Security must be positioned as the term already implies. It is to be viewed from the perspective of a target state and thus fits well into the strategic level and formulates a strategic goal. The risk (-event) is the negative deviation from this objective. Therefore, from the perspective of Risk Management, it is central to know "what should be secure", and derived from that, what, i.e., which asset, is at risk.
But this is not sufficient. The actual event, i.e., the Risk Event, and the cause (Threat) are crucial for determining the appropriate controls. The goal of "security" alone is too vague. Simply focusing on "availability," "integrity," and "confidentiality" without considering the cause (threat) is also too imprecise. Without identifying the cause, from a risk perspective, "security" always remains an ideal state, and consequently, every operational risk becomes a "security risk." However, this broad categorization is not helpful to anyone.
Indeed, "Security" is, per se, a buzzword. This observation is crucial and ties into the broader discussion about the need for precision in cybersecurity and risk management. Here's why this matters:
By recognizing "security" as a buzzword, we underscore the importance of using more precise language and frameworks, such as the 10 Top Level Cyber Threat Clusters. This approach encourages a more nuanced, threat-specific understanding of cybersecurity challenges, leading to more effective risk management strategies and clearer communication about cybersecurity objectives and measures.
Control fixation, particularly when relying on extensive control catalogues, can lead organizations astray in their cybersecurity efforts. Here's why:
Instead of fixating on controls, organizations should adopt a threat-centric approach aligned with frameworks like the 10 Top Level Cyber Threat Clusters. This ensures a more targeted, effective, and resource-efficient cybersecurity strategy.
Hello everyone. Today, I want to share some insights I've had while pondering Exception to Policy processes in cybersecurity. You know, as I was thinking about this, I realized something interesting about our security policies and standards.
Most of the time, these policies are essentially just control catalogs, aren't they? But here's where it gets tricky. When we grant an Exception to Policy, we're essentially accepting risk. But how do we explain the risk of non-compliance with just one control in the context of a cyber risk?
Now, you might think, 'Well, we just consider it against a high-level, abstract cyber risk.' But that doesn't really work, does it? As security experts, we know better. We know that Multi-Factor Authentication, as crucial as it is, won't do a thing to stop a Flooding Attack. Similarly, your top-notch malware scanner? It's not going to prevent a Server-Side Exploit.
So what does this tell us? It tells us that there are specific controls that mitigate specific vulnerabilities and the resulting threats - but only those specific threats and no others. This got me thinking: Is there a system to this? A logical framework we can use?
I believe the answer is yes. In fact, I think we can derive this system logically and conclusively. This is where the concept of the 10 Top Level Cyber Threat Clusters comes in. This framework provides us with a systematic approach to categorizing threats and linking them directly to specific vulnerabilities and controls.
By using this framework, we can move beyond vague, high-level risk assessments. We can be precise about which threats we're accepting when we grant an exception, and which controls are truly critical for mitigating specific risks.
This approach could revolutionize how we handle Exception to Policy processes, making our risk assessments more accurate and our security measures more effective. It's about understanding the direct relationships between controls, vulnerabilities, and threats - and using that understanding to make better decisions about our cybersecurity policies.
So, the next time you're considering an Exception to Policy, think about the specific threat cluster it relates to. Ask yourself: What exact vulnerability are we exposing, and what specific threat are we potentially facing? This level of precision could be the key to more effective risk management in our increasingly complex cyber landscape.
No additional updates are scheduled at this time.