, are protected.

 

Vulnerability Information

According to both the Apache Foundation and security researcher Man Yue Mo, this vulnerability can enable remote code execution on a server running a vulnerable version of Apache Struts. The method of attack would be through a specially crafted URL sent to the vulnerable system. In most cases, this means no authentication is required to exploit the vulnerability.

A successful attack would run code in the security context that Struts is using. In some cases, this could effectively lead to a total compromise of the system.

It’s important to note, however, that the vulnerability is not exploitable in default configurations. The following two conditions must both be met for a system to be vulnerable to attack:

  1. The alwaysSelectFullNamespace flag is set to “true” in the Struts configuration. (Note: If your application uses the popular Struts Convention plugin this is set to “true” by default by the plugin.
  2. The Struts application uses “actions” that are configured without specifying a namespace, or with a wildcard namespace. This condition applies to actions and namespaces specified in the Struts configuration file . NOTE: your application uses the popular Struts Convention plugin this condition also applies to actions and namespaces specified in Java code.

If your Struts application does not meet both of these conditions, your application may still be vulnerable but not (currently) exploitable via CVE-2018-11776.

In particular, if your application uses the popular Struts Convention plugin, it appears to potentially increase your risk of exploitability vis-à-vis other Struts implementations that do not use that plugin.

 

Threat Environment Information

The vulnerability was disclosed on August 22 in conjunction with security updates that address it. There is detailed information about the vulnerability and how to exploit it available currently. There is also proof of concept (PoC) code available already. As noted above, the PoC works only against systems that are vulnerable and meet both conditions for exploitability.

Some have noted that a previous critical Struts vulnerability was actively attacked last year only three days after the release of the security update and vulnerability information.

There are no known active attacks at this time and the current requirement that two, non-default conditions need to be met for the vulnerability to be exploitable makes for a different threat environment.

However with active PoC available we can expect at the minimum probing, if not active exploitation of this vulnerability in the near term.

Organizations should focus their risk assessments for possible attack until they can patch on four things:

  1. Are they using the Struts Convention plugin?
  2. Do they meet both of the required conditions for exploitation?
  3. Any weaponization or indication of attacks using the current PoC
  4. Developments of new PoC or attacks that render moot the two conditions required for exploitability?

 

Guidance and Protections for Palo Alto Networks Customers

All organizations running vulnerable versions of Apache Struts should deploy the security updates as soon as possible.

Organizations can and should prioritize scheduling and deployment of the security updates based on their security policy and risk assessment, and  on currently available information.

Palo Alto Networks customers who have deployed vulnerability signatures in content release version 8057 released on August 24, 2018, which include ID 33948 Name: Apache Struts 2 Remote Code Execution Vulnerability, are protected against currently known exploits against that vulnerability.

Our customers should still deploy the security update as recommended above, but can and should deploy the latest vulnerability signature immediate for additional protection. With this addition protection available, our customers can and should include that as part of their decisions around security and deployment of the security updates and their risk assessment of the vulnerability and threat environment.

As always, we are monitoring the situation closely and will provide additional details as they become available.

[Palo Alto Networks Research Center]

English
Exit mobile version