Phrases that scare security professionals
Given the findings of some practices and routines, it is easy to know what the problems are with the security companies. It is your case? The scenes are classic. A child with chocolate smeared shirt says, categorically: "It was not me." Or the phone rings and mother assures you, "There's nothing to worry about." Or a systems administrator who carries a box of tapes back up guarantees: "Within minutes, all information will be retrieved." In some cases, the first words you hear - despite the distance between them and the truth - are enough to tell you everything you need to know. In some cases, the first words you hear - despite the distance between Them and the truth - are enough to tell you everything you need to know. The same applies to the world of information security. The same applies to the world of information security. Some words sound reassuring, but we know they often point out problems of internal security, technical resources or the people and processes involved in the protection systems. Get to know some of the phrases "revealing secrets" that signal the imminence of problems in security. One. One We have a culture of safety We have a culture of safety "No, you do not have" is the immediate response of the professionals. "No, you have not's" is the immediate response of the professionals. Even if only mentally. Even if only mentally. This is the kind of phrase that comes from companies that started with five people - in the traditional family business model - and, as they grew, a snap themselves operating with thousands of people without governance or policies. This is the kind of phrase That comes from companies That started with five people - in the traditional family business model - and, As They grew to snap Themselves Thousands of people operating with or without governance policies. Some exchanged and its "safety culture" are enough to buy a good espresso in a quiet corner allowing look to the horizon and find out how much work lies ahead. Some Exchanged and its "safety culture" are enough to buy a good espresso in a quiet corner Allowing look to the horizon and find out how much work lies ahead. The simple fact is that without support guidelines or feedback mechanisms (feedback), security is defined differently by each and is not verified by anyone. The simple fact is without support guidelines That common mechanisms or feedback (feedback), security is defined differently by each and is not verified by anyone. There are no metrics for compliance with the "culture" and a "safety culture" is hidden by a practice of "do your job". If there are rules, write them down. If there are rules, write down Them. If technology is put into action to implement or monitor the rules, write that down too. If technology is put into action to Implement or monitor the rules, write down That too. If people break the rules, comply with what was agreed. If the rules undermine the legitimacy of the business when completed, change them. 2nd. 2nd. IT security is information security IT security is the security of information Information security is not the same thing in the information technology security. If the term "information security" is used in the same way that "IT security", it invariably means that nobody has taken decisions not primarily security techniques that affect departments - IT, human resources, legal, audit and perhaps others in the organization. Join those who have influence in the departments listed above and decide whether information (not paper documents or equipment) is an asset of the company, such as computers and desks. Decide whether the company authorizes people to do jobs, logical and physical access to information as individuals. Decides Whether the company authorizes people to the jobs, logical and physical access to the information Individuals. Take these policies in group decisions. Take these policies in group decisions. Then maybe there will be more time to decide "how to" manage security - rather than trying to guess ... 3rd. 3rd. This does not apply to the chief This does not apply to the chief Although this is becoming less of an issue in public, occasionally an executive simply refuses to follow security guidelines that he himself approved. Although this is less of an issue Becoming in public, occasionally an executive simply Refuses to follow security guidelines That he himself approved. Unless you are prepared to meticulously document all "escapades" following the model of forensics and then deliver them to the directors or the police (or just quit), be prepared to work around the situation. Most bad apples can be managed by applying the Machiavellian sense of having influence the relationship of the other: they must at least pretend to lead by example, while continuing to do whatever they do behind closed doors. Few will admit it, but many Organizations simply put in the budget and install a DSL line access to "guests" in the halls of top executives and Their Eyes close to anything that is plugged into That line. This is not a desirable solution, but if you still solve these executives sign the documents required by Sarbanes-Oxley, the rest comes from the ability to deny knowledge of security professionals. 4th. 4th. Our department gets information security IT staff Our department gets information security IT staff Titles do not matter. Titles of not matter. A report by a security expert at the IT director is always a security administrator, even if that person has the job of information security officer. The problem is that in the corporate world the word "officer" usually means that professional has the authority to verify and monitor whether all the techniques and processes that control proprietary information are efficient. An IT security administrator is usually involved in designing technical control and therefore can not be "self-audit" and make sure that IT is doing the right thing, particularly if it relates to someone within IT. The security professional with the position of "officer" should always report the same level or higher as the IT director. The security professional with the position of "officer" should always report the same level or higher to the IT director. 5th. 5th. We have a password policy We have a password policy Speaking directly, a document that specifies the size, shape and complexity of a password is a technical standard or procedure, not a policy. Speaking directly, the document that specifies the size, shape and complexity of the password is a technical standard or procedure, not a policy. Politics is a directory for directing business, something like "individuals must be identified uniquely and authenticated priority to have the condition to access the company's assets." Politics is a business directory for directing, something like "Individuals must be authenticated and uniquely Identified priority to have the condition to access the company's assets." Note that this example policy involves "what" to do about people and access, not "how" to construct a sequence of character types. 6th. 6th. Our executives have copies of all passwords Our executives have copies of all passwords Although the idea to make a young student faint, ex ist indeed managers who demand that their direct employees to disclose their individual passwords. Although the idea to make the faint young student, ex ist indeed managers who demand That Their direct employees to Disclose Their individual passwords. The explanation for this is always: "What if someone is fired or sick? How could we find your documents?." When this happens, the only effective strategy is to tell anyone who asks such a thing: "If you do, then you are a suspect in any negative situation that arises. When this happens, the only effective strategy is to tell anyone who ASKs such a thing: " You'll never be Able to fire anybody because you will Also be a suspect. "Or you can always summarize it all in a simple:" Grow friend. " 7th. 7th. The brand is our standard I have nothing against the major hardware vendors in the market, but when the personal shopping company says: "Our standard is Dell" (or any other brand), what they are really saying is: "We play our standards security out the window in exchange for discounts and now we buy whatever the vendor offers. " I have nothing against the major hardware vendors in the market, but When the personal shopping company says: "Our standard is Dell" (or any other brand), What They are really saying is: "We play our security standards out the window in exchange for discounts and now we buy whatever the vendor offers. "It's the equivalent of shopping that her great-aunt in a store with inflated prices, getting happy because" a product is discounted 75%. " It's the equivalent of shopping That her great-aunt in the store with inflated prices, getting happy because "the product is discounted 75%." The point is, that both her great-aunt when IT people in the real world have other decisions to make and are commodity PCs. The point is, that her great-aunt ambos When IT people in the real world have other Decisions to make and are commodity PCs are all sure to choose the product from a vendor and maintain applications with it for a while. It's all right to choose the product from the vendor and Maintain applications with it for a while. But a manufacturer is not a technical standard and there is a problem in that mix if anyone does their homework. But the manufacturer is not a technical standard and there is a problem in That mix if anyone does Their homework. When a manufacturer makes changes in line or software product - especially when that part of an equipment manufacturer and network security such as Cisco Systems - it is important to have clearly defined functional requirements to assess whether the products still work as desired. When the customers not know what They want, any bargain Seems to be what you need. 8th. 8th. Hey, where did that come from? It is conceivable that those highly technical users should organize their own equipment as well as support them. On the other hand, this means that the area of IT and support personnel were knocked out by hardware manufacturers that provide only an 0800 number that never works. Security policies must be present everywhere, including the bathrooms attached to the wall behind the toilet paper of an organization. Security policy in the company can be exposed Also next to the bathroom towels. The important thing is to be clear and known to all. Solving this problem is a fundamental respect. Solving this problem is a fundamental respect. Start with the basic governance and making it clear that there are rules, with much effort and communication, this will at least make the "safety culture" a settled matter. 9th. 9th. We ship to the firewall rules ... Most network administrators cowers with the words mentioned above. Still, many will still send free email with a copy of the firewall rules. Worse, they have an OEM or a freelance consultant who set up the firewall for them and retain the single copy of the rules. These rules, if they present complexity, provide a detailed map of the security scheme of the company, with important information about the identity of internal networks and services and how to make them a target. No serious security professional would date a copy of the firewall rules of someone without a specific requirement to do so. A competent auditor of information systems certificate or other auditor will review firewall rules directly into the system administrator and can not take. The Competent auditor of information systems certificate or other auditor will review firewall rules Directly into the system administrator and can not take. If you see a copy of your corporate firewall rules put in an audit report, especially an audience, get ready to redo the design of IP ... and call their lawyers. Their lawyers and call.Solved1.3KViews2likes6CommentsIT security policies need to change
IT security policies need to change Mobility, cloud and advancement of social networks are becoming obsolete the traditional rules, say industry leaders IT and information security managers will not be able to directly control or adequately protect company data in the coming years. The warning comes from industry executives attending the RSA Conference 2012, being held this week in San Francisco (USA). The confluence of cloud computing, mobile technologies and the consumerization of IT is driving big changes in how corporate data is accessed, used and shared. Instead of trying to fight this movement and change data management, companies should seek an adjustment to the new environment in a safe and practical advice to executives. "We need to rethink how to protect the company," said Enrique Salem, president and CEO of Symantec, which was one of the keynotes of the conference, which began on Monday (27/2) and closes on Friday (2/03 ). "We have to stop saying 'no' and try to form a partnership with our user community to enable safe access of new technologies and social media tools, Salem says the executive. Salem notes that many of the current rules on security in enterprises should be discarded. "In this new world, we can not control the device," he says. The company's data are increasingly accessed and shared via means they have little direct control, as is the case of personal mobile devices and social networks used by employees and services hosted by cloud providers. "With the expanded use of public and private clouds do not know where our data resides are accessed or when," said Salem. Models that focus on traditional security network perimeter controls do not work in the new IT environment, strengthens the CEO of Symantec. Companies must begin to implement controls that can authenticate, authorize and monitor user access through new approaches. Instead of having only firewalls to prevent malicious code from entering the network, businesses should start adding controls that can keep your critical information protected, said Salem. For the first time since the dawn of IT, consumer and experienced employees are adopting technologies faster than companies can absorb them, "says Art Coviello, president of RSA, the security division of EMC. Protection of large volumes of data The ramifications of the trend are significant. "IT must learn to manage what you can not control directly and learn to protect what can not anymore," says Coviello Over the past 10 years, he noted, data volumes, speeds data access, the use of mobile technologies and social media tools and risk levels have increased by several orders of magnitude. "If Facebook were a country, it would be the third largest on the planet right now," compares the executive of RSA / EMC. Protect corporate data in the new environment is much different than current models allow security, he added. Scott Charney, vice president of Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing initiative, emphasizes that good security in the current scenario should be increasingly on the ability to manage and analyze large volumes of data. "It's very important to understand that we are moving to the internet of things," he says. As users begin to access corporate data from mobile devices and other channels, the security manager must find a way to deal with an avalance of information related to devices, cloud infrastructure, data and geolocation sensors, Charney said. Patricia Titus, chief information security, Symantec, argued that, although many processes need to change some things about the safety of the company remain the same. "The governance has not changed much. I still have to keep the basic cybersecurity" as patch and installation of antivirus tools. These ingredients are essential and security managers should not ignore such measures, "says Patricia. "The job security is the same, but now we have an additional layer of complexity," says Patricia. Source: ComputerWorld486Views1like0Comments