AOH :: ISNQ3982.HTM

How to become an exceptional security manager




How to become an exceptional security manager
How to become an exceptional security manager



http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/04/27/18OPsecadvise_1.html 

By Roger A. Grimes
April 27, 2007

I recently listened to a wonderful science program on National Public 
Radio discussing a book called Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance 
[1] along with its author, Dr. Atul Gawande. The book discusses the 
reasons why some practitioners excel while others just meet the 
standards or perform poorly.

Its hypothesis and conclusions can be universally applied in business 
and even life. It was easy for me to draw connections to my own 
experiences and relate the lessons to computer security.

Here are some of the excerpts and the corollaries I drew (I apologize to 
the author in advance for any inaccuracies or misinterpretations):

The number one indicator for above-average medical care was often simply 
consistency. In the story related on NPR, the author discussed how one 
doctor was able to have significantly longer survival rates for his 
cystic fibrosis patients (47 years) as compared to the national average 
(33 years). The secret? Consistency. The doctor determined that many 
patients simply were not taking the recommended medicines consistently 
and timely. Once he realized this, he focused on making his patients 
more consistent, especially stressing that they should continue to take 
the medicine during the majority of the time when they felt well. The 
outcome was significantly longer living patients.

How many of us work in computer security environments where basic 
security recommendations are not applied consistently? I think it is 
nearly impossible to find a company that consistently and universally 
applies basic security tenets. So, we have inconsistencies, cracks in 
the system, and bad things are allowed to occur. The very human nature 
of purposefully allowing inconsistency as a norm leads to below-average 
outcomes. Taking a personal and institutionalized interest in applying 
basic security principles consistently will mitigate more risk and lead 
to a more secure environment.

Another conclusion was that improving the existing system often provides 
better outcomes than just adopting new technology. In the book's 
example, it talked about how the U.S. Army was trying to improve the 
survival rate of wounded soldiers in Iraq. Prior to the recent Middle 
East conflicts (say WWII and Vietnam), wounded soldiers died 25 percent 
of the time. The Army spent half a billion dollars developing new 
medical aids, technologies, and treatments, but found out that improving 
the basics -- and applying them consistently -- provided better 
outcomes.

For example, by ensuring that soldiers always wore their body armor, 
instead of removing it when it was hot, more soldiers lived. Moving the 
medical tents closer to the battlefield saved more lives. By focusing on 
better meeting the "golden hour" rule, they saved even more. They even 
experimented with essentially going against standard medical practices 
in some instances (for example, allowing field personnel more leeway to 
make medical decisions and to apply treatment without waiting for 
absolute test confirmation), and in doing so saved even more lives. The 
result was that now only about 10 percent of our soldiers die from their 
battlefield wounds even in a time of conflict where the average injury 
is much more serious.

This is not to say that new medical inventions and techniques don't help 
decrease the death rate; I'm sure they do. The key takeaway point is 
that much of the success is due to the re-application of existing 
systems.

If you're a security manager, focus more on the basics (e.g. patch 
management, password policy, malware blocking) and less on the latest 
and greatest new artificial-intelligence anti-malware product of the 
day. Truly secure environments are consistency secure and have the 
basics well covered.

Pick good metrics. "Metrics" is often a word bandied about by managers 
seeking ways to report meaningful and measurable statistics to upper 
management. Metrics are a good thing, but many times, the metrics chosen 
take more time to collect than the value they provide. Security becomes 
more about collecting the right metrics and moving the metric in the 
perceived right direction than actually bettering security.

The book talks about APGAR scores [2] and how they have significantly 
improved the lives of newborn babies. The APGAR score measures five 
metrics of a newborn baby (what is their color, how well they are 
breathing, etc.) and assigns a 0-2 point score based on the observed 
result. Babies with low APGAR scores are considered critical cases, and 
additional treatment modalities are brought to bear quickly. As a 
five-year EMT paramedic, I can tell you that an APGAR score only takes 
seconds to do and becomes second nature. It has been credited with 
saving the lives of millions of babies.

Do you have good metrics? Evaluate the current list of metrics and 
reports that you collect on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Does 
anyone read them? If you want to find out who does, put very big, bogus 
outliers in the report and see how long it takes anyone to notice. If 
you can, analyze the metrics you do collect and decide which ones have 
the best bang for the buck.

Becoming a better computer security worker or manager means taking a 
step back and analyzing the overall system. Improved processes and more 
consistent application of current rules will often pay higher dividends 
than any new technology or product.

Roger A. Grimes is contributing editor of the InfoWorld Test Center.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805082115/infoworldcom-20 
and http://www.shopinfosecnews.org 

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apgar_score 


__________________________
Subscribe to InfoSec News
http://www.infosecnews.org 

Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2014 CodeGods