Author: Dr. Philip Cao

In Part 1 of this series I talked about the evolution of the CSO role and how security shouldn’t be subservient to all other operations in all cases. Let’s dig a little deeper into why this is so.

Should Physical and Digital Security Merge or Be Kept Separate?

I understand why organizations have these two separate security groups. Before the Internet days, the CISO function didn’t really exist, and the physical security function was usually relegated to the bottom of the leadership chain. You needed guards and fences and things like that, but those kinds of operations were more like commodity items, like power to the building, trash pickup or other maintenance roles. You needed them but once you established them, they did not materially affect the business even if they failed for a day or two (in most cases). Because of this, Physical Security tended to fall under the Facilities Management groups.

We’ve talked about the Internet of Things, though, and boy, does that change the situation. Everything is interconnected. Just like every other organization in the business, the physical security groups have a lot of IT security components, from badges to IP-enabled surveillance cameras. These groups and their electronic tools could still operate by themselves, but it makes sense that business leadership tasks somebody in the company to make sure that these tools are compatible with the approved security architecture plan. In my mind, that is the CSO organization.

Just like the idea that there is no such thing as cyber risk to the business, only risk to the business, I don’t think there is a need for separate cyber security and physical security teams. In this day and age, it is all security. Just for ease of management, it makes sense to keep it all under one umbrella.  My perfect organization would have a CSO in charge of all security of the company, with the CISO under that person with a dotted line to the CIO.  The Physical Security Director would also work for the CSO but by design would have a close working relationship with the CISO.

CSO and IT: A Healthy Tension

There has always been a healthy tension between the IT people in an organization and the security people in an organization. The IT folks are concerned about security for sure, but they are often more concerned with keeping the systems running and squeezing as much cost out of any particular project that they can. And that is what they should be doing. Meanwhile, the security people are more focused on business risk, not just for IT projects but for every aspect of the business: HR, Legal, Operations, Finance, Strategy, Marketing, and Sales.  Most of these other business functions have an IT-Security component, but cyber risk is not the only risk that leaders have to monitor.

Sometime in the mid-2000s, it became convenient to tuck the security function for an organization under the IT function of the organization. In other words, the CISO works for the CIO. This is not a bad idea, per se, and is an arrangement that works in many organizations. The IT folks generally handle the day-to-day automation functions while the security teams perform more of an oversight role in terms of security architecture, policy, risk assessment and SOC Operations. But to me, that kind of organization shows that company leadership does not fully understand the larger problem. We are not talking about only Cyber Risk to the business. We are talking about risk to the business.

Forbes’ Howard Baldwin back in March complained that he did not like recent changes he was seeing within organizations that have broken out the security function to be a peer to the CIO. He says that these CIOs are highly paid executives that can handle competing priorities. But that is not the point – something that was really underscored in the investigation following the Target breach.

In an interview by Jack Rosenberger, Eric Cole, founder and Chief Scientist at Secure Anchor Consulting, speculated on one of the reasons that may have contributed to the Target breach:

“It is almost a guarantee that Target had an amazing security team, and they were screaming and yelling about all of the security issues, but there was no advocate who was listening to them and fighting for their cause with the executives.”

Cole is pointing out that in all of the priorities that the Target CIO had to juggle, security lost out. And as Brian Krebs reported in the Guardian in May,

“Virtually all aspects of retail operations are connected to the Internet these days: when the security breaks down, the technology breaks down – and if the technology breaks down, the business grinds to a halt.”

Before the breach, the pressure to keep the IT infrastructure up and running must have been immense for both the former CIO and CEO. Krebs suggests that in hindsight, because of the devastating impact to the business, the Target CISO should not have worked for the CIO – that it should have been the other way around.

Check back for Part 3 of this series, where we’ll talk about the role of the CSO in relation to the rest of the C-suite.

Rick Howard

The job description for the people that are responsible for IT security within an organization has been in a state of flux for over a decade. Since Steve Katz became the first CISO back in 1995, both business leaders and the security industry in general have been thinking and rethinking the need for such a person and the responsibilities that he or she should have.

The Evolution of the CSO

Citigroup became the first commercial company to recognize the need for the brand new corporate CISO role when they responded to a highly publicized Russian malware incident. As cyber threats continued to grow in terms of real risk to the business and in the minds of the general public, business leaders recognized the need to dedicate resources to manage that risk.

The first practitioners came out of the technical ranks — the IT shops. Vendor solutions to mitigate the cyber threat ran on networks and workstations. In order to manage those solutions, it was helpful to have people who understood that world. But this was a new thing for the techies: trying to translate technical risk to a business leader not versed in IT security did not always go very well. That’s when it became convenient to tuck these kinds of people underneath the Chief Information Officer (CIO) reporting organization. CISOs began working for the CIO because, from the C-Suite perspective, all of that “technical stuff” belonged in one basket.

But as business leaders began applying resources to mitigate cyber risk, other areas of security risk started to emerge: physical security, compliance, fraud prevention, business continuity, safety, ethics, privacy, brand protection, etc. The idea of the Chief Security Officer role began to get popular with business leaders because they needed somebody to look at the entire business — not just the cyber security risk to the business but the general security risk presented by any one or a combination of those challenges. CSO Magazine launched in 2002 to cater to that crowd. [21], and in 2004, American National Standards Institute accredited the Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) program where Information Assurance practitioners could get certified in a recognized, agreed-upon set of skills.

Since then, the industry has been in flux. Not every company organizes the same way. While the CIO has made its way to the executive suite in some companies (Intel, for example), that is by no means the norm. The Chief Security Officer is likewise not yet a fixture, but I suspect that situation is changing. Let’s talk about why.

CSO/CISO As A Distinct Role

The CISO role has emerged in the last five years as the de facto role to manage cyber security. If there isn’t somebody in the organization with the title of CISO, there is somebody in charge of IT security. This person generally works for the CIO but not in all cases. I do a lot traveling around the world talking to customers and speaking at security events. From speaking with many CISOs, CSOs and CIOs, the community has decided that the IT groups handle the day-to-day IT operations while the security groups have much more of an oversight role: risk assessment, incident response, policy controls, etc. This means that the IT groups keep the firewalls up and running while the security groups are monitoring the logs and advising the CIO on security architecture and policy.

I don’t think this is the right model, either. In this modern world, I do not believe that security should be subservient to operations in all cases. Yes, the company has to keep its servers operational, but that does not imply that if push comes to shove, security is the first thing that we turn off in order to maintain operations.

For companies that understand risk to the business, security and operations are peers. Over Parts 2 and 3 of this series, I’ll explain why this is so important.

Rick Howard