Category Archives: Cybersecurity

The Open Group Sydney – My Conference Highlights

By Mac Lemon, MD Australia at Enterprise Architects

Sydney

Well the dust has settled now with the conclusion of The Open Group ‘Enterprise Transformation’ Conference held in Sydney, Australia for the first time on April 15-20. Enterprise Architects is proud to have been recognised at the event by The Open Group as being pivotal in the success of this event. A number of our clients including NBN, Australia Post, QGC, RIO and Westpac presented excellent papers on leading edge approaches in strategy and architecture and a number of EA’s own thought leaders in Craig Martin, Christine Stephenson and Ana Kukec also delivered widely acclaimed papers.

Attendance at the conference was impressive and demonstrated that there is substantial appetite for a dedicated event focussed on the challenges of business and technology strategy and architecture. We saw many international visitors both as delegates and presenting papers and there is no question that a 2014 Open Group Forum will be the stand out event in the calendar for business and technology strategy and architecture professionals.

My top 10 take-outs from the conference include the following:

  1. The universal maturing in understanding the criticality of Business Architecture and the total convergence upon Business Capability Modelling as a cornerstone of business architecture;
  2. The improving appreciation of techniques for understanding and expressing business strategy and motivation, such as strategy maps, business model canvass and business motivation modelling;
  3. That customer experience is emerging as a common driver for many transformation initiatives;
  4. While the process for establishing the case and roadmap for transformation appears well enough understood, the process for management of the blueprint through transformation is not and generally remains a major program risk;
  5. Then next version of TOGAF® should offer material uplift in support for security architecture which otherwise remains at low levels of maturity from a framework standardisation perspective;
  6. ArchiMate® is generating real interest as a preferred enterprise architecture modelling notation – and that stronger alignment of ArchiMate® and TOGAF® meta models in then next version of TOGAF® is highly anticipated;
  7. There is industry demand for recognised certification of architects to demonstrate learning alongside experience as the mark of a good architect. There remains an unsatisfied requirement for certification that falls in the gap between TOGAF® and the Open CA certification;
  8. Australia can be proud of its position in having the second highest per capita TOGAF® certification globally behind the Netherlands;
  9. While the topic of interoperability in government revealed many battle scarred veterans convinced of the hopelessness of the cause – there remain an equal number of campaigners willing to tackle the challenge and their free and frank exchange of views was entertaining enough to justify worth the price of a conference ticket;
  10. Unashamedly – Enterprise Architects remains in a league of its own in the concentration of strategy and architecture thought leadership in Australia – if not globally.

Mac LemonMac Lemon is the Managing Director of Enterprise Architects Pty Ltd and is based in Melbourne, Australia.

This is an extract from Mac’s recent blog post on the Enterprise Architects web site which you can view here.

Comments Off

Filed under ArchiMate®, Business Architecture, Certifications, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Professional Development, Security Architecture, TOGAF, TOGAF®

Quick Hit Thoughts from RSA Conference 2013

By Joshua Brickman, CA Technologies

I have a great job at CA Technologies, I can’t deny it. Working in CA Technologies Federal Certification Program Office, I have the responsibility of knowing what certifications, accreditations, mandates, etc. are relevant and then helping them get implemented.

One of the responsibilities (and benefits) of my job is getting to go to great conferences like the RSA Security Conference which just wrapped last week. This year I was honored to be selected by the Program Committee to speak twice at the event. Both talks fit well to the Policy and Government track at the show.

First I was on a panel with a distinguished group of senior leaders from both industry and government. The title of the session was, Certification of Products or Accreditation of Organizations: Which to Do? The idea was to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of individual product certifications vs. looking at an entire company or business unit. Since I’ve led CA through many product certifications (certs) and have been involved in accreditation programs as well, my position was to be able to bring real-world industry perspective to the panel. The point I tried to make was that product certs (like Common Criteria – CC) add value, but only for the specific purpose that they are designed for (security functions). We’ve seen CC expanding beyond just security enforcing products and that’s concerning. Product certs are expensive, time consuming and take away from time that could be spent on innovation. We want to do CC when it will be long lasting and add value.

On the idea of accreditation of organizations, I first talked about CMMI and my views on its challenges. I then shifted to the Open Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF), a forum of The Open Group, as I’ve written about before and said that the accreditation program that group is building is more focused than CMMI. OTTF is building something that  – when adopted by industry and THEIR suppliers – will provide assurance that technology is being built the right way (best practices) and will give acquirers confidence that products bought from vendors that have the OTTF mark can be trusted. The overall conclusion of the panel was that accreditation of organizations and certifications of products both had a place, and that it is important that the value was understood by buyers and vendors.

A couple of days later, I presented with Mary Ann Davidson, CSO of Oracle. The main point of the talk was to try and give the industry perspective on mandates, legislation and regulations – which all seemed to be focused on technology providers – to solve the cyber security issues which we see every day. We agreed that sometimes regulations make sense but having a clear problem definition, language and limited scope was the path to success and acceptance. We also encouraged government to get involved with industry via public/private partnerships, like The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum.

Collaboration is the key to fighting the cyber security battle. If you are interested in hearing more about ways to get involved in building a safer and more productive computing environment, feel free to contact me or leave a comment on this blog. Cybersecurity is a complicated issue and there were well over 20,000 security professionals discussing it at RSA Conference. We’d love to hear your views as well.

 This blog post was originally published on the CA Technologies blog.


joshJoshua Brickman, PMP (Project Management Professional), runs CA Technologies Federal Certifications Program. He has led CA through the successful evaluation of sixteen products through the Common Criteria over the last six years (in both the U.S. and Canada). He is also a Steering Committee member on The Open Group consortium focused on Supply Chain Integrity and Security, The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF). He also runs CA Technologies Accessibility Program. 

1 Comment

Filed under OTTF

Open Group Panel Explores Changing Field of Risk Management and Analysis in the Era of Big Data

By Dana Gardner, Interarbor Solutions

Listen to the recorded podcast here: The Open Group Panel Explores Changing Field of Risk Management and Analysis in Era of Big Data

This is a transcript of a sponsored podcast discussion on the threats from and promise of Big Data in securing enterprise information assets in conjunction with the The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special thought leadership interview series coming to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference on January 28 in Newport Beach, California.

I’m Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and I’ll be your host and moderator throughout these business transformation discussions. The conference itself is focusing on Big Data the transformation we need to embrace today.

We’re here now with a panel of experts to explore new trends and solutions in the area of risk management and analysis. We’ll learn how large enterprises are delivering risk assessments and risk analysis, and we’ll see how Big Data can be both an area to protect from in form of risks, but also as a tool for better understanding and mitigating risks.

With that, please join me in welcoming our panel. We’re here with Jack Freund, PhD, the Information Security Risk Assessment Manager at TIAA-CREF. Welcome, Jack.

Jack Freund: Hello Dana, how are you?

Gardner: I’m great. Glad you could join us.

We are also here with Jack Jones, Principal of CXOWARE. He has more than nine years of experience as a Chief Information Security Officer, is the inventor of the Factor Analysis Information Risk (FAIR) framework. Welcome, Jack.

Jack Jones: Thank you. And we’re also here with Jim Hietala, Vice President, Security for The Open Group. Welcome, Jim.

Jim Hietala: Thanks, Dana.

Gardner: All right, let’s start out with looking at this from a position of trends. Why is the issue of risk analysis so prominent now? What’s different from, say, five years ago? And we’ll start with you, Jack Jones.

Jones: The information security industry has struggled with getting the attention of and support from management and businesses for a long time, and it has finally come around to the fact that the executives care about loss exposure — the likelihood of bad things happening and how bad those things are likely to be.

It’s only when we speak of those terms or those issues in terms of risk, that we make sense to those executives. And once we do that, we begin to gain some credibility and traction in terms of getting things done.

Gardner: So we really need to talk about this in the terms that a business executive would appreciate, not necessarily an IT executive.

Effects on business

Jones: Absolutely. They’re tired of hearing about vulnerabilities, hackers, and that sort of thing. It’s only when we can talk in terms of the effect on the business that it makes sense to them.

Gardner: Jack Freund, I should also point out that you have more than 14 years in enterprise IT experience. You’re a visiting professor at DeVry University and you chair a risk-management subcommittee for ISACA? Is that correct?

Freund: ISACA, yes.

Gardner: And do you agree?

Freund: The problem that we have as a profession, and I think it’s a big problem, is that we have allowed ourselves to escape the natural trend that the other IT professionals have already taken.

There was a time, years ago, when you could code in the basement, and nobody cared much about what you were doing. But now, largely speaking, developers and systems administrators are very focused on meeting the goals of the organization.

Security has been allowed to miss that boat a little. We have been allowed to hide behind this aura of a protector and of an alerter of terrible things that could happen, without really tying ourselves to the problem that the organizations are facing and how can we help them succeed in what they’re doing.

Gardner: Jim Hietala, how do you see things that are different now than a few years ago when it comes to risk assessment?

Hietala: There are certainly changes on the threat side of the landscape. Five years ago, you didn’t really have hacktivism or this notion of an advanced persistent threat (APT).

That highly skilled attacker taking aim at governments and large organizations didn’t really exist -– or didn’t exist to the degree it does today. So that has changed.

You also have big changes to the IT platform landscape, all of which bring new risks that organizations need to really think about. The mobility trend, the Cloud trend, the big-data trend that we are talking about today, all of those things bring new risk to the organization.

As Jack Jones mentioned, business executives don’t want to hear about, “I’ve got 15 vulnerabilities in the mobility part of my organization.” They want to understand what’s the risk of bad things happening because of mobility, what we’re doing about it, and what’s happening to risk over time?

So it’s a combination of changes in the threats and attackers, as well as just changes to the IT landscape, that we have to take a different look at how we measure and present risk to the business.

Gardner: Because we’re at a big-data conference, do you share my perception, Jack Jones, that Big Data can be a source of risk and vulnerability, but also the analytics and the business intelligence (BI) tools that we’re employing with Big Data can be used to alert you to risks or provide a strong tool for better understanding your true risk setting or environment.

Crown jewels

Jones: You are absolutely right. You think of Big Data and, by definition, it’s where your crown jewels, and everything that leads to crown jewels from an information perspective, are going to be found. It’s like one-stop shopping for the bad guy, if you want to look at it in that context. It definitely needs to be protected. The architecture surrounding it and its integration across a lot of different platforms and such, can be leveraged and probably result in a complex landscape to try and secure.

There are a lot of ways into that data and such, but at least if you can leverage that same Big Data architecture, it’s an approach to information security. With log data and other threat and vulnerability data and such, you should be able to make some significant gains in terms of how well-informed your analyses and your decisions are, based on that data.

Gardner: Jack Freund, do you share that? How does Big Data fit into your understanding of the evolving arena of risk assessment and analysis?

Freund: If we fast-forward it five years, and this is even true today, a lot of people on the cutting edge of Big Data will tell you the problem isn’t so much building everything together and figuring out what it can do. They are going to tell you that the problem is what we do once we figure out everything that we have. This is the problem that we have traditionally had on a much smaller scale in information security. When everything is important, nothing is important.

Gardner: To follow up on that, where do you see the gaps in risk analysis in large organizations? In other words, what parts of organizations aren’t being assessed for risk and should be?

Freund: The big problems that exist largely today in the way that risk assessments are done, is the focus on labels. We want to quickly address the low, medium, and high things and know where they are. But the problem is that there are inherent problems in the way that we think about those labels, without doing any of the analysis legwork.

I think that’s what’s really missing is that true analysis. If the system goes offline, do we lose money? If the system becomes compromised, what are the cost-accounting things that will happen that allow us to figure out how much money we’re going to lose.

That analysis work is largely missing. That’s the gap. The gap is if the control is not in place, then there’s a risk that must be addressed in some fashion. So we end up with these very long lists of horrible, terrible things that can be done to us in all sorts of different ways, without any relevance to the overall business of the organization.

Every day, our organizations are out there selling products, offering services, which is and of itself, its own risky venture. So tying what we do from an information security perspective to that is critical for not just the success of the organization, but the success of our profession.

Gardner: So we can safely say that large companies are probably pretty good at a cost-benefit analysis or they wouldn’t be successful. Now, I guess we need to ask them to take that a step further and do a cost-risk analysis, but in business terms, being mindful that their IT systems might be a much larger part of that than they had at once considered. Is that fair, Jack?

Risk implications

Jones: Businesses have been making these decisions, chasing the opportunity, but generally, without any clear understanding of the risk implications, at least from the information security perspective. They will have us in the corner screaming and throwing red flags in there, and talking about vulnerabilities and threats from one thing or another.

But, we come to the table with red, yellow, and green indicators, and on the other side of the table, they’ve got numbers. Well, here is what we expect to earn in revenue from this initiative, and the information security people are saying it’s crazy. How do you normalize the quantitative revenue gain versus red, yellow, and green?

Gardner: Jim Hietala, do you see it in the same red, yellow, green or are there some other frameworks or standard methodologies that The Open Group is looking at to make this a bit more of a science?

Hietala: Probably four years ago, we published what we call the Risk Taxonomy Standard which is based upon FAIR, the management framework that Jack Jones invented. So, we’re big believers in bringing that level of precision to doing risk analysis. Having just gone through training for FAIR myself, as part of the standards effort that we’re doing around certification, I can say that it really brings a level of precision and a depth of analysis to risk analysis that’s been lacking frequently in IT security and risk management.

Gardner: We’ve talked about how organizations need to be mindful that their risks are higher and different than in the past and we’ve talked about how standardization and methodologies are important, helping them better understand this from a business perspective, instead of just a technology perspective.

But, I’m curious about a cultural and organizational perspective. Whose job should this fall under? Who is wearing the white hat in the company and can rally the forces of good and make all the bad things managed? Is this a single person, a cultural, an organizational mission? How do you make this work in the enterprise in a real-world way? Let’s go to you, Jack Freund.

Freund: The profession of IT risk management is changing. That profession will have to sit between the business and information security inclusive of all the other IT functions that make that happen.

In order to be successful sitting between these two groups, you have to be able to speak the language of both of those groups. You have to be able to understand profit and loss and capital expenditure on the business side. On the IT risk side, you have to be technical enough to do all those sorts of things.

But I think the sum total of those two things is probably only about 50 percent of the job of IT risk management today. The other 50 percent is communication. Finding ways to translate that language and to understand the needs and concerns of each side of that relationship is really the job of IT risk management.

To answer your question, I think it’s absolutely the job of IT risk management to do that. From my own experiences with the FAIR framework, I can say that using FAIR is the Rosetta Stone for speaking between those two groups.

Necessary tools

It gives you the tools necessary to speak in the insurance and risk terms that business appreciate. And it gives you the ability to be as technical and just nerdy, if you will, as you need to be in order to talk to IT security and the other IT functions in order to make sure everybody is on the same page and everyone feels like their concerns are represented in the risk-assessment functions that are happening.

Gardner: Jack Jones, can you add to that?

Jones: I agree with what Jack said wholeheartedly. I would add, though, that integration or adoption of something like this is a lot easier the higher up in the organization you go.

For CFOs traditionally, their neck is most clearly on the line for risk-related issues within most organizations. At least in my experience, if you get their ear on this and present the information security data analyses to them, they jump on board, they drive it through the organization, and it’s just brain-dead easy.

If you try to drive it up through the ranks, maybe you get an enthusiastic supporter in the information security organization, especially if it’s below the CISO level, and they try a grassroots sort of effort to bring it in, it’s a tougher thing. It can still work. I’ve seen it work very well, but, it’s a longer row to hoe.

Gardner: There have been a lot of research, studies, and surveys on data breaches. What are some of the best sources, or maybe not so good sources, for actually measuring this? How do you know if you’re doing it right? How do you know if you’re moving from yellow to green, instead of to red? To you, Jack Freund.

Freund: There are a couple of things in that question. The first is there’s this inherent assumption in a lot of organizations that we need to move from yellow to green, and that may not be the case. So, becoming very knowledgeable about the risk posture and the risk tolerance of the organization is a key.

That’s part of the official mindset of IT security. When you graduate an information security person today, they are minted knowing that there are a lot of bad things out there, and their goal in life is to reduce them. But, that may not be the case. The case may very well be that things are okay now, but we have bigger things to fry over here that we’re going to focus on. So, that’s one thing.

The second thing, and it’s a very good question, is how we know that we’re getting better? How do we trend that over time? Overall, measuring that value for the organization has to be able to show a reduction of a risk or at least reduction of risk to the risk-tolerance levels of the organization.

Calculating and understanding that requires something that I always phrase as we have to become comfortable with uncertainty. When you are talking about risk in general, you’re talking about forward-looking statements about things that may or may not happen. So, becoming comfortable with the fact that they may or may not happen means that when you measure them today, you have to be willing to be a little bit squishy in how you’re representing that.

In FAIR and in other academic works, they talk about using ranges to do that. So, things like high, medium, and low, could be represented in terms of a minimum, maximum, and most likely. And that tends to be very, very effective. People can respond to that fairly well.

Gathering data

Jones: With regard to the data sources, there are a lot of people out there doing these sorts of studies, gathering data. The problem that’s hamstringing that effort is the lack of a common set of definitions, nomenclature, and even taxonomy around the problem itself.

You will have one study that will have defined threat, vulnerability, or whatever differently from some other study, and so the data can’t be normalized. It really harms the utility of it. I see data out there and I think, “That looks like that can be really useful.” But, I hesitate to use it because I don’t understand. They don’t publish their definitions, approach, and how they went after it.

There’s just so much superficial thinking in the profession on this that we now have dug under the covers. Too often, I run into stuff that just can’t be defended. It doesn’t make sense, and therefore the data can’t be used. It’s an unfortunate situation.

I do think we’re heading in a positive direction. FAIR can provide a normalizing structure for that sort of thing. The VERIS framework, which by the way, is also derived in part from FAIR, also has gained real attraction in terms of the quality of the research they have done and the data they’re generating. We’re headed in the right direction, but we’ve got a long way to go.

Gardner: Jim Hietala, we’re seemingly looking at this on a company-by-company basis. But, is there a vertical industry slice or industry-wide slice where we could look at what’s happening to everyone and put some standard understanding, or measurement around what’s going on in the overall market, maybe by region, maybe by country?

Hietala: There are some industry-specific initiatives and what’s really needed, as Jack Jones mentioned, are common definitions for things like breach, exposure, loss, all those, so that the data sources from one organization can be used in another, and so forth. I think about the financial services industry. I know that there is some information sharing through an organization called the FS-ISAC about what’s happening to financial services organizations in terms of attacks, loss, and those sorts of things.

There’s an opportunity for that on a vertical-by-vertical basis. But, like Jack said, there is a long way to go on that. In some industries, healthcare for instance, you are so far from that, it’s ridiculous. In the US here, the HIPAA security rule says you must do a risk assessment. So, hospitals have done annual risk assessments, will stick the binder on the shelf, and they don’t think much about information security in between those annual risk assessments. That’s a generalization, but various industries are at different places on a continuum of maturity of their risk management approaches.

Gardner: As we get better with having a common understanding of the terms and the measurements and we share more data, let’s go back to this notion of how to communicate this effectively to those people that can use it and exercise change management as a result. That could be the CFO, the CEO, what have you, depending on the organization.

Do you have any examples? Can we look to an organization that’s done this right, and examine their practices, the way they’ve communicated it, some of the tools they’ve used and say, “Aha, they’re headed in the right direction maybe we could follow a little bit.” Let’s start with you, Jack Freund.

Freund: I have worked and consulted for various organizations that have done risk management at different levels. The ones that have embraced FAIR tend to be the ones that overall feel that risk is an integral part of their business strategy. And I can give a couple of examples of scenarios that have played out that I think have been successful in the way they have been communicated.

Coming to terms

The key to keep in mind with this is that one of the really important things is that when you’re a security professional, you’re again trained to feel like you need results. But, the results for the IT risk management professional are different. The results are “I’ve communicated this effectively, so I am done.” And then whatever the results are, are the results that needed to be. And that’s a really hard thing to come to terms with.

I’ve been involved in large-scale efforts to assess risk for a Cloud venture. We needed to move virtually every confidential record that we have to the Cloud in order to be competitive with the rest of our industry. If our competitors are finding ways to utilize the Cloud before us, we can lose out. So, we need to find a way to do that, and to be secure and compliant with all the laws and regulations and such.

Through that scenario, one of the things that came out was that key ownership became really, really important. We had the opportunity to look at the various control structures and we analyzed them using FAIR. What we ended up with was sort of a long-tail risk. Most people will probably do their job right over a long enough period of time. But, over that same long period of time, the odds of somebody making a mistake not in your favor are probably likely, but, not significantly enough so that you can’t make the move.

But, the problem became that the loss side, the side that typically gets ignored with traditional risk-assessment methodologies, was so significant that the organization needed to make some judgment around that, and they needed to have a sense of what we needed to do in order to minimize that.

That became a big point of discussion for us and it drove the conversation away from bad things could happen. We didn’t bury the lead. The lead was that this is the most important thing to this organization in this particular scenario.

So, let’s talk about things we can do. Are we comfortable with it? Do we need to make any sort of changes? What are some control opportunities? How much do they cost? This is a significantly more productive conversation than just, “Here is a bunch of bad things that happen. I’m going to cross my arms and say no.”

Gardner: Jack Jones, examples at work?

Jones: In an organization that I’ve been working with recently, their board of directors said they wanted a quantitative view of information security risk. They just weren’t happy with the red, yellow, green. So, they came to us, and there were really two things that drove them there. One was that they were looking at cyber insurance. They wanted to know how much cyber insurance they should take out, and how do you figure that out when you’ve got a red, yellow, green scale?

They were able to do a series of analyses on a population of the scenarios that they thought were relevant in their world, get an aggregate view of their annualized loss exposure, and make a better informed decision about that particular problem.

Gardner: I’m curious how prevalent cyber insurance is, and is that going to be a leveling effect in the industry where people speak a common language the equivalent of actuarial tables, but for security in enterprise and cyber security?

Jones: One would dream and hope, but at this point, what I’ve seen out there in terms of the basis on which insurance companies are setting their premiums and such is essentially the same old “risk assessment” stuff that the industry has been doing poorly for years. It’s not based on data or any real analysis per se, at least what I’ve run into. What they do is set their premiums high to buffer themselves and typically cover as few things as possible. The question of how much value it’s providing the customers becomes a problem.

Looking to the future

Gardner: We’re coming up on our time limit. So, let’s quickly look to the future. Is there such thing as risk management as a service? Can we outsource this? Is there a way in which moving more of IT into Cloud or hybrid models would mitigate risk, because the Cloud provider would standardize? Then, many players in that environment, those who were buying those services, would be under that same umbrella? Let’s start with you Jim Hietala. What’s the future of this and what do the Cloud trends bring to the table?

Hietala: I’d start with a maxim that comes out of the financial services industry, which is that you can outsource the function, but you still own the risk. That’s an unfortunate reality. You can throw things out in the Cloud, but it doesn’t absolve you from understanding your risk and then doing things to manage it to transfer it if there’s insurance or whatever the case may be.

That’s just a reality. Organizations in the risky world we live in are going to have to get more serious about doing effective risk analysis. From The Open Group standpoint, we see this as an opportunity area.

As I mentioned, we’ve standardized the taxonomy piece of FAIR. And we really see an opportunity around the profession going forward to help the risk-analysis community by further standardizing FAIR and launching a certification program for a FAIR-certified risk analyst. That’s in demand from large organizations that are looking for evidence that people understand how to apply FAIR and use it in doing risk analyses.

Gardner: Jack Freund, looking into your crystal ball, how do you see this discipline evolving?

Freund: I always try to consider things as they exist within other systems. Risk is a system of systems. There are a series of pressures that are applied, and a series of levers that are thrown in order to release that sort of pressure.

Risk will always be owned by the organization that is offering that service. If we decide at some point that we can move to the Cloud and all these other things, we need to look to the legal system. There is a series of pressures that they are going to apply, and who is going to own that, and how that plays itself out.

If we look to the Europeans and the way that they’re managing risk and compliance, they’re still as strict as we in United States think that they may be about things, but there’s still a lot of leeway in a lot of the ways that laws are written. You’re still being asked to do things that are reasonable. You’re still being asked to do things that are standard for your industry. But, we’d still like the ability to know what that is, and I don’t think that’s going to go away anytime soon.

Judgment calls

We’re still going to have to make judgment calls. We’re still going to have to do 100 things with a budget for 10 things. Whenever that happens, you have to make a judgment call. What’s the most important thing that I care about? And that’s why risk management exists, because there’s a certain series of things that we have to deal with. We don’t have the resources to do them all, and I don’t think that’s going to change over time. Regardless of whether the landscape changes, that’s the one that remains true.

Gardner: The last word to you, Jack Jones. It sounds as if we’re continuing down the path of being mostly reactive. Is there anything you can see on the horizon that would perhaps tip the scales, so that the risk management and analysis practitioners can really become proactive and head things off before they become a big problem?

Jones: If we were to take a snapshot at any given point in time of an organization’s loss exposure, how much risk they have right then, that’s a lagging indicator of the decisions they’ve made in the past, and their ability to execute against those decisions.

We can do some great root-cause analysis around that and ask how we got there. But, we can also turn that coin around and ask how good we are at making well-informed decisions, and then executing against them, the asking what that implies from a risk perspective downstream.

If we understand the relationship between our current state, and past and future states, we have those linkages defined, especially, if we have an analytic framework underneath it. We can do some marvelous what-if analysis.

What if this variable changed in our landscape? Let’s run a few thousand Monte Carlo simulations against that and see what comes up. What does that look like? Well, then let’s change this other variable and then see which combination of dials, when we turn them, make us most robust to change in our landscape.

But again, we can’t begin to get there, until we have this foundational set of definitions, frameworks, and such to do that sort of analysis. That’s what we’re doing with FAIR, but without some sort of framework like that, there’s no way you can get there.

Gardner: I am afraid we’ll have to leave it there. We’ve been talking with a panel of experts on how new trends and solutions are emerging in the area of risk management and analysis. And we’ve seen how new tools for communication and using Big Data to understand risks are also being brought to the table.

This special BriefingsDirect discussion comes to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach, California. I’d like to thank our panel: Jack Freund, PhD, Information Security Risk Assessment Manager at TIAA-CREF. Thanks so much Jack.

Freund: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: We’ve also been speaking with Jack Jones, Principal at CXOWARE.

Jones: Thank you. Thank you, pleasure to be here.

Gardner: And last, Jim Hietala, the Vice President for Security at The Open Group. Thanks.

Hietala: Thanks, Dana.

Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions; your host and moderator through these thought leadership interviews. Thanks again for listening and come back next time.

Comments Off

Filed under Security Architecture

Improving Signal-to-Noise in Risk Management

By Jack Jones, CXOWARE

One of the most important responsibilities of the information security professional (or any IT professional, for that matter) is to help management make well-informed decisions. Unfortunately, this has been an illusive objective when it comes to risk. Although we’re great at identifying control deficiencies, and we can talk all day long about the various threats we face, we have historically had a poor track record when it comes to risk. There are a number of reasons for this, but in this article I’ll focus on just one — definition.

You’ve probably heard the old adage, “You can’t manage what you can’t measure.”  Well, I’d add to that by saying, “You can’t measure what you haven’t defined.” The unfortunate fact is that the information security profession has been inconsistent in how it defines and uses the term “risk.” Ask a number of professionals to define the term, and you will get a variety of definitions.

Besides inconsistency, another problem regarding the term “risk” is that many of the common definitions don’t fit the information security problem space or simply aren’t practical. For example, the ISO27000 standard defines risk as, “the effect of uncertainty on objectives.” What does that mean? Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately), I must not be the only one with that reaction because the ISO standard goes on to define “effect,” “uncertainty,” and “objectives,” as follows:

  • Effect: A deviation from the expected — positive and/or negative
  • Uncertainty: The state, even partial, of deficiency of information related to, understanding or knowledge of, an event, its consequence or likelihood
  • Objectives: Can have different aspects (such as financial, health and safety, information security, and environmental goals) and can apply at different levels (such as strategic, organization-wide, project, product and process)

NOTE: Their definition for ”objectives” doesn’t appear to be a definition at all, but rather an example. 

Although I understand, conceptually, the point this definition is getting at, my first concern is practical in nature. As a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), I invariably have more to do than I have resources to apply. Therefore, I must prioritize and prioritization requires comparison and comparison requires measurement. It isn’t clear to me how “uncertainty regarding deviation from the expected (positive and/or negative) that might affect my organization’s objectives” can be applied to measure, and thus compare and prioritize, the issues I’m responsible for dealing with.

This is just an example though, and I don’t mean to pick on ISO because much of their work is stellar. I could have chosen any of several definitions in our industry and expressed varied concerns.

In my experience, information security is about managing how often loss takes place, and how much loss will be realized when/if it occurs. That is our profession’s value proposition, and it’s what management cares about. Consequently, whatever definition we use needs to align with this purpose.

The Open Group’s Risk Taxonomy (shown below), based on Factor Analysis of Information Risk (FAIR), helps to solve this problem by providing a clear and practical definition for risk. In this taxonomy, Risk is defined as, “the probable frequency and probable magnitude of future loss.”

Taxonomy image

The elements below risk in the taxonomy form a Bayesian network that models risk factors and acts as a framework for critically evaluating risk. This framework has been evolving for more than a decade now and is helping information security professionals across many industries understand, measure, communicate and manage risk more effectively.

In the communications context, you have to have a very clear understanding of what constitutes signal before you can effectively and reliably filter it out from noise. The Open Group’s Risk Taxonomy gives us an important foundation for achieving a much clearer signal.

I will be discussing this topic in more detail next week at The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach. For more information on my session or the conference, visit: http://www.opengroup.org/newportbeach2013.

Jack Jones HeadshotJack Jones has been employed in technology for the past twenty-nine years, and has specialized in information security and risk management for twenty-two years.  During this time, he’s worked in the United States military, government intelligence, consulting, as well as the financial and insurance industries.  Jack has over nine years of experience as a CISO, with five of those years at a Fortune 100 financial services company.  His work there was recognized in 2006 when he received the 2006 ISSA Excellence in the Field of Security Practices award at that year’s RSA conference.  In 2007, he was selected as a finalist for the Information Security Executive of the Year, Central United States, and in 2012 was honored with the CSO Compass award for leadership in risk management.  He is also the author and creator of the Factor Analysis of Information Risk (FAIR) framework.

1 Comment

Filed under Cybersecurity

2013 Open Group Predictions, Vol. 2

By The Open Group

Continuing on the theme of predictions, here are a few more, which focus on global IT trends, business architecture, OTTF and Open Group events in 2013.

Global Enterprise Architecture

By Chris Forde, Vice President of Enterprise Architecture and Membership Capabilities

Cloud is no longer a bleeding edge technology – most organizations are already well on their way to deploying cloud technology.  However, Cloud implementations are resurrecting a perennial problem for organizations—integration. Now that Cloud infrastructures are being deployed, organizations are having trouble integrating different systems, especially with systems hosted by third parties outside their organization. What will happen when two, three or four technical delivery systems are hosted on AND off premise? This presents a looming integration problem.

As we see more and more organizations buying into cloud infrastructures, we’ll see an increase in cross-platform integration architectures globally in 2013. The role of the enterprise architect will become more complex. Architectures must not only ensure that systems are integrated properly, but architects also need to figure out a way to integrate outsourced teams and services and determine responsibility across all systems. Additionally, outsourcing and integration will lead to increased focus on security in the coming year, especially in healthcare and financial sectors. When so many people are involved, and responsibility is shared or lost in the process, gaping holes can be left unnoticed. As data is increasingly shared between organizations and current trends escalate, security will also become more and more of a concern. Integration may yield great rewards architecturally, but it also means greater exposure to vulnerabilities outside of your firewall.

Within the Architecture Forum, we will be working on improvements to the TOGAF® standard throughout 2013, as well as an effort to continue to harmonize the TOGAF specification with the ArchiMate® modelling language.  The Forum also expects to publish a whitepaper on application portfolio management in the new year, as well as be involved in the upcoming Cloud Reference Architecture.

In China, The Open Group is progressing well. In 2013, we’ll continue translating The Open Group website, books and whitepapers from English to Chinese. Partnerships and Open CA certification will remain in the forefront of global priorities, as well as enrolling TOGAF trainers throughout Asia Pacific as Open Group members. There are a lot of exciting developments arising, and we will keep you updated as we expand our footprint in China and the rest of Asia.

Open Group Events in 2013

By Patty Donovan, Vice President of Membership and Events

In 2013, the biggest change for us will be our quarterly summit. The focus will shift toward an emphasis on verticals. This new focus will debut at our April event in Sydney where the vertical themes include Mining, Government, and Finance. Additional vertical themes that we plan to cover throughout the year include: Healthcare, Transportation, Retail, just to name a few. We will also continue to increase the number of our popular Livestream sessions as we have seen an extremely positive reaction to them as well as all of our On-Demand sessions – listen to best selling authors and industry leaders who participated as keynote and track speakers throughout the year.

Regarding social media, we made big strides in 2012 and will continue to make this a primary focus of The Open Group. If you haven’t already, please “like” us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, join the chat on (#ogchat) one of our Security focused Tweet Jams, and join our LinkedIn Group. And if you have the time, we’d love for you to contribute to The Open Group blog.

We’re always open to new suggestions, so if you have a creative idea on how we can improve your membership, Open Group events, webinars, podcasts, please let me know! Also, please be sure to attend the upcoming Open Group Conference in Newport Beach, Calif., which is taking place on January 28-31. The conference will address Big Data.

Business Architecture

By Steve Philp, Marketing Director for Open CA and Open CITS

Business Architecture is still a relatively new discipline, but in 2013 I think it will continue to grow in prominence and visibility from an executive perspective. C-Level decision makers are not just looking at operational efficiency initiatives and cost reduction programs to grow their future revenue streams; they are also looking at market strategy and opportunity analysis.

Business Architects are extremely valuable to an organization when they understand market and technology trends in a particular sector. They can then work with business leaders to develop strategies based on the capabilities and positioning of the company to increase revenue, enhance their market position and improve customer loyalty.

Senior management recognizes that technology also plays a crucial role in how organizations can achieve their business goals. A major role of the Business Architect is to help merge technology with business processes to help facilitate this business transformation.

There are a number of key technology areas for 2013 where Business Architects will be called upon to engage with the business such as Cloud Computing, Big Data and social networking. Therefore, the need to have competent Business Architects is a high priority in both the developed and emerging markets and the demand for Business Architects currently exceeds the supply. There are some training and certification programs available based on a body of knowledge, but how do you establish who is a practicing Business Architect if you are looking to recruit?

The Open Group is trying to address this issue and has incorporated a Business Architecture stream into The Open Group Certified Architect (Open CA) program. There has already been significant interest in this stream from both organizations and practitioners alike. This is because Open CA is a skills- and experience-based program that recognizes, at different levels, those individuals who are actually performing in a Business Architecture role. You must complete a candidate application package and be interviewed by your peers. Achieving certification demonstrates your competency as a Business Architect and therefore will stand you in good stead for both next year and beyond.

You can view the conformance criteria for the Open CA Business Architecture stream at https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/X120.

Trusted Technology

By Sally Long, Director of Consortia Services

The interdependency of all countries on global technology providers and technology providers’ dependencies on component suppliers around the world is more certain than ever before.  The need to work together in a vendor-neutral, country-neutral environment to assure there are standards for securing technology development and supply chain operations will become increasingly apparent in 2013. Securing the global supply chain can not be done in a vacuum, by a few providers or a few governments, it must be achieved by working together with all governments, providers, component suppliers and integrators and it must be done through open standards and accreditation programs that demonstrate conformance to those standards and are available to everyone.

The Open Group’s Trusted Technology Forum is providing that open, vendor and country-neutral environment, where suppliers from all countries and governments from around the world can work together in a trusted collaborative environment, to create a standard and an accreditation program for securing the global supply chain. The Open Trusted Technology Provider Standard (O-TTPS) Snapshot (Draft) was published in March of 2012 and is the basis for our 2013 predictions.

We predict that in 2013:

  • Version 1.0 of the O-TTPS (Standard) will be published.
  • Version 1.0 will be submitted to the ISO PAS process in 2013, and will likely become part of the ISO/IEC 27036 standard, where Part 5 of that ISO standard is already reserved for the O-TTPS work
  • An O-TTPS Accreditation Program – open to all providers, component suppliers, and integrators, will be launched
  • The Forum will continue the trend of increased member participation from governments and suppliers around the world

4 Comments

Filed under Business Architecture, Conference, Enterprise Architecture, O-TTF, OTTF

2013 Open Group Predictions, Vol. 1

By The Open Group

A big thank you to all of our members and staff who have made 2012 another great year for The Open Group. There were many notable achievements this year, including the release of ArchiMate 2.0, the launch of the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE™) Technical Standard and the publication of the SOA Reference Architecture (SOA RA) and the Service-Oriented Cloud Computing Infrastructure Framework (SOCCI).

As we wrap up 2012, we couldn’t help but look towards what is to come in 2013 for The Open Group and the industries we‘re a part of. Without further ado, here they are:

Big Data
By Dave Lounsbury, Chief Technical Officer

Big Data is on top of everyone’s mind these days. Consumerization, mobile smart devices, and expanding retail and sensor networks are generating massive amounts of data on behavior, environment, location, buying patterns – etc. – producing what is being called “Big Data”. In addition, as the use of personal devices and social networks continue to gain popularity so does the expectation to have access to such data and the computational power to use it anytime, anywhere. Organizations will turn to IT to restructure its services so it meets the growing expectation of control and access to data.

Organizations must embrace Big Data to drive their decision-making and to provide the optimal service mix services to customers. Big Data is becoming so big that the big challenge is how to use it to make timely decisions. IT naturally focuses on collecting data so Big Data itself is not an issue.. To allow humans to keep on top of this flood of data, industry will need to move away from programming computers for storing and processing data to teaching computers how to assess large amounts of uncorrelated data and draw inferences from this data on their own. We also need to start thinking about the skills that people need in the IT world to not only handle Big Data, but to make it actionable. Do we need “Data Architects” and if so, what would their role be?

In 2013, we will see the beginning of the Intellectual Computing era. IT will play an essential role in this new era and will need to help enterprises look at uncorrelated data to find the answer.

Security

By Jim Hietala, Vice President of Security

As 2012 comes to a close, some of the big developments in security over the past year include:

  • Continuation of hacktivism attacks.
  • Increase of significant and persistent threats targeting government and large enterprises. The notable U.S. National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace started to make progress in the second half of the year in terms of industry and government movement to address fundamental security issues.
  • Security breaches were discovered by third parties, where the organizations affected had no idea that they were breached. Data from the 2012 Verizon report suggests that 92 percent of companies breached were notified by a third party.
  • Acknowledgement from senior U.S. cybersecurity professionals that organizations fall into two groups: those that know they’ve been penetrated, and those that have been penetrated, but don’t yet know it.

In 2013, we’ll no doubt see more of the same on the attack front, plus increased focus on mobile attack vectors. We’ll also see more focus on detective security controls, reflecting greater awareness of the threat and on the reality that many large organizations have already been penetrated, and therefore responding appropriately requires far more attention on detection and incident response.

We’ll also likely see the U.S. move forward with cybersecurity guidance from the executive branch, in the form of a Presidential directive. New national cybersecurity legislation seemed to come close to happening in 2012, and when it failed to become a reality, there were many indications that the administration would make something happen by executive order.

Enterprise Architecture

By Leonard Fehskens, Vice President of Skills and Capabilities

Preparatory to my looking back at 2012 and forward to 2013, I reviewed what I wrote last year about 2011 and 2012.

Probably the most significant thing from my perspective is that so little has changed. In fact, I think in many respects the confusion about what Enterprise Architecture (EA) and Business Architecture are about has gotten worse.

The stress within the EA community as both the demands being placed on it and the diversity of opinion within it increase continues to grow.  This year, I saw a lot more concern about the value proposition for EA, but not a lot of (read “almost no”) convergence on what that value proposition is.

Last year I wrote “As I expected at this time last year, the conventional wisdom about Enterprise Architecture continues to spin its wheels.”  No need to change a word of that. What little progress at the leading edge was made in 2011 seems to have had no effect in 2012. I think this is largely a consequence of the dust thrown in the eyes of the community by the ascendance of the concept of “Business Architecture,” which is still struggling to define itself.  Business Architecture seems to me to have supplanted last year’s infatuation with “enterprise transformation” as the means of compensating for the EA community’s entrenched IT-centric perspective.

I think this trend and the quest for a value proposition are symptomatic of the same thing — the urgent need for Enterprise Architecture to make its case to its stakeholder community, especially to the people who are paying the bills. Something I saw in 2011 that became almost epidemic in 2012 is conflation — the inclusion under the Enterprise Architecture umbrella of nearly anything with the slightest taste of “business” to it. This has had the unfortunate effect of further obscuring the unique contribution of Enterprise Architecture, which is to bring architectural thinking to bear on the design of human enterprise.

So, while I’m not quite mired in the slough of despond, I am discouraged by the community’s inability to advance the state of the art. In a private communication to some colleagues I wrote, “the conventional wisdom on EA is at about the same state of maturity as 14th century cosmology. It is obvious to even the most casual observer that the earth is both flat and the center of the universe. We debate what happens when you fall off the edge of the Earth, and is the flat earth carried on the back of a turtle or an elephant?  Does the walking of the turtle or elephant rotate the crystalline sphere of the heavens, or does the rotation of the sphere require the turtlephant to walk to keep the earth level?  These are obviously the questions we need to answer.”

Cloud

By Chris Harding, Director of Interoperability

2012 has seen the establishment of Cloud Computing as a mainstream resource for enterprise architects and the emergence of Big Data as the latest hot topic, likely to be mainstream for the future. Meanwhile, Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) has kept its position as an architectural style of choice for delivering distributed solutions, and the move to ever more powerful mobile devices continues. These trends have been reflected in the activities of our Cloud Computing Work Group and in the continuing support by members of our SOA work.

The use of Cloud, Mobile Computing, and Big Data to deliver on-line systems that are available anywhere at any time is setting a new norm for customer expectations. In 2013, we will see the development of Enterprise Architecture practice to ensure the consistent delivery of these systems by IT professionals, and to support the evolution of creative new computing solutions.

IT systems are there to enable the business to operate more effectively. Customers expect constant on-line access through mobile and other devices. Business organizations work better when they focus on their core capabilities, and let external service providers take care of the rest. On-line data is a huge resource, so far largely untapped. Distributed, Cloud-enabled systems, using Big Data, and architected on service-oriented principles, are the best enablers of effective business operations. There will be a convergence of SOA, Mobility, Cloud Computing, and Big Data as they are seen from the overall perspective of the enterprise architect.

Within The Open Group, the SOA and Cloud Work Groups will continue their individual work, and will collaborate with other forums and work groups, and with outside organizations, to foster the convergence of IT disciplines for distributed computing.

3 Comments

Filed under Business Architecture, Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Cybersecurity, Enterprise Architecture

Operational Resilience through Managing External Dependencies

By Ian Dobson & Jim Hietala, The Open Group

These days, organizations are rarely self-contained. Businesses collaborate through partnerships and close links with suppliers and customers. Outsourcing services and business processes, including into Cloud Computing, means that key operations that an organization depends on are often fulfilled outside their control.

The challenge here is how to manage the dependencies your operations have on factors that are outside your control. The goal is to perform your risk management so it optimizes your operational success through being resilient against external dependencies.

The Open Group’s Dependency Modeling (O-DM) standard specifies how to construct a dependency model to manage risk and build trust over organizational dependencies between enterprises – and between operational divisions within a large organization. The standard involves constructing a model of the operations necessary for an organization’s success, including the dependencies that can affect each operation. Then, applying quantitative risk sensitivities to each dependency reveals those operations that have highest exposure to risk of not being successful, informing business decision-makers where investment in reducing their organization’s exposure to external risks will result in best return.

O-DM helps you to plan for success through operational resilience, assured business continuity, and effective new controls and contingencies, enabling you to:

  • Cut costs without losing capability
  • Make the most of tight budgets
  • Build a resilient supply chain
  •  Lead programs and projects to success
  • Measure, understand and manage risk from outsourcing relationships and supply chains
  • Deliver complex event analysis

The O-DM analytical process facilitates organizational agility by allowing you to easily adjust and evolve your organization’s operations model, and produces rapid results to illustrate how reducing the sensitivity of your dependencies improves your operational resilience. O-DM also allows you to drill as deep as you need to go to reveal your organization’s operational dependencies.

O-DM support training on the development of operational dependency models conforming to this standard is available, as are software computation tools to automate speedy delivery of actionable results in graphic formats to facilitate informed business decision-making.

The O-DM standard represents a significant addition to our existing Open Group Risk Management publications:

The O-DM standard may be accessed here.

Ian Dobson is the director of the Security Forum and the Jericho Forum for The Open Group, coordinating and facilitating the members to achieve their goals in our challenging information security world.  In the Security Forum, his focus is on supporting development of open standards and guides on security architectures and management of risk and security, while in the Jericho Forum he works with members to anticipate the requirements for the security solutions we will need in future.

Jim Hietala, CISSP, GSEC, is the Vice President, Security for The Open Group, where he manages all IT security and risk management programs and standards activities. He participates in the SANS Analyst/Expert program and has also published numerous articles on information security, risk management, and compliance topics in publications including The ISSA Journal, Bank Accounting & Finance, Risk Factor, SC Magazine, and others.

1 Comment

Filed under Cybersecurity, Security Architecture

Architecting for Secure Business Collaboration

By Ian Dobson & Jim Hietala, The Open Group

The Open Group Framework for Secure Collaboration Oriented Architectures (O-SCOA) Guide provides system and security architects and designers with a blueprint specifying the requirements for secure design of enterprise architectures that support safe and secure operation, globally, over any unsecured network.

This secure COA framework was originally developed by the Jericho Forum®, a forum of The Open Group, from 2007-2009. They started with an overview paper outlining the objectives and framework concepts, and quickly followed it with a high-level COA framework that mapped the primary components – processes, services, attributes and technologies – and identified the sub-components under each. Then, over the next 18 months the forum developed and published a series of requirements papers on the results of the methodical analysis of the security requirements that each sub-component should be architected to fulfill.

The O-SCOA Guide brings together an updated version of all these papers in one publication, adding the latest developments in the critical identity management component.  It also includes the business case for building Enterprise Architectures that follow the O-SCOA guidance to assure safe and secure operations between business partners over insecure global networks. Additionally, it includes the Jericho Commandments, first published in 2006, which have stood the test of time as the proven benchmark for assessing how secure any Enterprise Architecture is for operations in open systems.

The SCOA guide may be downloaded here.

Ian Dobson is the director of the Security Forum and the Jericho Forum for The Open Group, coordinating and facilitating the members to achieve their goals in our challenging information security world.  In the Security Forum, his focus is on supporting development of open standards and guides on security architectures and management of risk and security, while in the Jericho Forum he works with members to anticipate the requirements for the security solutions we will need in future.

Jim Hietala, CISSP, GSEC, is the Vice President, Security for The Open Group, where he manages all IT security and risk management programs and standards activities. He participates in the SANS Analyst/Expert program and has also published numerous articles on information security, risk management, and compliance topics in publications including The ISSA Journal, Bank Accounting & Finance, Risk Factor, SC Magazine, and others.

1 Comment

Filed under Cybersecurity, Security Architecture

2013 Security Priorities – Tweet Jam

By Patty Donovan, The Open Group

On Tuesday, December 11, The Open Group will host a tweet jam examining the topic of IT security and what is in store for 2013.

2012 was a big year for security. Congress debated cybersecurity legislation in the face of attacks on vulnerabilities in the nation’s critical infrastructure systems; social networking site LinkedIn was faulted for one of the largest security breaches of the year; and global cyber espionage was a trending topic. With the year coming to a close, the big questions on peoples’ minds are what security issues will dominate headlines in 2013. In October, Gartner predicted that by 2014, employee-owned devices will be infected with malware at more than double the rate of corporate-owned devices, and by 2017, 40% of an enterprise’s contact information will have been leaked into Facebook through the use of mobile device collaboration applications. These predictions only touch the tip of the iceberg for security concerns in the coming year.

Please join us on Tuesday, December 11 at 9:00 a.m. PT/12:00 p.m. ET/5:00 p.m. GMT for a tweet jam that will discuss and debate the mega trends that will shape the security landscape in 2013. Key areas that will be addressed during the discussion include: mobile security, BYOD, supply chain security, advanced persistent threats, and cloud and data security. We welcome Open Group members and interested participants from all backgrounds to join the session and interact with our panel of IT security experts, analysts and thought leaders. To access the discussion, please follow the #ogChat hashtag during the allotted discussion time.

And for those of you who are unfamiliar with tweet jams, here is some background information:

What Is a Tweet Jam?

A tweet jam is a one hour “discussion” hosted on Twitter. The purpose of the tweet jam is to share knowledge and answer questions on a chosen topic. Each tweet jam is led by a moderator and a dedicated group of experts to keep the discussion flowing. The public (or anyone using Twitter interested in the topic) is free (and encouraged!) to join the discussion.

Participation Guidance

Whether you’re a newbie or veteran Twitter user, here are a few tips to keep in mind:

  • Have your first #ogChat tweet be a self-introduction: name, affiliation, occupation.
  • Start all other tweets with the question number you’re responding to and the #ogChat hashtag.
    • Sample: “Q1 The biggest security threat in 2013 will continue to be securing data in the cloud #ogChat”
  • Please refrain from product or service promotions. The goal of a tweet jam is to encourage an exchange of knowledge and stimulate discussion.
  • While this is a professional get-together, we don’t have to be stiff! Informality will not be an issue!
  • A tweet jam is akin to a public forum, panel discussion or Town Hall meeting – let’s be focused and thoughtful.

If you have any questions prior to the event or would like to join as a participant, please direct them to Rod McLeod (rmcleod at bateman-group dot com). We anticipate a lively chat and hope you will be able to join!

Patricia Donovan is Vice President, Membership & Events, at The Open Group and a member of its executive management team. In this role she is involved in determining the company’s strategic direction and policy as well as the overall management of that business area. Patricia joined The Open Group in 1988 and has played a key role in the organization’s evolution, development and growth since then. She also oversees the company’s marketing, conferences and member meetings. She is based in the U.S.

1 Comment

Filed under Cybersecurity, Tweet Jam

Data Protection Today and What’s Needed Tomorrow

By Ian Dobson and Jim Hietala, The Open Group

Technology today allows thieves to copy sensitive data, leaving the original in place and thus avoiding detection. One needn’t look far in today’s headlines to understand why protection of data is critical going forward. As this recent article from Bloomberg points out, penetrations of corporate IT systems with the aim to extract sensitive information, IP and other corporate data are rampant.  Despite the existence of data breach and data privacy laws in the U.S., EU and elsewhere, this issue is still not well publicized. The article cites specific intrusions at large consumer products companies, the EU, itself, law firms and a nuclear power plant.

Published in October 2012, the Jericho Forum® Data Protection white paper reviews the state of data protection today and where it should be heading to meet tomorrow’s business needs. The Open Group’s Jericho Forum contends that future data protection solutions must aim to provide stronger, more flexible protection mechanisms around the data itself.

The white paper argues that some of the current issues with data protection are:

  • It is too global and remote to be effective
  • Protection is neither granular nor interoperable enough
  • It’s not integrated with Centralized Authorization Services
  • Weak security services are relied on for enforcement

Refreshingly, it explains not only why, but also how. The white paper reviews the key issues surrounding data protection today; describes properties that data protection mechanisms should include to meet current and future requirements; considers why current technologies don’t deliver what is required; and proposes a set of data protection principles to guide the design of effective solutions.

It goes on to describe how data protection has evolved to where it’s at today, and outlines a series of target stages for progressively moving the industry forward to deliver stronger more flexible protection solutions that business managers are already demanding their IT systems managers provide.  Businesses require these solutions to ensure appropriate data protection levels are wrapped around the rapidly increasing volumes of confidential information that is shared with their business partners, suppliers, customers and outworkers/contractors on a daily basis.

Having mapped out an evolutionary path for what we need to achieve to move data protection forward in the direction our industry needs, we’re now planning optimum approaches for how to achieve each successive stage of protection. The Jericho Forum welcomes folks who want to join us in this important journey.

 

Ian Dobson is the director of the Security Forum and the Jericho Forum for The Open Group, coordinating and facilitating the members to achieve their goals in our challenging information security world.  In the Security Forum, his focus is on supporting development of open standards and guides on security architectures and management of risk and security, while in the Jericho Forum he works with members to anticipate the requirements for the security solutions we will need in future.

Jim Hietala, CISSP, GSEC, is the Vice President, Security for The Open Group, where he manages all IT security and risk management programs and standards activities. He participates in the SANS Analyst/Expert program and has also published numerous articles on information security, risk management, and compliance topics in publications including The ISSA Journal, Bank Accounting & Finance, Risk Factor, SC Magazine, and others.

1 Comment

Filed under Cybersecurity

Viewpoint: Technology Supply Chain Security – Becoming a Trust-Worthy Provider

By Andras Szakal, IBM

Increasingly, the critical systems of the planet — telecommunications, banking, energy and others — depend on and benefit from the intelligence and interconnectedness enabled by existing and emerging technologies. As evidence, one need only look to the increase in enterprise mobile applications and BYOD strategies to support corporate and government employees.

Whether these systems are trusted by the societies they serve depends in part on whether the technologies incorporated into them are fit for the purpose they are intended to serve. Fit for purpose is manifested in two essential ways: first, does the product meet essential functional requirements; and second, has the product or component been produced by trustworthy provider. Of course, the leaders or owners of these systems have to do their part to achieve security and safety (e.g., to install, use and maintain technology appropriately, and to pay attention to people and process aspects such as insider threats). Cybersecurity considerations must be addressed in a sustainable way from the get-go, by design, and across the whole ecosystem — not after the fact, or in just one sector or another, or in reaction to crisis.

In addressing the broader cybersecurity challenge, however, buyers of mission-critical technology naturally seek reassurance as to the quality and integrity of the products they procure. In our view, the fundamentals of the institutional response to that need are similar to those that have worked in prior eras and in other industries — like food.

For example:  Most of us are able to enjoy a meal of stir-fried shrimp and not give a second thought as to whether the shellfish is safe to eat.

Why is that? Because we are the beneficiaries of a system whose workings greatly increase the likelihood — in many parts of the world — that the shellfish served to end consumers is safe and uncontaminated. While tainted technology is not quite the same as tainted foods it’s a useful analogy.

Of course, a very high percentage of the seafood industry is extremely motivated to provide safe and delicious shellfish to the end consumer. So we start with the practical perspective that, much more likely than not in today’s hyper-informed and communicative world, the food supply system will provide reasonably safe and tasty products. Invisible though it may be to most of us, however, this generalized confidence rests on a worldwide system that is built on globally recognized standards and strong public-private collaboration.

This system is necessary because mistakes happen, expectations evolve and — worse — the occasional participant in the food supply chain may take a shortcut in their processing practices. Therefore, some kind of independent oversight and certification has proven useful to assure consumers that what they pay for — their desired size and quality grade and, always, safety — is what they will get. In many countries, close cooperation between industry and government results in industry-led development and implementation of food safety standards.[1]

Government’s role is limited but important. Clearly, government cannot look at and certify every piece of shellfish people buy. So its actions are focused on areas in which it can best contribute: to take action in the event of a reported issue; to help convene industry participants to create and update safety practices; to educate consumers on how to choose and prepare shellfish safely; and to recognize top performers.[2]

Is the system perfect? Of course not. But it works, and supports the most practical and affordable methods of conducting safe and global commerce.

Let’s apply this learning to another sphere: information technology. To wit:

  • We need to start with the realization that the overwhelming majority of technology suppliers are motivated to provide securely engineered products and services, and that competitive dynamics reward those who consistently perform well.
  • However, we also need to recognize that there is a gap in time between the corrective effect of the market’s Invisible Hand and the damage that can be done in any given incident. Mistakes will inevitably happen, and there are some bad actors. So some kind of oversight and governmental participation are important, to set the right incentives and expectations.
  • We need to acknowledge that third-party inspection and certification of every significant technology product at the “end of pipe” is not only impractical but also insufficient. It will not achieve trust across a wide variety of infrastructures and industries.  A much more effective approach is to gather the world’s experts and coalesce industry practices around the processes that the experts agree are best suited to produce desired end results.
  • Any proposed oversight or government involvement must not stymie innovation or endanger a provider’s intellectual capital by requiring exposure to 3rd party assessments or require overly burdensome escrow of source code.
  • Given the global and rapid manner in which technologies are invented, produced and sold, a global and agile approach to technology assurance is required to achieve scalable results.  The approach should be based on understood and transparently formulated standards that are, to the maximum extent possible, industry-led and global in their applicability.  Conformance to such standards once would then be recognized by multiple industry’s and geo-political regions.  Propagation of country or industry specific standards will result in economic fragmentation and slow the adoption of industry best practices.

The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF)[3] is a promising and complementary effort in this regard. Facilitated by The Open Group, the OTTF is working with governments and industry worldwide to create vendor-neutral open standards and best practices that can be implemented by anyone. Membership continues to grow and includes representation from manufacturers world-wide.

Governments and enterprises alike will benefit from OTTF’s work. Technology purchasers can use the Open Trusted Technology Provider (OTTP) Standard and OTTP Framework best practice recommendations to guide their strategies.  And a wide range of technology vendors can use OTTF approaches to build security and integrity into their end-to-end supply chains. The first version of the OTTPS is focused on mitigating the risk of tainted and counterfeit technology components or products. The OTTF is currently working a program that will accredit technology providers to the OTTP Standard. We expect to begin pilot testing of the program by the end of 2012.

Don’t misunderstand us: Market leaders like IBM have every incentive to engineer security and quality into our products and services. We continually encourage and support others to do the same.

But we realize that trusted technology — like food safety — can only be achieved if we collaborate with others in industry and in government.  That’s why IBM is pleased to be an active member of the Trusted Technology Forum, and looks forward to contributing to its continued success.

A version of this blog post was originally posted by the IBM Institute for Advanced Security.

Andras Szakal is the Chief Architect and a Senior Certified Software IT Architect for IBM’s Federal Software Sales business unit. His responsibilities include developing e-Government software architectures using IBM middleware and managing the IBM federal government software IT architect team. Szakal is a proponent of service oriented and web services based enterprise architectures and participates in open standards and open source product development initiatives within IBM.

 

Comments Off

Filed under OTTF

Optimizing ISO/IEC 27001 Using O-ISM3

By Jim Hietala, The Open Group and Vicente Aceituno, Sistemas Informáticos Abiertos

The Open Group has just published a guide titled “Optimizing ISO/IEC 27001 using O-ISM3” that will be of interest to organizations using ISO27001/27002 as their Information Security Management System (ISMS).

By way of background, The Open Group published our Open Information Security Management Maturity Model last year, O-ISM3. O-ISM3 brings continuous improvement to information security management, and it provides a framework for security decision-making that is top down in nature, where security controls, security objectives and spending decisions are driven by (and aligned with) business objectives.

We have for some time now heard from information security managers that they would like a resource aimed at showing how the O-ISM3 standard could be used to manage information security alongside ISO27001/27002. This new guide provides specific guidance on this topic.

We view this as an important resource, for the following reasons:

  • O-ISM3 complements ISO27001/2 by adding the “how” dimension to information security management
  • O-ISM3 uses a process-oriented approach, defining inputs and outputs, and allowing for evaluation by process-specific metrics
  • O-ISM3 provides a framework for continuous improvement of information security processes

This resource:

  • Maps O-ISM3 and ISO27001 security objectives
  • Maps ISO27001/27002 controls and documents to O-ISM3 security processes, documents, and outputs
  • Provides a critical linkage between the controls-based approach found in ISO27001 to the process-based approach found in O-ISM3

If you have interest in information security management, we encourage you to have a look at Optimizing ISO/IEC 27001 using O-ISM3. The guide may be downloaded (at no cost, minimal registration required) here.

Jim Hietala, CISSP, GSEC, is the Vice President, Security for The Open Group, where he manages all IT security and risk management programs and standards activities. He participates in the SANS Analyst/Expert program and has also published numerous articles on information security, risk management, and compliance topics in publications including The ISSA Journal, Bank Accounting & Finance, Risk Factor, SC Magazine, and others.

Vicente Aceituno, CISA, has 20 years experience in the field of IT and Information Security. During his career in Spain and the UK, he has worked for companies like Coopers & Lybrand, BBC News, Everis, and SIA Group. He is the main author of the Information Security Management Method ISM3, author of the information security book “Seguridad de la Información,” Director of the ISM3 Consortium (www.ism3.com) and President of the Spanish chapter of the ISSA.

3 Comments

Filed under Cybersecurity, Information security, Security Architecture

Video Highlights Day 2 of Washington, D.C.

By The Open Group Conference Team

How can you use the tools of Enterprise Architecture and open standards to improve the capability of your company doing business? The Day 2 speakers of The Open Group Conference in Washington, D.C. addressed this question, focusing on Enterprise Transformation. Sessions included:

  • “Case Study: University Health Network (Toronto),” by Jason Uppal, chief enterprise architect at QR Systems, Inc. and winner of the 2012 Edison Award for Innovation
  • “Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE™): Transforming the DoD Avionics Software Industry Through the Use of Open Standards,” by Judy Cerenzia, FACE™ program director at The Open Group, Kirk Avery, chief software architect at Lockheed Martin and Philip Minor, director at System of Systems of Engineering Directorate at the Office of Chief Systems Engineer, ASA(ALT)
  • “Using the TOGAF® Architecture Content Framework with the ArchiMate® Modeling Language,” by Henry Franken, CEO of BIZZdesign, and Iver Band, enterprise architect at Standard Insurance

David Lounsbury, CTO of The Open Group summarizes some of the day’s sessions:

Comments Off

Filed under ArchiMate®, Business Architecture, Certifications, Conference, Cybersecurity, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, FACE™, Information security, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

Summer in the Capitol – Looking Back at The Open Group Conference in Washington, D.C.

By Jim Hietala, The Open Group

This past week in Washington D.C., The Open Group held our Q3 conference. The theme for the event was “Cybersecurity – Defend Critical Assets and Secure the Global Supply Chain,” and the conference featured a number of thought-provoking speakers and presentations.

Cybersecurity is at a critical juncture, and conference speakers highlighted the threat and attack reality and described industry efforts to move forward in important areas. The conference also featured a new capability, as several of the events were Livestreamed to the Internet.

For those who did not make the event, here’s a summary of a few of the key presentations, as well as what The Open Group is doing in these areas.

Joel Brenner, attorney with Cooley, was our first keynote. Joel’s presentation was titled, “Turning Us Inside-Out: Crime and Economic Espionage on our Networks,” The talk mirrored his recent book, “America the Vulnerable: Inside the New Threat Matrix of Digital Espionage, Crime, and Warfare,” and Joel talked about current threats to critical infrastructure, attack trends and challenges in securing information. Joel’s presentation was a wakeup call to the very real issues of IP theft and identity theft. Beyond describing the threat and attack landscape, Joel discussed some of the management challenges related to ownership of the problem, namely that the different stakeholders in addressing cybersecurity in companies, including legal, technical, management and HR, all tend to think that this is someone else’s problem. Joel stated the need for policy spanning the entire organization to fully address the problem.

Kristin Baldwin, principal deputy, systems engineering, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Research and Engineering, described the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) trusted defense systems strategy and challenges, including requirements to secure their multi-tiered supply chain. She also talked about how the acquisition landscape has changed over the past few years. In addition, for all programs the DoD now requires the creation of a program protection plan, which is the single focal point for security activities on the program. Kristin’s takeaways included needing a holistic approach to security, focusing attention on the threat, and avoiding risk exposure from gaps and seams. DoD’s Trusted Defense Systems Strategy provides an overarching framework for trusted systems. Stakeholder integration with acquisition, intelligence, engineering, industry and research communities is key to success. Systems engineering brings these stakeholders, risk trades, policy and design decisions together. Kristin also stressed the importance of informing leadership early and providing programs with risk-based options.

Dr. Ron Ross of NIST presented a perfect storm of proliferation of information systems and networks, increasing sophistication of threat, resulting in an increasing number of penetrations of information systems in the public and private sectors potentially affecting security and privacy. He proposed a need an integrated project team approach to information security. Dr. Ross also provided an overview of the changes coming in NIST SP 800-53, version 4, which is presently available in draft form. He also advocated a dual protection strategy approach involving traditional controls at network perimeters that assumes attackers outside of organizational networks, as well as agile defenses, are already inside the perimeter. The objective of agile defenses is to enable operation while under attack and to minimize response times to ongoing attacks. This new approach mirrors thinking from the Jericho Forum and others on de-perimeterization and security and is very welcome.

The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum provided a panel discussion on supply chain security issues and the approach that the forum is taking towards addressing issues relating to taint and counterfeit in products. The panel included Andras Szakal of IBM, Edna Conway of Cisco and Dan Reddy of EMC, as well as Dave Lounsbury, CTO of The Open Group. OTTF continues to make great progress in the area of supply chain security, having published a snapshot of the Open Trusted Technology Provider Framework, working to create a conformance program, and in working to harmonize with other standards activities.

Dave Hornford, partner at Conexiam and chair of The Open Group Architecture Forum, provided a thought provoking presentation titled, “Secure Business Architecture, or just Security Architecture?” Dave’s talk described the problems in approaches that are purely focused on securing against threats and brought forth the idea that focusing on secure business architecture was a better methodology for ensuring that stakeholders had visibility into risks and benefits.

Geoff Besko, CEO of Seccuris and co-leader of the security integration project for the next version of TOGAF®, delivered a presentation that looked at risk from a positive and negative view. He recognized that senior management frequently have a view of risk embracing as taking risk with am eye on business gains if revenue/market share/profitability, while security practitioners tend to focus on risk as something that is to be mitigated. Finding common ground is key here.

Katie Lewin, who is responsible for the GSA FedRAMP program, provided an overview of the program, and how it is helping raise the bar for federal agency use of secure Cloud Computing.

The conference also featured a workshop on security automation, which featured presentations on a number of standards efforts in this area, including on SCAP, O-ACEML from The Open Group, MILE, NEA, AVOS and SACM. One conclusion from the workshop was that there’s presently a gap and a need for a higher level security automation architecture encompassing the many lower level protocols and standards that exist in the security automation area.

In addition to the public conference, a number of forums of The Open Group met in working sessions to advance their work in the Capitol. These included:

All in all, the conference clarified the magnitude of the cybersecurity threat, and the importance of initiatives from The Open Group and elsewhere to make progress on real solutions.

Join us at our next conference in Barcelona on October 22-25!

Jim Hietala, CISSP, GSEC, is the Vice President, Security for The Open Group, where he manages all IT security and risk management programs and standards activities. He participates in the SANS Analyst/Expert program and has also published numerous articles on information security, risk management, and compliance topics in publications including The ISSA Journal, Bank Accounting & Finance, Risk Factor, SC Magazine, and others.

Comments Off

Filed under Conference, Cybersecurity, Enterprise Architecture, Information security, OTTF, Security Architecture, Supply chain risk, TOGAF®

The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum is Leading the Way to Securing Global IT Supply Chains

By Dana Gardner, Interarbor Solutions

This BriefingsDirect thought leadership interview comes in conjunction with The Open Group Conference in Washington, D.C., beginning July 16. The conference will focus on Enterprise Architecture (EA), enterprise transformation, and securing global supply chains.

We’re joined in advance by some of the main speakers at the conference to examine the latest efforts to make global supply chains for technology providers more secure, verified, and therefore trusted. We’ll examine the advancement of The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF) to gain an update on the effort’s achievements, and to learn more about how technology suppliers and buyers can expect to benefit.

The expert panel consists of Dave Lounsbury, Chief Technical Officer at The Open Group; Dan Reddy, Senior Consultant Product Manager in the Product Security Office at EMC Corp.; Andras Szakal, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at IBM’s U.S. Federal Group, and also the Chair of the OTTF, and Edna Conway, Chief Security Strategist for Global Supply Chain at Cisco. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: Why this is an important issue, and why is there a sense of urgency in the markets?

Lounsbury: The Open Group has a vision of boundaryless information flow, and that necessarily involves interoperability. But interoperability doesn’t have the effect that you want, unless you can also trust the information that you’re getting, as it flows through the system.

Therefore, it’s necessary that you be able to trust all of the links in the chain that you use to deliver your information. One thing that everybody who watches the news would acknowledge is that the threat landscape has changed. As systems become more and more interoperable, we get more and more attacks on the system.

As the value that flows through the system increases, there’s a lot more interest in cyber crime. Unfortunately, in our world, there’s now the issue of state-sponsored incursions in cyberspace, whether officially state-sponsored or not, but politically motivated ones certainly.

So there is an increasing awareness on the part of government and industry that we must protect the supply chain, both through increasing technical security measures, which are handled in lots of places, and in making sure that the vendors and consumers of components in the supply chain are using proper methodologies to make sure that there are no vulnerabilities in their components.

I’ll note that the demand we’re hearing is increasingly for work on standards in security. That’s top of everybody’s mind these days.

Reddy: One of the things that we’re addressing is the supply chain item that was part of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), which spans the work of two presidents. Initiative 11 was to develop a multi-pronged approach to global supply chain risk management. That really started the conversation, especially in the federal government as to how private industry and government should work together to address the risks there.

In the OTTF, we’ve tried create a clear measurable way to address supply-chain risk. It’s been really hard to even talk about supply chain risk, because you have to start with getting a common agreement about what the supply chain is, and then talk about how to deal with risk by following best practices.

Szakal: One of the observations that I’ve made over the last couple of years is that this group of individuals, who are now part of this standards forum, have grown in their ability to collaborate, define, and rise to the challenges, and work together to solve the problem.

Standards process

Technology supply chain security and integrity are not necessarily a set of requirements or an initiative that has been taken on by the standards committee or standards groups up to this point The people who are participating in this aren’t your traditional IT standards gurus. They had to learn the standards process. They had to understand how to approach the standardization of best practices, which is how we approach solving this problem.

It’s sharing information. It’s opening up across the industry to share best practices on how to secure the supply chain and how to ensure its overall integrity. Our goal has been to develop a framework of best practices and then ultimately take those codified best practices and instantiate them into a standard, which we can then assess providers against. It’s a big effort, but I think we’re making tremendous progress.

Gardner: Because The Open Group Conference is taking place in Washington, D.C., what’s the current perception in the U.S. Government about this in terms of its role?

Szakal:The government has always taken a prominent role, at least to help focus the attention of the industry.

Now that they’ve corralled the industry and they’ve got us moving in the right direction, in many ways, we’ve fought through many of the intricate complex technology supply chain issues and we’re ahead of some of the thinking of folks outside of this group because the industry lives these challenges and understands the state of the art. Some of the best minds in the industry are focused on this, and we’ve applied some significant internal resources across our membership to work on this challenge.

So the government is very interested in it. We’ve had collaborations all the way from the White House across the Department of Defense (DoD) and within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and we have members from the government space in NASA and DoD.

It’s very much a collaborative effort, and I’m hoping that it can continue to be so and be utilized as a standard that the government can point to, instead of coming up with their own policies and practices that may actually not work as well as those defined by the industry.

Conway: Our colleagues on the public side of the public-private partnership that is addressing supply-chain integrity have recognized that we need to do it together.

More importantly, you need only to listen to a statement, which I know has often been quoted, but it’s worth noting again from EU Commissioner Algirdas Semeta. He recently said that in a globalized world, no country can secure the supply chain in isolation. He recognized that, again quoting, national supply chains are ineffective and too costly unless they’re supported by enhanced international cooperation.

Mindful focus

The one thing that we bring to bear here is a mindful focus on the fact that we need a public-private partnership to address comprehensively in our information and communications technology industry supply chain integrity internationally. That has been very important in our focus. We want to be a one-stop shop of best practices that the world can look at, so that we continue to benefit from commercial technology which sells globally and frequently builds once or on a limited basis.

Combining that international focus and the public-private partnership is something that’s really coming home to roost in everyone’s minds right now, as we see security value migrating away from an end point and looking comprehensively at the product lifecycle or the global supply chain.

Lounsbury:I had the honor of testifying before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee on Oversight Investigations, on the view from within the U.S. Government on IT security.

It was very gratifying to see that the government does recognize this problem. We had witnesses in from the DoD and Department of Energy (DoE). I was there, because I was one of the two voices on industry that the government wants to tap into to get the industry’s best practices into the government.

It was even more gratifying to see that the concerns that were raised in the hearings were exactly the ones that the OTTF is pursuing. How do you validate a long and complex global supply chain in the face of a very wide threat environment, recognizing that it can’t be any single country? Also, it really does need to be not a process that you apply to a point, but something where you have a standard that raises the bar for our security for all the participants in your supply chain.

So it was really good to know that we were on track and that the government, and certainly the U.S. Government, as we’ve heard from Edna, the European governments, and I suspect all world governments are looking at exactly how to tap into this industry activity.

Gardner: Where we are in the progression of OTTF?

Lounsbury: In the last 18 months, there has been a tremendous amount of progress. The thing that I’ll highlight is that early in 2012, the OTTF published a snapshot of the standard. A snapshot is what The Open Group uses to give a preview of what we expect the standards will apply. It has fleshed out two areas, one on tainted products and one on counterfeit products, the standards and best practices needed to secure a supply chain against those two vulnerabilities.

So that’s out there. People can take a look at that document. Of course, we would welcome their feedback on it. We think other people have good answers too. Also, if they want to start using that as guidance for how they should shape their own practices, then that would be available to them.

Normative guidance

That’s the top development topic inside the OTTF itself. Of course, in parallel with that, we’re continuing to engage in an outreach process and talking to government agencies that have a stake in securing the supply chain, whether it’s part of government policy or other forms of steering the government to making sure they are making the right decisions. In terms of exactly where we are, I’ll defer to Edna and Andras on the top priority in the group.

Gardner: Edna, what’s been going on at OTTF and where do things stand?

Conway: We decided that this was, in fact, a comprehensive effort that was going to grow over time and change as the challenges change. We began by looking at two primary areas, which were counterfeit and taint in that communications technology arena. In doing so, we first identified a set of best practices, which you referenced briefly inside of that snapshot.

Where we are today is adding the diligence, and extracting the knowledge and experience from the broad spectrum of participants in the OTTF to establish a set of rigorous conformance criteria that allow a balance between flexibility and how one goes about showing compliance to those best practices, while also assuring the end customer that there is rigor sufficient to ensure that certain requirements are met meticulously, but most importantly comprehensively.

We have a practice right now where we’re going through each and every requirement or best practice and thinking through the broad spectrum of the development stage of the lifecycle, as well as the end-to-end nodes of the supply chain itself.

This is to ensure that there are requirements that would establish conformance that could be pointed to, by both those who would seek accreditation to this international standard, as well as those who would rely on that accreditation as the imprimatur of some higher degree of trustworthiness in the products and solutions that are being afforded to them, when they select an OTTF accredited provider.

Gardner: Andras, I’m curious where in an organization like IBM that these issues are most enforceable. Where within the private sector is the knowledge and the expertise to reside?

Szakal: Speaking for IBM, we recently celebrated our 100th anniversary in 2011. We’ve had a little more time than some folks to come up with a robust engineering and development process, which harkens back to the IBM 701 and the beginning of the modern computing era.

Integrated process

We have what we call the integrated product development process (IPD), which all products follow and that includes hardware and software. And we have a very robust quality assurance team, the QSE team, which ensures that the folks are following those practices that are called out. Within each of line of business there exist specific requirements that apply more directly to the architecture of a particular product offering.

For example, the hardware group obviously has additional standards that they have to follow during the course of development that is specific to hardware development and the associated supply chain, and that is true with the software team as well.

The product development teams are integrated with the supply chain folks, and we have what we call the Secure Engineering Framework, of which I was an author and the Secure Engineering Initiative which we have continued to evolve for quite some time now, to ensure that we are effectively engineering and sourcing components and that we’re following these Open Trusted Technology Provider Standard (O-TTPS) best practices.

In fact, the work that we’ve done here in the OTTF has helped to ensure that we’re focused in all of the same areas that Edna’s team is with Cisco, because we’ve shared our best practices across all of the members here in the OTTF, and it gives us a great view into what others are doing, and helps us ensure that we’re following the most effective industry best practices.

Gardner: Dan, at EMC, is the Product Security Office something similar to what Andras explained for how IBM operates? Perhaps you could just give us a sense of how it’s done there?

Reddy: At EMC in our Product Security Office, we house the enabling expertise to define how to build their products securely. We’re interested in building that in as soon as possible throughout the entire lifecycle. We work with all of our product teams to measure where they are, to help them define their path forward, as they look at each of the releases of their other products. And we’ve done a lot of work in sharing our practices within the industry.

One of the things this standard does for us, especially in the area of dealing with the supply chain, is it gives us a way to communicate what our practices are with our customers. Customers are looking for that kind of assurance and rather than having a one-by-one conversation with customers about what our practices are for a particular organization. This would allow us to have a way of demonstrating the measurement and the conformance against a standard to our own customers.

Also, as we flip it around and take a look at our own suppliers, we want to be able to encourage suppliers, which may be small suppliers, to conform to a standard, as we go and select who will be our authorized suppliers.

Gardner: Dave, what would you suggest for those various suppliers around the globe to begin the process?

Publications catalog

Lounsbury: Obviously, the thing I would recommend right off is to go to The Open Group website, go to the publications catalog, and download the snapshot of the OTTF standard. That gives a good overview of the two areas of best practices for protection from tainted and counterfeit products we’ve mentioned on the call here.

That’s the starting point, but of course, the reason it’s very important for the commercial world to lead this is that commercial vendors face the commercial market pressures and have to respond to threats quickly. So the other part of this is how to stay involved and how to stay up to date?

And of course the two ways that The Open Group offers to let people do that is that you can come to our quarterly conferences, where we do regular presentations on this topic. In fact, the Washington meeting is themed on the supply chain security.

Of course, the best way to do it is to actually be in the room as these standards are evolved to meet the current and the changing threat environment. So, joining The Open Group and joining the OTTF is absolutely the best way to be on the cutting edge of what’s happening, and to take advantage of the great information you get from the companies represented on this call, who have invested years-and-years, as Andras said, in making their own best practices and learning from them.

Gardner:Edna, what’s on the short list of next OTTF priorities?

Conway: You’ve heard us talk about CNCI, and the fact that cybersecurity is on everyone’s minds today. So while taint embodies that to some degree, we probably need to think about partnering in a more comprehensive way under the resiliency and risk umbrella that you heard Dan talk about and really think about embedding security into a resilient supply chain or a resilient enterprise approach.

In fact, to give that some forethought, we actually have invited at the upcoming conference, a colleague who I’ve worked with for a number of years who is a leading expert in enterprise resiliency and supply chain resiliency to join us and share his thoughts.

He is a professor at MIT, and his name is Yossi Sheffi. Dr. Sheffi will be with us. It’s from that kind of information sharing, as we think in a more comprehensive way, that we begin to gather the expertise that not only resides today globally in different pockets, whether it be academia, government, or private enterprise, but also to think about what the next generation is going to look like.

Resiliency, as it was known five years ago, is nothing like supply chain resiliency today, and where we want to take it into the future. You need only look at the US national strategy for global supply chain security to understand that. When it was announced in January of this year at Davos by Secretary Napolitano of the DHS, she made it quite clear that we’re now putting security at the forefront, and resiliency is a part of that security endeavor.

So that mindset is a change, given the reliance ubiquitously on communications, for everything, everywhere, at all times — not only critical infrastructure, but private enterprise, as well as all of us on a daily basis today. Our communications infrastructure is essential to us.

Thinking about resiliency

Given that security has taken top ranking, we’re probably at the beginning of this stage of thinking about resiliency. It’s not just about continuity of supply, not just about prevention from the kinds of cyber incidents that we’re worried about, but also to be cognizant of those nation-state concerns or personal concerns that would arise from those parties who are engaging in malicious activity, either for political, religious or reasons.

Or, as you know, some of them are just interested in seeing whether or not they can challenge the system, and that causes loss of productivity and a loss of time. In some cases, there are devastating negative impacts to infrastructure.

Szakal: There’s another area too that I am highly focused on, but have kind of set aside, and that’s the continued development and formalization of the framework itself that is to continue the collective best practices from the industry and provide some sort of methods by which vendors can submit and externalize those best practices. So those are a couple of areas that I think that would keep me busy for the next 12 months easily.

Gardner: What do IT vendors companies gain if they do this properly?

Secure by Design

Szakal: Especially now in this day and age, any time that you actually approach security as part of the lifecycle — what we call an IBM Secure by Design – you’re going to be ahead of the market in some ways. You’re going to be in a better place. All of these best practices that we’ve defined are additive in effect. However, the very nature of technology as it exists today is that it will be probably another 50 or so years, before we see a perfect security paradigm in the way that we all think about it.

So the researchers are going to be ahead of all of the providers in many ways in identifying security flaws and helping us to remediate those practices. That’s part of what we’re doing here, trying to make sure that we continue to keep these practices up to date and relevant to the entire lifecycle of commercial off-the-shelf technology (COTS) development.

So that’s important, but you also have to be realistic about the best practices as they exist today. The bar is going to move as we address future challenges.

************

For more information on The Open Group’s upcoming conference in Washington, D.C., please visit: http://www.opengroup.org/dc2012

Dana Gardner is president and principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, an enterprise IT analysis, market research, and consulting firm. Gardner, a leading identifier of software and Cloud productivity trends and new IT business growth opportunities, honed his skills and refined his insights as an industry analyst, pundit, and news editor covering the emerging software development and enterprise infrastructure arenas for the last 18 years.

Comments Off

Filed under Cybersecurity, Information security, OTTF, Supply chain risk

The Open Group and MIT Experts Detail New Advances in ID Management to Help Reduce Cyber Risk

By Dana Gardner, The Open Group

This BriefingsDirect thought leadership interview comes in conjunction with The Open Group Conference in Washington, D.C., beginning July 16. The conference will focus on how Enterprise Architecture (EA), enterprise transformation and securing global supply chains.

We’re joined in advance by some of the main speakers at the July 16 conference to examine the relationship between controlled digital identities in cyber risk management. Our panel will explore how the technical and legal support of ID management best practices have been advancing rapidly. And we’ll see how individuals and organizations can better protect themselves through better understanding and managing of their online identities.

The panelist are Jim Hietala, vice president of security at The Open Group; Thomas Hardjono, technical lead and executive director of the MIT Kerberos Consortium; and Dazza Greenwood, president of the CIVICS.com consultancy and lecturer at the MIT Media Lab. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: What is ID management, and how does it form a fundamental component of cybersecurity?

Hietala: ID management is really the process of identifying folks who are logging onto computing services, assessing their identity, looking at authenticating them, and authorizing them to access various services within a system. It’s something that’s been around in IT since the dawn of computing, and it’s something that keeps evolving in terms of new requirements and new issues for the industry to solve.

Particularly as we look at the emergence of cloud and software-as-a-service (SaaS) services, you have new issues for users in terms of identity, because we all have to create multiple identities for every service we access.

You have issues for the providers of cloud and SaaS services, in terms of how they provision, where they get authoritative identity information for the users, and even for enterprises who have to look at federating identity across networks of partners. There are a lot of challenges there for them as well.

Key theme

Figuring out who is at the other end of that connection is fundamental to all of cybersecurity. As we look at the conference that we’re putting on this month in Washington, D.C., a key theme is cybersecurity — and identity is a fundamental piece of that.

You can look at things that are happening right now in terms of trojans, bank fraud, scammers and attackers, wire transferring money out of company’s bank accounts and other things you can point to.

There are failures in their client security and the customer’s security mechanisms on the client devices, but I think there are also identity failures. They need new approaches for financial institutions to adopt to prevent some of those sorts of things from happening. I don’t know if I’d use the word “rampant,” but they are clearly happening all over the place right now. So I think there is a high need to move quickly on some of these issues.

Gardner: Are we at a plateau? Or has ID management been a continuous progression over the past decade?

Hardjono: So it’s been at least a decade since the industry began addressing identity and identity federation. Someone in the audience might recall Liberty Alliance, the Project Liberty in its early days.

One notable thing about the industry is that the efforts have been sort of piecemeal, and the industry, as a whole, is now reaching the point where a true correct identity is absolutely needed now in transactions in a time of so many so-called Internet scams.

Gardner: Dazza, is there a casual approach to this, or a professional need? By that, I mean that we see a lot of social media activities, Facebook for example, where people can have an identity and may or may not be verified. That’s sort of the casual side, but it sounds like what we’re really talking about is more for professional business or eCommerce transactions, where verification is important. In other words, is there a division between these two areas that we should consider before we get into it more deeply?

Greenwood: Rather than thinking of it as a division, a spectrum would be a more useful way to look at it. On one side, you have, as you mentioned, a very casual use of identity online, where it may be self-asserted. It may be that you’ve signed a posting or an email.

On the other side, of course, the Internet and other online services are being used to conduct very high value, highly sensitive, or mission-critical interactions and transactions all the time. When you get toward that spectrum, a lot more information is needed about the identity authenticating, that it really is that person, as Thomas was starting to foreshadow. The authorization, workflow permissions, and accesses are also incredibly important.

In the middle, you have a lot of gradations, based partly on the sensitivity of what’s happening, based partly on culture and context as well. When you have people who are operating within organizations or within contexts that are well-known and well-understood — or where there is already a lot of not just technical, but business, legal and cultural understanding of what happens — if something goes wrong, there are the right kind of supports and risk management processes.

There are different ways that this can play out. It’s not always just a matter of higher security. It’s really higher confidence, and more trust based on a variety of factors. But the way you phrased it is a good way to enter this topic, which is, we have a spectrum of identity that occurs online, and much of it is more than sufficient for the very casual or some of the social activities that are happening.

Higher risk

But as the economy in our society moves into a digital age, ever more fully and at ever-higher speeds, much more important, higher risk, higher value interactions are occurring. So we have to revisit how it is that we have been addressing identity — and give it more attention and a more careful design, instead of architectures and rules around it. Then we’ll be able to make that transition more gracefully and with less collateral damage, and really get to the benefits of going online.

Gardner: What’s happening to shore this up and pull it together? Let’s look at some of the big news.

Hietala: I think the biggest recent news is the U.S. National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyber Space (NSTIC) initiative. It clearly shows that a large government, the United States government, is focused on the issue and is willing to devote resources to furthering an ID management ecosystem and construct for the future. To me that’s the biggest recent news.

At a crossroads

Greenwood: We’re just now is at a crossroads where finally industry, government and increasingly the populations in general, are understanding that there is a different playing field. In the way that we interact, the way we work, the way we do healthcare, the way we do education, the way our social groups cohere and communicate, big parts are happening online.

In some cases, it happens online through the entire lifecycle. What that means now is that a deeper approach is needed. Jim mentioned NSTIC as one of those examples. There are a number of those to touch on that are occurring because of the profound transition that requires a deeper treatment.

NSTIC is the U.S. government’s roadmap to go from its piecemeal approach to a coherent architecture and infrastructure for identity within the United States. It could provide a great model for other countries as well.

People can reuse their identity, and we can start to address what you’re talking about with identity and other people taking your ID, and more to the point, how to prove you are who you said you were to get that ID back. That’s not always so easy after identity theft, because we don’t have an underlying effective identity structure in the United States yet.

I just came back from the United Kingdom at a World Economic Forum meeting. I was very impressed by what their cabinet officers are doing with an identity-assurance scheme in large scale procurement. It’s very consistent with the NSTIC approach in the United States. They can get tens of millions of their citizens using secure well-authenticated identities across a number of transactions, while always keeping privacy, security, and also individual autonomy at the forefront.

There are a number of technology and business milestones that are occurring as well. Open Identity Exchange (OIX) is a great group that’s beginning to bring industry and other sectors together to look at their approaches and technology. We’ve had Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML). Thomas is co-chair of the PC, and that’s getting a facelift.

That approach was being brought to match scale with OpenID Connect, which is OpenID and OAuth. There are a great number of technology innovations that are coming online.

Legally, there are also some very interesting newsworthy harbingers. Some of it is really just a deeper usage of statutes that have been passed a few years ago — the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, among others, in the U.S.

There is eSignature Directive and others in Europe and in the rest of the world that have enabled the use of interactions online and dealt with identity and signatures, but have left to the private sector and to culture which technologies, approaches, and solutions we’ll use.

Now, we’re not only getting one-off solutions, but architectures for a number of different solutions, so that whole sectors of the economy and segments of society can more fully go online. Practically everywhere you look, you see news and signs of this transition that’s occurring, an exciting time for people interested in identity.

Gardner: What’s most new and interesting from your perspective on what’s being brought to bear on this problem, particularly from a technology perspective?

Two dimensions

Hardjono: It’s along two dimensions. The first one is within the Kerberos Consortium. We have a number of people coming from the financial industry. They all have the same desire, and that is to scale their services to the global market, basically sign up new customers abroad, outside United States. In wanting to do so, they’re facing a question of identity. How do we assert that somebody in a country is truly who they say they are.

The second, introduces a number of difficult technical problems. Closer to home and maybe at a smaller scale, the next big thing is user consent. The OpenID exchange and the OpenID Connect specifications have been completed, and people can do single sign-on using technology such as OAuth 2.0.

The next big thing is how can an attribute provider, banks, telcos and so on, who have data about me, share data with other partners in the industry and across the sectors of the industry with my expressed consent in a digital manner.

Gardner: Tell us a bit about the MIT Core ID approach and how this relates to the Jericho Forum approach.

Greenwood: I would defer to Jim of The Open Group to speak more authoritatively on Jericho Forum, which is a part of Open Group. But, in general, Jericho Forum is a group of experts in the security field from industry and, more broadly, who have done some great work in the past on deperimeterized security and some other foundational work.

In the last few years, they’ve been really focused on identity, coming to realize that identity is at the center of what one would have to solve in order to have a workable approach to security. It’s necessary, but not sufficient, for security. We have to get that right.

To their credit, they’ve come up with a remarkably good list of simple understandable principles, that they call the Jericho Forum Identity Commandments, which I strongly commend to everybody to read.

It puts forward a vision of an approach to identity, which is very constant with an approach that I’ve been exploring here at MIT for some years. A person would have a core ID identity, a core ID, and could from that create more than one persona. You may have a work persona, an eCommerce persona, maybe a social and social networking persona and so on. Some people may want a separate political persona.

You could cluster all of the accounts, interactions, services, attributes, and so forth, directly related to each of those to those individual personas, but not be in a situation where we’re almost blindly backing into right now. With a lot of the solutions in the market, your different aspects of life, unintentionally sometimes or even counter-intentionally, will merge.

Good architecture

Sometimes, that’s okay. Sometimes, in fact, we need to be able to have an inability to separate different parts of life. That’s part of privacy and can be part of security. It’s also just part of autonomy. It’s a good architecture. So Jericho Forum has got the commandments.

Many years ago, at MIT, we had a project called the Identity Embassy here in the Media Lab, where we put forward some simple prototypes and ideas, ways you could do that. Now, with all the recent activity we mentioned earlier toward full-scale usage of architectures for identity in U.S. with NSTIC and around the world, we’re taking a stronger, deeper run at this problem.

Thomas and I have been collaborating across different parts of MIT. I’m putting out what we think is a very exciting and workable way that you can in a high security manner, but also quite usably, have these core identifiers or individuals and inextricably link them to personas, but escape that link back to the core ID, and from across the different personas, so that you can get the benefits when you want them, keeping the personas separate.

Also it allows for many flexible business models and other personalization and privacy services as well, but we can get into that more in the fullness of time. But, in general, that’s what’s happening right now and we couldn’t be more excited about it.

Hardjono: For a global infrastructure for core identities to be able to develop, we definitely need collaboration between the governments of the world and the private sector. Looking at this problem, we were searching back in history to find an analogy, and the best analogy we could find was the rollout of a DNS infrastructure and the IP address assignment.

It’s not perfect and it’s got its critics, but the idea is that you could split blocks of IP addresses and get it sold and resold by private industry, really has allowed the Internet to scale, hitting limitations, but of course IPv6 is on the horizon. It’s here today.

So we were thinking along the same philosophy, where core identifiers could be arranged in blocks and handed out to the private sector, so that they can assign, sell it, or manage it on behalf of people who are Internet savvy, and perhaps not, such as my mom. So we have a number of challenges in that phase.

Gardner: Does this relate to the MIT Model Trust Framework System Rules project?

Greenwood: The Model Trust Framework System Rules project that we are pursuing in MIT is a very important aspect of what we’re talking about. Thomas and I talked somewhat about the technical and practical aspects of core identifiers and core identities. There is a very important business and legal layer within there as well.

So these trust framework system rules are ways to begin to approach the complete interconnected set of dimensions necessary to roll out these kinds of schemes at the legal, business, and technical layers.

They come from very successful examples in the past, where organizations have federated ID with more traditional approaches such as SAML and other approaches. There are some examples of those trust framework system rules at the business, legal, and technical level available.

Right now it’s CIVICS.com, and soon, when we have our model MIT under Creative Commons approach, we’ll take a lot of the best of what’s come before codified in a rational way. Business, legal, and technical rules can really be aligned in a more granular way to fit well, and put out a model that we think will be very helpful for the identity solutions of today that are looking at federate according to NSTIC and similar models. It absolutely would be applicable to how at the core identity persona underlying architecture and infrastructure that Thomas, I, and Jericho Forum are postulating could occur.

Hardjono: Looking back 10-15 years, we engineers came up with all sorts of solutions and standardized them. What’s really missing is the business models, business cases, and of course the legal side.

How can a business make revenue out of the management of identity-related aspects, management of attributes, and so on and how can they do so in such a manner that it doesn’t violate the user’s privacy. But it’s still user-centric in the sense that the user needs to give consent and can withdraw consent and so on. And trying to develop an infrastructure where everybody is protected.

Gardner: The Open Group, being a global organization focused on the collaboration process behind the establishment of standards, it sounds like these are some important aspects that you can bring out to your audience, and start to create that collaboration and discussion that could lead to more fuller implementation. Is that the plan, and is that what we’re expecting to hear more of at the conference next month?

Hietala: It is the plan, and we do get a good mix at our conferences and events of folks from all over the world, from government organizations and large enterprises as well. So it tends to be a good mixing of thoughts and ideas from around the globe on whatever topic we’re talking about — in this case identity and cybersecurity.

At the Washington, D.C. Conference, we have a mix of discussions. The kick-off one is a fellow by the name Joel Brenner who has written a book, America the Vulnerable, which I would recommend. He was inside the National Security Agency (NSA) and he’s been involved in fighting a lot of the cyber attacks. He has a really good insight into what’s actually happening on the threat and defending against the threat side. So that will be a very interesting discussion. [Read an interview with Joel Brenner.]

Then, on Monday, we have conference presentations in the afternoon looking at cybersecurity and identity, including Thomas and Dazza presenting on some of the projects that they’ve mentioned.

Cartoon videos

Then, we’re also bringing to that event for the first time, a series of cartoon videos that were produced for the Jericho Forum. They describe a lot of the commandments that Dazza mentioned in a more approachable way. So they’re hopefully understandable to laymen, and folks with not as much understanding about all the identity mechanisms that are out there. So, yeah, that’s what we are hoping to do.

Gardner: Perhaps we could now better explain what NSTIC is and does?

Greenwood:The best person to speak about NSTIC in the United States right now is probably President Barrack Obama, because he is the person that signed the policy. Our president and the administration has taken a needed, and I think a very well-conceived approach, to getting industry involved with other stakeholders in creating the architecture that’s going to be needed for identity for the United States and as a model for the world, and also how to interact with other models.

Jeremy Grant is in charge of the program office and he is very accessible. So if people want more information, they can find Jeremy online easily in at nist.gov/nstic. And nstic.us also has more information.

In general, NSTIC is a strategy document and a roadmap for how a national ecosystem can emerge, which is comprised of a governing body. They’re beginning to put that together this very summer, with 13 different stakeholders groups, each of which would self-organize and elect or appoint a person — industry, government, state and local government, academia, privacy groups, individuals — which is terrific — and so forth.

That governance group will come up with more of the details in terms of what the accreditation and trust marks look like, the types of technologies and approaches that would be favored according to the general principles I hope everyone reads within the NSTIC document.

At a lower level, Congress has appropriated more than $10 million to work with the White House for a number of pilots that will be under a million half dollars each for a year or two, where individual proof of concept, technologies, or approaches to trust frameworks will be piloted and put out into where they can be used in the market.

In general, by this time two months from now, we’ll know a lot more about the governing body, once it’s been convened and about the pilots once those contracts have been awarded and grants have been concluded. What we can say right now is that the way it’s going to come together is with trust framework system rules, the same exact type of entity that we are doing a model of, to help facilitate people’s understanding and having templates and well-thought through structures that they can pull down and, in turn, use as a starting point.

Circle of trust

So industry-by-industry, sector-by-sector, but also what we call circle of trust by circle of trust. Folks will come up with their own specific rules to define exactly how they will meet these requirements. They can get a trust mark, be interoperable with other trust framework consistent rules, and eventually you’ll get a clustering of those, which will lead to an ecosystem.

The ecosystem is not one size fits all. It’s a lot of systems that interoperate in a healthy way and can adapt and involve over time. A lot more, as I said, is available on nstic.us and nist.gov/nstic, and it’s exciting times. It’s certainly the best government document I have ever read. I’ll be so very excited to see how it comes out.

Gardner: What’s coming down the pike that’s going to make this yet more important?

Hietala: I would turn to the threat and attacks side of the discussion and say that, unfortunately, we’re likely to see more headlines of organizations being breached, of identities being lost, stolen, and compromised. I think it’s going to be more bad news that’s going to drive this discussion forward. That’s my take based on working in the industry and where it’s at right now.

Hardjono: I mentioned the user consent going forward. I think this is increasingly becoming an important sort of small step to address and to resolve in the industry and efforts like the User Managed Access (UMA) working group within the Kantara Initiative.

Folks are trying to solve the problem of how to share resources. How can I legitimately not only share my photos on Flickr with data, but how can I allow my bank to share some of my attributes with partners of the bank with my consent. It’s a small step, but it’s a pretty important step.

Greenwood: Keep your eyes on UMA out of Kantara. Keep looking at OASIS, as well, and the work that’s coming with SAML and some of the Model Trust Framework System Rules.

Most important thing

In my mind the most strategically important thing that will happen is OpenID Connect. They’re just finalizing the standard now, and there are some reference implementations. I’m very excited to work with MIT, with our friends and partners at MITRE Corporation and elsewhere.

That’s going to allow mass scales of individuals to have more ready access to identities that they can reuse in a great number of places. Right now, it’s a little bit catch-as-catch-can. You’ve got your Google ID or Facebook, and a few others. It’s not something that a lot of industries or others are really quite willing to accept to understand yet.

They’ve done a complete rethink of that, and use the best lessons learned from SAML and a bunch of other federated technology approaches. I believe this one is going to change how identity is done and what’s possible.

They’ve done such a great job on it, I might add It fits hand in glove with the types of Model Trust Framework System Rules approaches, a layer of UMA on top, and is completely consistent with the architecture rights, with a future infrastructure where people would have a Core ID and more than one persona, which could be expressed as OpenID Connect credentials that are reusable by design across great numbers of relying parties getting where we want to be with single sign-on.

So it’s exciting times. If it’s one thing you have to look at, I’d say do a Google search and get updates on OpenID Connect and watch how that evolves.

************

For more information on The Open Group’s upcoming conference in Washington, D.C., please visit: http://www.opengroup.org/dc2012

Dana Gardner is president and principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, an enterprise IT analysis, market research, and consulting firm. Gardner, a leading identifier of software and Cloud productivity trends and new IT business growth opportunities, honed his skills and refined his insights as an industry analyst, pundit, and news editor covering the emerging software development and enterprise infrastructure arenas for the last 18 years.

1 Comment

Filed under Conference, Cybersecurity

The Increasing Importance of Cybersecurity: The Open Group Conference in Washington, D.C.

By Jim Hietala, The Open Group

As we move through summer here in the U.S., cybersecurity continues to be top of mind, not only for security professionals, but for IT management as well as for senior managers in large organizations.

The IT security world tends to fixate on the latest breach reported or the latest vulnerability disclosed. Clearly the recent news around Stuxnet and Flame has caused a stir in the community, as professionals debate what it means to have cyberwar attacks being carried out by nations. However, there have also been other significant developments in cybersecurity that have heightened the need for better understanding of risk and security posture in large organizations.

In the U.S., the SEC recently issued guidance to public companies on disclosing the risks of cybersecurity incidents in financial reports, as well as disclosing actual breaches if there is material affect. This is a significant new development, as there’s little that directs the attention of CEO’s and Boards like new financial disclosure requirements. In publicly traded organizations that struggled to find funding to perform adequate risk management and for IT security initiatives, IT folks will have a new impetus and mandate, likely with support from the highest levels.

The upcoming Open Group conference in Washington, D.C. on July 16-20 will explore cybersecurity, with a focus on defending critical assets and securing the global supply chain. To highlight a few of the notable presentations:

  • Joel Brenner, author of America the Vulnerable, attorney, and former senior counsel at the NSA, will keynote on Monday, July 16 and will speak on “America the Vulnerable: Inside the New Threat Matrix.”
  • Kristen Baldwin, principal deputy, DASD, Systems Engineering, and acting cirector, Systems Analysis, will speak on “Meeting the Challenge of Cybersecurity Threats through Industry-Government Partnerships.”
  • Dr. Ron Ross, project leader, NIST, will talk to “Integrating Cyber Security Requirements into Main Stream Organizational Mission and Business Processes.”
  • Andras Szakal, VP & CTO, IBM Federal will moderate a panel that will include Daniel Reddy, EMC; Edna Conway, Cisco; and Hart Rossman, SAIC on “Mitigating Tainted & Counterfeit Products.”
  • Dazza (Daniel) J. Greenwood, JD, MIT and CIVICS.com Consultancy Services, and Thomas Hardjono, executive director of MIT Kerberos Consortium, will discuss “Meeting the Challenge of Identity and Security.”

Apart from our quarterly conferences and member meetings, The Open Group undertakes a broad set of programs aimed at addressing challenges in information security.

Our Security Forum focuses on developing standards and best practices in the areas of information security management and secure architecture. The Real Time and Embedded Systems Forum addresses high assurance systems and dependability through work focused on MILS, software assurance, and dependability engineering for open systems. Our Trusted Technology Forum addresses supply chain issues of taint and counterfeit products through the development of the Trusted Technology Provider Framework, which is a draft standard aimed at enabling commercial off the shelf ICT products to be built with integrity, and bought with confidence. Finally, The Open Group Jericho Forum continues to provide thought leadership in the area of information security, most notably in the areas of de-perimeterization, secure cloud computing and identity management.

I hope to see you at the conference. More information about the conference, including the full program can be found here: http://www.opengroup.org/dc2012

Jim Hietala, CISSP, GSEC, is the Vice President, Security for The Open Group, where he manages all IT security and risk management programs and standards activities. He participates in the SANS Analyst/Expert program and has also published numerous articles on information security, risk management, and compliance topics in publications including The ISSA Journal, Bank Accounting & Finance, Risk Factor, SC Magazine, and others.


Comments Off

Filed under Cybersecurity, Information security, Security Architecture, Conference, OTTF

Cybersecurity Threats Key Theme at Washington, D.C. Conference – July 16-20, 2012

By The Open Group Conference Team

Identify risks and eliminating vulnerabilities that could undermine integrity and supply chain security is a significant global challenge and a top priority for governments, vendors, component suppliers, integrators and commercial enterprises around the world.

The Open Group Conference in Washington, D.C. will bring together leading minds in technology and government policy to discuss issues around cybersecurity and how enterprises can establish and maintain the necessary levels of integrity in a global supply chain. In addition to tutorial sessions on TOGAF and ArchiMate, the conference offers approximately 60 sessions on a varied of topics, including:

  • Cybersecurity threats and key approaches to defending critical assets and securing the global supply chain
  • Information security and Cloud security for global, open network environments within and across enterprises
  • Enterprise transformation, including Enterprise Architecture, TOGAF and SOA
  • Cloud Computing for business, collaborative Cloud frameworks and Cloud architectures
  • Transforming DoD avionics software through the use of open standards

Keynote sessions and speakers include:

  • America the Vulnerable: Inside the New Threat Matrix of Digital Espionage, Crime and Warfare - Keynote Speaker: Joel Brenner, author and attorney at Cooley LLP
  • Meeting the Challenge of Cybersecurity Threats through Industry-Government Partnerships - Keynote Speaker: Kristin Baldwin, principal deputy, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Systems Engineering
  • Implementation of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) - Keynote Speaker: Dr. Ron Ross, project leader at NIST (TBC)
  • Supply Chain: Mitigating Tainted and Counterfeit Products - Keynote Panel: Andras Szakal, VP and CTO at IBM Federal; Daniel Reddy, consulting product manager in the Product Security Office at EMC Corporation; John Boyens, senior advisor in the Computer Security Division at NIST; Edna Conway, chief security strategist of supply chain at Cisco; and Hart Rossman, VP and CTO of Cyber Security Services at SAIC
  • The New Role of Open Standards – Keynote Speaker: Allen Brown, CEO of The Open Group
  • Case Study: Ontario Healthcare - Keynote Speaker: Jason Uppal, chief enterprise architect at QRS
  • Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE): Transforming the DoD Avionics Software Industry Through the Use of Open Standards - Keynote Speaker: Judy Cerenzia, program director at The Open Group; Kirk Avery of Lockheed Martin; and Robert Sweeney of Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)

The full program can be found here: http://www3.opengroup.org/events/timetable/967

For more information on the conference tracks or to register, please visit our conference registration page. Please stay tuned throughout the next month as we continue to release blog posts and information leading up to The Open Group Conference in Washington, D.C. and be sure to follow the conference hashtag on Twitter – #ogDCA!

1 Comment

Filed under ArchiMate®, Cloud, Cloud/SOA, Conference, Cybersecurity, Enterprise Architecture, Information security, OTTF, Standards, Supply chain risk

RECAP: The Open Group Brazil Conference – May 24, 2012

By Isabela Abreu, The Open Group

Under an autumn Brazilian sky, The Open Group held its first regional event in São Paulo, Brazil, and it turned out to be a great success. More than 150 people attended the conference – including Open Group platinum members (CapGemini, HP, IBM and Oracle), the Brazil chapter of the Association of Enterprise Architecture (AEA), and Brazilian organizations (Daryus, Sensedia) – displaying a robust interest for Enterprise Architecture (EA) within the world’s sixth largest economy. The Open Group also introduced its mission, vision and values to the marketplace – a working model not very familiar to the Brazilian environment.

After the 10 hour, one-day event, I’m pleased to say that The Open Group’s first formal introduction to Brazil was well received, and the organization’s mission was immediately understood!

Introduction to Brazil

The event started with a brief introduction of The Open Group by myself, Isabela Abreu, Open Group country manager of Brazil, and was followed by an impressive presentation by Allen Brown, CEO of The Open Group, on how enterprise architects hold the power to change an organization’s future, and stay ahead of competitors, by using open standards that drive business transformation.

The conference aimed to provide an overview of trending topics, such as business transformation, EA, TOGAF®, Cloud Computing, SOA and Information Security. The presentations focused on case studies, including one by Marcelo Sávio of IBM that showed how the organization has evolved through the use of EA Governance; and one by Roberto Soria of Oracle that provided an introduction to SOA Governance.

Enterprise Architecture

Moving on to architecture, Roberto Severo, president of the AEA in Brazil, pointed out why architects must join the association to transform the Brazil EA community into a strong and ethical tool for transforming EA. He also demonstrated how to align tactical decisions to strategic objectives using Cloud Computing. Then Cecilio Fraguas of CPM Braxis CapGemini provided an introduction to TOGAF®; and Courtnay Guimarães of Instisys comically evinced that although it is sometimes difficult to apply, EA is a competitive tool for investment banks

Security

On the security front, Rodrigo Antão of Apura showed the audience that our enemies know us, but we don’t know them, in a larger discussion about counter-intelligence and cybersecurity; he indicated that architects are wrong when tend to believe EA has nothing to do with Information Security. In his session titled, “OSIMM: How to Measure Success with SOA and Design the Roadmap,” Luís Moraes of Sensedia provided a good overview for architects and explained how to measure success with SOA and design roadmaps with OSIMM - a maturity model of integration services soon to become an ISO standard, based on SOA and developed by The Open Group. Finally, Alberto Favero of Ernst & Young presented the findings of the Ernst & Young 2011 Global Information Security Survey, closing the event.

Aside from the competitive raffle, the real highlight of the event happened at lunch when I noticed the networking between conference attendees. I can testify that the Brazilian EA community actively ideas, in the spirit of The Open Group!

By the end of the day, everybody returned home with new ideas and new friends. I received many inquiries on how to keep the community engaged after the conference, and I promise to keep activities up and running here, in Brazil.

Stay tuned, as we plan sending on a survey to conference attendees, as well the link to all of the presentations. Thanks to everyone who made the conference a great success!

Isabela Abreu is The Open Group country manager for Brazil. She is a member of AEA Brazil and has participated in the translation of the glossary of TOGAF® 9.1, ISO/IEC 20000:1 and ISO/IEC 20000:5 and ITIL V3 to Portuguese. Abreu has worked for itSMF Brazil, EXIN Brazil – Examination Institute for Information Science, and PATH ITTS Consultancy, and is a graduate of São Paulo University.

1 Comment

Filed under Cloud, Conference, Cybersecurity, Enterprise Architecture, TOGAF®

Corporate Data, Supply Chains Remain Vulnerable to Cyber Crime Attacks, Says Open Group Conference Speaker

By Dana Gardner, Interarbor Solutions 

This BriefingsDirect thought leadership interview comes in conjunction with The Open Group Conference in Washington, D.C., beginning July 16. The conference will focus on how security impacts the Enterprise Architecture, enterprise transformation, and global supply chain activities in organizations, both large and small.

We’re now joined on the security front with one of the main speakers at the conference, Joel Brenner, the author of America the Vulnerable: Inside the New Threat Matrix of Digital Espionage, Crime, and Warfare.”

Joel is a former Senior Counsel at the National Security Agency (NSA), where he advised on legal and policy issues relating to network security. Mr. Brenner currently practices law in Washington at Cooley LLP, specializing in cyber security. Registration remains open for The Open Group Conference in Washington, DC beginning July 16.

Previously, he served as the National Counterintelligence Executive in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and as the NSA’s Inspector General. He is a graduate of University of Wisconsin–Madison, the London School of Economics, and Harvard Law School. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. The full podcast can be found here.

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: Your book came out last September and it affirmed this notion that the United States, or at least open Western cultures and societies, are particularly vulnerable to being infiltrated, if you will, from cybercrime, espionage, and dirty corporate tricks.

Why are we particularly vulnerable, when we should be most adept at using cyber activities to our advantage?

Brenner: Let’s make a distinction here between the political-military espionage that’s gone on since pre-biblical times and the economic espionage that’s going on now and, in many cases, has nothing to do at all to do with military, defense, or political issues.

The other stuff has been going on forever, but what we’ve seen in the last 15 or so years is a relentless espionage attack on private companies for reasons having nothing to do with political-military affairs or defense.

So the countries that are adept at cyber, but whose economies are relatively undeveloped compared to ours, are at a big advantage, because they’re not very lucrative targets for this kind of thing, and we are. Russia, for example, is paradoxical. While it has one of the most educated populations in the world and is deeply cultured, it has never been able to produce a commercially viable computer chip.

Not entrepreneurial

We’re not going to Russia to steal advanced technology. We’re not going to China to steal advanced technology. They’re good at engineering and they’re good at production, but so far, they have not been good at making themselves into an entrepreneurial culture.

That’s one just very cynical reason why we don’t do economic espionage against the people who are mainly attacking us, which are China, Russia, and Iran. I say attack in the espionage sense.

The other reason is that you’re stealing intellectual property when you’re doing economic espionage. It’s a bedrock proposition of American economics and political strategy around the world to defend the legal regime that protects intellectual property. So we don’t do that kind of espionage. Political-military stuff we’re real good at.

Gardner: Wouldn’t our defense rise to the occasion? Why hasn’t it?

Brenner: The answer has a lot to do with the nature of the Internet and its history. The Internet, as some of your listeners will know, was developed starting in the late ’60s by the predecessor of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a brilliant operation which produced a lot of cool science over the years.

It was developed for a very limited purpose, to allow the collaboration of geographically dispersed scientists who worked under contract in various universities with the Defense Department’s own scientists. It was bringing dispersed brainpower to bear.

It was a brilliant idea, and the people who invented this, if you talk to them today, lament the fact that they didn’t build a security layer into it. They thought about it. But it wasn’t going to be used for anything else but this limited purpose in a trusted environment, so why go to the expense and aggravation of building a lot of security into it?

Until 1992, it was against the law to use the Internet for commercial purposes. Dana, this is just amazing to realize. That’s 20 years ago, a twinkling of an eye in the history of a country’s commerce. That means that 20 years ago, nobody was doing anything commercial on the Internet. Ten years ago, what were you doing on the Internet, Dana? Buying a book for the first time or something like that? That’s what I was doing, and a newspaper.

In the intervening decade, we’ve turned this sort of Swiss cheese, cool network, which has brought us dramatic productivity and all and pleasure into the backbone of virtually everything we do.

International finance, personal finance, command and control of military, manufacturing controls, the controls in our critical infrastructure, all of our communications, virtually all of our activities are either on the Internet or exposed to the Internet. And it’s the same Internet that was Swiss cheese 20 years ago and it’s Swiss cheese now. It’s easy to spoof identities on it.

So this gives a natural and profound advantage to attack on this network over defense. That’s why we’re in the predicament we’re in.

Both directions

Gardner: Let’s also look at this notion of supply chain, because corporations aren’t just islands unto themselves. A business is really a compendium of other businesses, products, services, best practices, methodologies, and intellectual property that come together to create a value add of some kind. It’s not just attacking the end point, where that value is extended into the market. It’s perhaps attacking anywhere along that value chain.

What are the implications for this notion of the ecosystem vulnerability versus the enterprise vulnerability?

Brenner: Well, the supply chain problem really is rather daunting for many businesses, because supply chains are global now, and it means that the elements of finished products have a tremendous numbers of elements. For example, this software, where was it written? Maybe it was written in Russia — or maybe somewhere in Ohio or in Nevada, but by whom? We don’t know.

There are two fundamental different issues for supply chain, depending on the company. One is counterfeiting. That’s a bad problem. Somebody is trying to substitute shoddy goods under your name or the name of somebody that you thought you could trust. That degrades performance and presents real serious liability problems as a result.

The other problem is the intentional hooking, or compromising, of software or chips to do things that they’re not meant to do, such as allow backdoors and so on in systems, so that they can be attacked later. That’s a big problem for military and for the intelligence services all around the world.

The reason we have the problem is that nobody knows how to vet a computer chip or software to see that it won’t do thesesquirrelly things. We can test that stuff to make sure it will do what it’s supposed to do, but nobody knows how to test the computer chip or two million lines of software reliably to be sure that it won’t also do certain things we don’t want it to do.

You can put it in a sandbox or a virtual environment and you can test it for a lot of things, but you can’t test it for everything. It’s just impossible. In hardware and software, it is thestrategic supply chain problem now. That’s why we have it.

If you have a worldwide supply chain, you have to have a worldwide supply chain management system. This is hard and it means getting very specific. It includes not only managing a production process, but also the shipment process. A lot of squirrelly things happen on loading docks, and you have to have a way not to bring perfect security to that — that’s impossible — but to make it really harder to attack your supply chain.

Notion of cost

Gardner: So many organizations today, given the economy and the lagging growth, have looked to lowest cost procedures, processes, suppliers, materials, and aren’t factoring in the risk and the associated cost around these security issues. Do people need to reevaluate cost in the supply chain by factoring in what the true risks are that we’re discussing?

Brenner: Yes, but of course, when the CEO and the CFO get together and start to figure this stuff out, they look at the return on investment (ROI) of additional security. It’s very hard to be quantitatively persuasive about that. That’s one reason why you may see some kinds of production coming back into the United States. How one evaluates that risk depends on the business you’re in and how much risk you can tolerate.

This is a problem not just for really sensitive hardware and software, special kinds of operations, or sensitive activities, but also for garden-variety things.

Gardner: We’ve seen other aspects of commerce in which we can’t lock down the process. We can’t know all the information, but what we can do is offer deterrence, perhaps in the form of legal recourse, if something goes wrong, if in fact, decisions were made that countered the contracts or were against certain laws or trade practices.

Brenner: For a couple of years now, I’ve struggled with the question why it is that liability hasn’t played a bigger role in bringing more cyber security to our environment, and there are a number of reasons.

We’ve created liability for the loss of personal information, so you can quantify that risk. You have a statute that says there’s a minimum damage of $500 or $1,000 per person whose identifiable information you lose. You add up the number of files in the breach and how much the lawyers and the forensic guys cost and you come up with a calculation of what these things cost.

But when it comes to just business risk, not legal risk, and the law says intellectual property to a company that depends on that intellectual property, you have a business risk. You don’t have much of a legal risk at this point.

You may have a shareholder suit issue, but there hasn’t been an awful lot of that kind of litigation so far. So I don’t know. I’m not sure that’s quite the question you were asking me, Dana.

Gardner: My follow on to that was going to be where would you go to sue across borders anyway? Is there an über-regulatory or legal structure across borders to target things like supply chain, counterfeit, cyber espionage, or mistreatment of business practice?

Depends on the borders

Brenner: It depends on the borders you’re talking about. The Europeans have a highly developed legal and liability system. You can bring actions in European courts. So it depends what borders you mean.

If you’re talking about the border of Russia, you have very different legal issues. China has different legal issues, different from Russia, as well from Iran. There are an increasing number of cases where actions are being brought in China successfully for breaches of intellectual property rights. But you wouldn’t say that was the case in Nigeria. You wouldn’t say that was the case in a number of other countries where we’ve had a lot of cybercrime originating from.

So there’s no one solution here. You have to think in terms of all kinds of layered defenses. There are legal actions you can take sometimes, but the fundamental problem we’re dealing with is this inherently porous Swiss-cheesy system. In the long run, we’re going to have to begin thinking about the gradual reengineering of the way the Internet works, or else this basic dynamic, in which lawbreakers have advantage over law-abiding people, is not going to go away.

Think about what’s happened in cyber defenses over the last 10 years and how little they’ve evolved — even 20 years for that matter. They almost all require us to know the attack mode or the sequence of code in order to catch it. And we get better at that, but that’s a leapfrog business. That’s fundamentally the way we do it.

Whether we do it at the perimeter, inside, or even outside before the attack gets to the perimeter, that’s what we’re looking for — stuff we’ve already seen. That’s a very poor strategy for doing security, but that’s where we are. It hasn’t changed much in quite a long time and it’s probably not going to.

Gardner: Why is that the case? Is this not a perfect opportunity for a business-government partnership to come together and re-architect the Internet at least for certain types of business activities, permit a two-tier approach, and add different levels of security into that? Why hasn’t it gone anywhere?

Brenner: What I think you’re saying is different tiers or segments. We’re talking about the Balkanization of the Internet. I think that’s going to happen as more companies demand a higher level of protection, but this again is a cost-benefit analysis. You’re going to see even more Balkanization of the Internet as you see countries like Russia and China, with some success, imposing more controls over what can be said and done on the Internet. That’s not going to be acceptable to us.

Gardner: We’ve seen a lot with Cloud Computing and more businesses starting to go to third-party Cloud providers for their applications, services, data storage, even integration to other business services and so forth.

More secure

If there’s a limited lumber, or at least a finite number, of Cloud providers and they can institute the proper security and take advantage of certain networks within networks, then wouldn’t that hypothetically make a Cloud approach more secure and more managed than every-man-for-himself, which is what we have now in enterprises and small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs)?

Brenner: I think the short answer is, yes. The SMBs will achieve greater security by basically contracting it out to what are called Cloud providers. That’s because managing the patching of vulnerabilities and other aspects and encryption is beyond what’s most small businesses and many medium-sized businesses can do, are willing to do, or can do cost-effectively.

For big businesses in the Cloud, it just depends on how good the big businesses’ own management of IT is as to whether it’s an improvement or not. But there are some problems with the Cloud.

People talk about security, but there are different aspects of it. You and I have been talking just now about security meaning the ability to prevent somebody from stealing or corrupting your information. But availability is another aspect of security. By definition, putting everything in one remote place reduces robustness, because if you lose that connection, you lose everything.

Consequently, it seems to me that backup issues are really critical for people who are going to the Cloud. Are you going to rely on your Cloud provider to provide the backup? Are you going to rely on the Cloud provider to provide all of your backup? Are you going to go to a second Cloud provider? Are you going to keep some information copied in-house?

What would happen if your information is good, but you can’t get to it? That means you can’t get to anything anymore. So that’s another aspect of security people need to think through.

Gardner: How do you know you’re doing the right thing? How do you know that you’re protecting? How do you know that you’ve gone far enough to ameliorate the risk?

Brenner: This is really hard. If somebody steals your car tonight, Dana, you go out to the curb or the garage in the morning, and you know it’s not there. You know it’s been stolen.

When somebody steals your algorithms, your formulas, or your secret processes, you’ve still got them. You don’t know they’re gone, until three or four years later, when somebody in Central China or Siberia is opening a factory and selling stuff into your market that you thought you were going to be selling — and that’s your stuff. Then maybe you go back and realize, “Oh, that incident three or four years ago, maybe that’s when that happened, maybe that’s when I lost it.”

What’s going out

So you don’t even know necessarily when things have been stolen. Most companies don’t do a good job. They’re so busy trying to find out what’s coming into their network, they’re not looking at what’s going out.

That’s one reason the stuff is hard to measure. Another is that ROI is very tough. On the other hand, there are lots of things where business people have to make important judgments in the face of risks and opportunities they can’t quantify, but we do it.

We’re right to want data whenever we can get it, because data generally means we can make better decisions. But we make decisions about investment in R&D all the time without knowing what the ROI is going to be and we certainly don’t know what the return on a particular R&D expenditure is going to be. But we make that, because people are convinced that if they don’t make it, they’ll fall behind and they’ll be selling yesterday’s products tomorrow.

Why is it that we have a bias toward that kind of risk, when it comes to opportunity, but not when it comes to defense? I think we need to be candid about our own biases in that regard, but I don’t have a satisfactory answer to your question, and nobody else does either. This is one where we can’t quantify that answer.

Gardner: It sounds as if people need to have a healthy dose of paranoia to tide them over across these areas. Is that a fair assessment?

Brenner: Well, let’s say skepticism. People need to understand, without actually being paranoid, that life is not always what it seems. There are people who are trying to steal things from us all the time, and we need to protect ourselves.

In many companies, you don’t see a willingness to do that, but that varies a great deal from company to company. Things are not always what they seem. That is not how we Americans approach life. We are trusting folks, which is why this is a great country to do business in and live in. But we’re having our pockets picked and it’s time we understood that.

Gardner: And, as we pointed out earlier, this picking of pockets is not just on our block, but could be any of our suppliers, partners, or other players in our ecosystem. If their pockets get picked, it ends up being our problem too.

Brenner: Yeah, I described this risk in my book, America the Vulnerable,” at great length and in my practice, here at Cooley, I deal with this every day. I find myself, Dana, giving briefings to businesspeople that 5, 10, or 20 years ago, you wouldn’t have given to anybody who wasn’t a diplomat or a military person going outside the country. Now this kind of cyber pilferage is an aspect of daily commercial life, I’m sorry to say.

************

For more information on The Open Group’s upcoming conference in Washington, D.C., please visit: http://www.opengroup.org/dc2012

Dana Gardner is president and principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, an enterprise IT analysis, market research, and consulting firm. Gardner, a leading identifier of software and Cloud productivity trends and new IT business growth opportunities, honed his skills and refined his insights as an industry analyst, pundit, and news editor covering the emerging software development and enterprise infrastructure arenas for the last 18 years.

2 Comments

Filed under Cloud, Cybersecurity, Supply chain risk