I have three questions for you to start off this post. I don’t care if you’re “in the security field” or not. In fact, I’m more interested in your answers if you aren’t tasked with security, privacy, compliance, or risk management as a part of your defined work role.
- If I asked you to show me threat models for your major line of business applications, could you?
- If I asked you to define the risks (all of them) within your business, could you?
- If I asked you to make a decision about what kind of risks are acceptable for your business to ignore, could you?
In most businesses, the answer to all three is probably no, especially the further you get away from your security or IT teams. Unfortunately, I also believe the answer is pretty firmly no as you roll up the management chain of your organization into the C-suite.
Unless your organization consists of just you or a handful of users, nobody in your organization understands all of the systems and applications in use across the org. That’s a huge potential problem.
The other day I was talking with three of our customers, and the conversation started around software licensing, then spun into software asset management, auditing, and finally to penetration testing and social engineering.
At first glance, that conversation thread may seem diverse and disconnected. But they are so intertwined. Every one of those topics involves risk. Countering risk, in turn, requires adequate management.
By management, I mean two things:
- Management of the all components involved (people, process, and technology – to borrow a line from a friend)
- Involvement of management. From your CEO or top-level leadership, down.
You certainly can’t expect your C-level executives to intimately know every application or piece of technology within the organization. That’s probably not tractable. What is crucial is that there is accountability down the chain, and trust up the chain. If an employee responsible for security or compliance says there’s a problem that needs to be immediately addressed, they need to be trusted. They can’t run their concern up the flagpole and have someone who is incapable of adequately assessing the technical or legal (or both) implications of hedging on addressing it, and cannot truthfully attest to the financial risk of fixing the issue or doing nothing.
- If you hire a security team and you don’t listen to them, what’s the point of hiring them? Just run naked through the woods.
- If you hire a compliance team (or auditor) and don’t listen to them, what’s the point of hiring them? Just be willing to bring in an outside rubber-stamp auditor, and do the bare minimum.
- If you have a team that is responsible for software asset management, and you don’t empower them to adequately (preemptively) assess your licensing posture, what’s the point of hiring them? Just wait and see if you get audited by a vendor or two, and accept the financial pit.
If you’re not going to empower and listen to people in your organization who with risk management skills, don’t hire them. If you’re going to hire them, listen to them, and work preemptively to manage risk. If you’re going to try and truly mitigate risk across your business, be willing to preemptively invest in people, processes and technology (not bureaucracy!) to discover and address risk before it becomes damage.
So much of the bullshit that we see happening in terms of unaddressed security vulnerabilities, breaches (often related to vulns), social engineering and (spear)phishing, and just plain bad software asset management has everything to do with professionals who want to do the right thing not being empowered to truly find, manage, and address risk throughout the enterprise, and a lack of risk education up and down the org. Organizations shouldn’t play chicken with risk and be happy with saving a fraction of money up front. It can well become exponentially larger if it is ignored.