Showing posts with label Presentation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presentation. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Small/Medium Business and Security/Privacy exploration










In this blog entry I want to explore the effects and the threats surrounding the small business realm and how it is effected by concerns of security and of course indirectly privacy.

But first some numbers.

1) Targeted attacks destined for Small  Business (1 to 250 (employees) accounted for 31 percent of all attacks, compared with 18 percent in 2011, an increase of 13 percent [1]

2) According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, as many as 30% of an average company's employees do steal, and another 60% will steal if given a motive and opportunity.[2]

3) Almost three-quarters (72%) of data breaches investigated by Verizon Communications’ forensic analysis unit were focused on companies with less than 100 employees.[3]

And the list goes on. But I hope you get the idea.

In fact, depending on the source of data, there is no difference between the security issues of large organizations and small & medium business (SMB) (under 1000 employees).

Both types of businesses rely on computerize ‘everything’, to support their ongoing commercial and not for profit endeavors, never mind using social media for commercial marketing etc.. Both (large and SMB), for the most part, have web sites, use email, store information within databases containing commercial/proprietary information, financial positions (bookkeeping) etc. The employees also have access to various types of data (including those mentioned above), and can carry around that information on smartphones (bring your own device (BYOD)), etc.  Yet, except for some superficial attempt to secure the endeavor’s information, most SMB are vulnerable to threats like those that are mentioned above. The reason is because not enough is done to protect that sensitive information.


Let’s just investigate some best practices for organizations today.

All organizations, whether big or small, should have a Disaster Recovery (DR)/Business Continuity Plan (BCP) to enable them to still function and continue to be in business if an issue presents itself. How many small businesses do have a fully tested, functional BCP? Yet a disaster does not care if the company in question has 100 employees or 5,000.

All organizations should have and enforce internet/email usage policies. This should reduce any blatant misuse and potentially harmful activities of employees (or at least enable employers to take action if need be).

And the list of items that need addressing goes on and on. Many large organizations have specialist(s) whose entire responsibilities are just to ensure the day-to-day operation of the business.

While all organizations have to address critical issues, SMB have a number of strong disadvantages. The obvious one that comes to mind is their lack of resources. Namely most small business cannot afford a full time security/privacy professional. If money is not the issue (ever heard of a company where it wasn’t?) then a lack of expertise would be another major factor (and handicap). It takes time and experience to protect and recover from security concerns. And the basic human thought, ‘it will never happen to us, is something all personnel have to deal with.

So let’s take look at an realistic example of what can  happen to a $5,000,000 dollar a year SMB business.

11)    They have a major system failure and their systems were completely down for 4 days, and only partially in order for another six days. Total loss approx. $175,000
22) Cost to hire professionals to bring their system back on line $12,000
33)  Lost of a number important documents (payroll information, orders, A/R etc) that would be difficult to recreate. Cost unknown.

Total cost $187,000 +

Now lets take a look on the cost of setting up a relatively simple BCP/DR Etc

11)   Set up a working and tested DR/backup plan as part of a BCP $10,000
22)   Set up a commercial firewall, configured to help enforce the companies policies $10,000
33) Set up endpoint security (Anti-malware, Data Loss Prevention etc.) $5,000
44) Administration, training $5,000

Total cost $30,000

For a savings of  about $157,000 and with a big reduction of risk to the organization it then becomes obvious which of the two is the better option.

You can see by the numbers, the company in question would agree, it was a costly oversight not to do the due diligence, to say the least.

So we have all these organizations that are liable to have security/compliance/privacy etc issues, yet money is a huge concern. So what can be done?


There are a number of independent consultants whose specialty is to work with SMB. These consultants can plan and implement the best practices that are needed for an organization. They bring expertise, certifications, etc. that a small organization could ill afford to develop in-house due to the costs involved. For most SMB, once a comprehensive plan is developed and deployed, only a small additional cost would be needed moving forward to make sure everything is tested/working (maintenance/review changes etc) on an ongoing bases .

However, I would be remiss if I did not highlight the importance of finding a competent resource. There are a lot of consultants that have hung their shingle out to find business. So due diligence is in order. Ask for references, preferably with companies of a similar nature. Ask for any professional certifications that are concerned with this domain/realm. Ask for an estimate for the work needed. Get a Statement of Work (SOW) which should also include an established procedure for cost escalation and/or additional work requests. In other words try to make sure you are getting value for your money.


At then end it comes down to that, in our electronic world we work/live in, cutting corners will end up biting you on your bottom line. Ignoring the issues does not make it go away. But there is a reasonable way of mitigating those very real risks.

As the saying goes, ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’, and the sooner the better.




[1] http://www.symantec.com/about/news/release/article.jsp?prid=20130415_01
[2] www.nfib.com/business-resources/business-resources-item?cmsid=29624
[3] http://www.verizonenterprise.com/DBIR/2013/

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Security/Privacy Personnel, should they be the same?

-->
I have been on the peripheral of the discussion about Privacy and Security for awhile. The debate is concerning how Privacy personnel are not familiar with IT security process. And I believe its time to take the bull by the tail and face the situation, so to speak.

My thesis is that there needs to be a concerted effort to develop  a liaison group involving people that feel comfortable in both areas of Privacy and IT Security. These people should understand how data is used within the IT, and what expectations Privacy places on the organization.

SO let’s explore

In the vast majority of enterprises, (those that have a IT department and also are concerned by privacy, as all companies should be) there are Privacy officers that deal solely in the Privacy realm (Privacy policy, governance etc) and the IT personnel whose function it  is to enhance/maintain/deploy process to Secure the network assets from the 'bad guy'

But before we delve into this much further, let’s explore some of the foundations of these two organizations.

Privacy requirements come from various requirements, regulations, laws. They are formulated/created, either by gov't or professional organizations. Examples include: the PCI DSS, SOX, GLBA, PIPEDA,  EU Directive, to name but a few.

These regulations/laws, for the most part are drafted by lawyers, civil servants, professional committees. I transgress with a quick joke. What is a camel? A horse designed by a committee.
The point is that, as written, these regulations are not written for the 'common man'.  They deal with the legal aspects of privacy and as such, written in 'legalize'. So to be able to interpret them, create processes to address them, and ensure compliance with the same, it requires individuals that can understand those same rules. That is, one with expertise in the legal and/or regulator profession.

Security comes from the technical world, the idea of what kind of security appliances are needed to monitor/secure the systems/network/infrastructure that are in place within the organization. The understanding of networking protocols, threats and vulnerabilities etc. needs someone who understands the technical complicated the Security realm

So far so good.

We also understand that to have Privacy, one must have Security, or otherwise the organization’s public reputation, never mind its ability to function under gov't rules  and industry regulation oversight may be in jeopardy. (IE data breaches etc).

However, how many Privacy officers know anything about a 'DMZ' or DLP appliance (to name but two Technical Security phases/gobbledygook). That is the Security guy’s responsibility, right?

How many security personnel understand the ramifications of a stolen laptop with an encrypted disk, with PII from Customers in the US, or if the PII is from those customers that are located within the EU. That is the privacy department issue?

So that is the dilemma. Each department’s needs to 'use' the other’s expertise. But is there is no common language? One group doesn't know what it does not know and the other assumes that everything is addressed. This scenario is a problem waiting to happen.

So let’s take an example. But please note that the following example is only being used to highlight my point. It is an over simplification of the issues.

A new network is being developed to support an application that is being rolled out shortly. This application contains PII/PHI information. In one of the meetings the CPO makes it clear that this type of information needs to be protected/secured.  The Security guys go to the back room and incant some magic spells over a rack of computers/servers (sorry I could not help myself) and POOF, out comes a Security policy/procedure etc. plan for the roll out.

The plan contains the proper role based security rules(RBAC), checks, logs etc. The Security guys go out for a drink to celebrate the culmination of designing a 'fool proof' Security envelope (as  if there was such a thing).

The Privacy person figures out that the proposed process meets the needs and regulations and goes home with a smile on his/her face. The only people who are authorized to see the information will have the ability to view the PII/PHI info.

However, did anyone look at how support is going to done for this application? The Privacy professional is not a techie and does not know what the 'normal' infrastructure for support/maintenance development for an application is. And why should he/she? Right?


WRONG

The CPO has no idea that during the development and support phases of the project, that copies of the real data may be created to provide a more realistic test bed  for QA/ regression testing.(see my previous blog entry for a  further discussion concerning this issue).

Did anyone look at the possibility that there may be data leakage within the test/regression system? (PII info that can be emailed in the clear from a developer workstation)?  Did the person responsible for Privacy understand the need for a possible Security hardware deployment within the test environment to prevent data leakage. And where should that hardware be deployed?  How do third parties access the data for testing? Should they be able to see the test (or Production data)? Should this be considered with a BCP (business contingency planning) document?

The people responsible for Security understand the basic Security 'triad' (CIA. Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability) and have created a process that addresses these requirements. In this case the Security personnel, and may be the network administrator, have designed a comprehensive plan to secure the network where the new application will live on.

But what do they understand about issues like: if a disk drive goes missing, even if it is encrypted, they may still need to notify gov't authorities (EU directive)? And this must be detailed in any contingency planning.

Do they know that they need to talk to the Privacy department to look at how test data is used and abused?

The above mentioned questions are rather over simplified. And of course during the normal working day, the Security department and the Privacy department would talk to each other. BUT

The old adage is very relevant here. 'I don't know what I don't know' or in the case of the Security personnel they don’t know enough of the Privacy realm to make sure everything is addressed. And the Privacy officer does not know how the data is used, to the point that she/he would not know to look into areas that are not obvious IE Test Bed, Third party issues etc..

So what is the answer? Cross train personnel. (Easier said then done).

Have the security department take a course like the CIPP, offered by the International Association of Privacy Professionals. This will allow for the same individuals some insight into the issues pertaining to privacy.
 
Have the Privacy personnel take a certification course like the SECURITY+ offered by CompTIA. However this may be more problematic because there is an assumption that the person taking this course (or one that is similar) has some basic knowledge in networking and IT in general.

Failing that, Have the people in the CPO office at least try to get the basis of Security down, so the next time the two groups meet they can at least talk a common language. And this would help in reducing the chance of something being missed, and projects coming in on time.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Robert Galambos Visual Resume



In the world where presentations can make or break a sale, a project, or a policy, I thought it would be a great idea to create something to showcase my MS PowerPoint skill set.

 Visual Resume