Connect with us


CISOs given cyber leadership role in Australia’s new Information Security Manual



The Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) Essential Eight strategies for mitigating cyber attacks, and a focus on risk management, are at the core of the Australian government’s latest Information Security Manual (ISM) released on Tuesday.

special feature

Cyberwar and the Future of Cybersecurity

Today’s security threats have expanded in scope and seriousness. There can now be millions — or even billions — of dollars at risk when information security isn’t handled properly.

Read More

“We’re pushing the Essential Eight more, absolutely, because we know that’s good advice,” Alastair MacGibbon, head of the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC), told ZDNet.

Many controls which were previously given the priority of “should” are now a “must”.

The ISM now includes specific mandatory controls to limit and log privileged access to systems, applications, and information; mandatory blocking of Adobe Flash, Java from the internet, and web advertisements; and mandatory disabling of unrequired functionality in Microsoft Office, web browsers, and PDF readers.

Microsoft Office macros are now severely restricted.

“Microsoft Office macros are only allowed to execute in documents from Trusted Locations where write access is limited to personnel whose role is to vet and approve macros,” the ISM reads. “Microsoft Office macros in documents originating from the Internet are blocked.”

The scope of the chief information security officer (CISO) role is also expanded under the latest ISM.

Previously, the CISO was described as setting the “strategic direction” for an agency’s information security; “facilitating communications” between the security, ICT, and business personnel; and ensuring compliance.

The 2018 edition of the ISM is more direct — the CISO’s role is to “provide cyber security leadership for their organisation”.

The responsibilities of system owners have been clarified. System owners are now required to “register each system with the system’s authorising officer”, and “monitor security risks and the effectiveness of security controls for each system”, rather than those responsibilities existing at lower levels.

See: Autonomous cyber defences are the future

The ISM also now specifies what an incident response plan needs to contain, and includes the expected response to each type of incident, internal, and external reporting procedures; the steps necessary to ensure the integrity of evidence; and the criteria for referring an incident to law enforcement or the ACSC.

“There is an increased responsibility in 2018 on system owners to truly protect their systems through proper risk management. It is not compliance versus risk. It’s the right type of compliance,” MacGibbon said.

“To me, compliance is hygiene, and we need good hygiene because that’s what makes you secure. What makes you more secure is proper risk management on top of good hygiene.

“So we are expecting a maturation on the part of systems owners, yes.”

MacGibbon cited the example of legacy systems that can’t be patched, because the patches don’t exist. The question then becomes one of how the agency achieves “the intent rather than the black letter” of the ISM controls.

Rather than scrapping a legacy application running on Windows XP, for example, an agency could put in place controls that limit the likelihood that it would be exposed to the relevant threats.

“Risk management doesn’t mean you can cut corners. Risk management actually means you’re more effective at addressing risk,” MacGibbon said.

The ISM is a key element of the cybersecurity policies for Australian government agencies. It fleshes out the cybersecurity components of the Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) administered by the Attorney-General’s Department, which also covers personnel security, physical security, and governance.

In previous years, the ISM was split into an Executive Companion, a set of Information Security Principles, and the Information Security Controls themselves.

The 2018 edition is a single volume, intended for CISOs, chief information officers, cyber security professionals, and information technology managers. Discussions of governance issues are more closely integrated with the specifications of technical controls.

The new ISM also removes language referring to the roles of IT Security Advisor (ITSA), IT Security Manager (ITSM), and IT Security Officer (ITSO), as well as the security classification CONFIDENTIAL, all of which have been removed from the PSPF.

Also: Culture the missing link for cybersecurity’s weakest link

Other evolutionary changes include more detail on application hardening; more detail on backup, restoration, and preservation strategies; and more detail on the requirements for cyber security awareness raising and training.

“We can’t change the 2017 version of the ISM to the 2018 version of the ISM to be radically different, but you’ll see a directional shift towards more effective risk management,” MacGibbon said.

“We know there are ways we could a lot of the problems that we see, and that’s through following the ASD/ACSC advice. So we’re saying follow that advice, but how you follow it is the question.”

Related Coverage

Security guarantees will be meaningless under encryption-busting laws: Senetas

If an Australian company is compelled by legislation to deny that a capability in its products exists, then its assertions are meaningless, security company Senetas has said.

5G stakes couldn’t be higher so we advised Huawei ban: ASD

High-risk vendors could previously be confined to the edge of networks, but 5G changes that, the Australian Signals Directorate has said.

AustCyber to figure out what ‘cyber skills’ actually are

Australia is ahead of the global average figure for cyber gender diversity, but when it comes to filling the cyber skills gap we don’t even know what we need.

Australian security trio aim for unbreakable encrypted data environment

Vault, QuintessenceLabs, and Ziroh Labs have joined forces to build a system for strong encryption of user data for government.

5 major data breach predictions for 2019 (TechRepublic)

Biometrics and gaming are just a couple of the new cyberattack vectors professionals can expect in 2019. Here is what else to look out for.

Marriott reveals data breach affecting 500 million hotel guests (TechRepublic)

Hackers have had access to the Starwood guest reservation database since 2014.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


CISO Podcast: Talking Anti-Phishing Solutions



Simon Gibson earlier this year published the report, “GigaOm Radar for Phishing Prevention and Detection,” which assessed more than a dozen security solutions focused on detecting and mitigating email-borne threats and vulnerabilities. As Gibson noted in his report, email remains a prime vector for attack, reflecting the strategic role it plays in corporate communications.

Earlier this week, Gibson’s report was a featured topic of discussions on David Spark’s popular CISO Security Vendor Relationship Podcast. In it, Spark interviewed a pair of chief information security officers—Mike Johnson, CISO for SalesForce, and James Dolph, CISO for Guidewire Software—to get their take on the role of anti-phishing solutions.

“I want to first give GigaOm some credit here for really pointing out the need to decide what to do with detections,” Johnson said when asked for his thoughts about selecting an anti-phishing tool. “I think a lot of companies charge into a solution for anti-phishing without thinking about what they are going to do when the thing triggers.”

As Johnson noted, the needs and vulnerabilities of a large organization aligned on Microsoft 365 are very different from those of a smaller outfit working with GSuite. A malicious Excel macro-laden file, for example, poses a credible threat to a Microsoft shop and therefore argues for a detonation solution to detect and neutralize malicious payloads before they can spread and morph. On the other hand, a smaller company is more exposed to business email compromise (BEC) attacks, since spending authority is often spread among many employees in these businesses.

Gibson’s radar report describes both in-line and out-of-band solutions, but Johnson said cloud-aligned infrastructures argue against traditional in-line schemes.

“If you put an in-line solution in front of [Microsoft] 365 or in front of GSuite, you are likely decreasing your reliability, because you’ve now introduced this single point of failure. Google and Microsoft have this massive amount of reliability that is built in,” Johnson said.

So how should IT decision makers go about selecting an anti-phishing solution? Dolph answered that question with a series of questions of his own:

“Does it nail the basics? Does it fit with the technologies we have in place? And then secondarily, is it reliable, is it tunable, is it manageable?” he asked. “Because it can add a lot overhead, especially if you have a small team if these tools are really disruptive to the email flow.”

Dolph concluded by noting that it’s important for solutions to provide insight that can help organizations target their protections, as well as support both training and awareness around threats. Finally, he urged organizations to consider how they can measure the effectiveness of solutions.

“I may look at other solutions in the future and how do I compare those solutions to the benchmark of what we have in place?”

Listen to the Podcast: CISO Podcast

Continue Reading


Phish Fight: Securing Enterprise Communications



Yes, much of the world may have moved on from email to social media and culturally dubious TikTok dances, yet traditional electronic mail remains a foundation of business communication. And sadly, it remains a prime vector for malware, data leakage, and phishing attacks that can undermine enterprise protections. It doesn’t have to be that way.

In a just released report titled “GigaOm Radar for Phishing Prevention and Detection,” GigaOm Analyst Simon Gibson surveyed more than a dozen enterprise-focused email security solutions. He found a range of approaches to securing communications that often can be fitted together to provide critical, defense-in-depth protection against even determined attackers.

Figure 1. GigaOm Radar for Email Phishing Prevention and Detection

“When evaluating these vendors and their solutions, it is important to consider your own business and workflow,” Gibson writes in the report, stressing the need to deploy solutions that best address your organization’s business workflow and email traffic. “For some it may be preferable to settle on one comprehensive solution, while for others building a best-of-breed architecture from multiple vendors may be preferable.”

In a field of competent solutions, Gibson found that Forcepoint, purchased recently by Raytheon, stood apart thanks to the layered protections provided by its Advanced Classification Engine. Area 1 and Zimperium, meanwhile, are both leaders that exhibit significant momentum, with Area 1 boosted by its recent solution partnership with Virtru, and Zimperium excelling in its deep commitment to mobile message security.

A mobile focus is timely, Gibson says in a video interview for GigaOm. He says companies are “tuning the spigot on” and enabling unprecedented access and reliance on mobile devices, which is creating an urgent need to get ahead of threats.

Gibson’s conclusion in the report? He singles out three things: Defense in depth, awareness of existing patterns and infrastructure, and a healthy respect for the “human factor” that can make security so hard to lock down.

Continue Reading


When Is a DevSecOps Vendor Not a DevSecOps Vendor?



DevOps’ general aim is to enable a more efficient process for producing software and technology solutions and bringing stakeholders together to speed up delivery. But we know from experience that this inherently creative, outcome-driven approach often forgets about one thing until too late in the process—security. Too often, security is brought into the timeline just before deployment, risking last minute headaches and major delays. The security team is pushed into being the Greek chorus of the process, “ruining everyone’s fun” by demanding changes and slowing things down.

But as we know, in the complex, multi-cloud and containerized environment we find ourselves in, security is becoming more important and challenging than ever. And the costs of security failure are not only measured in slower deployment, but in compliance breaches and reputational damage.

The term “DevSecOps” has been coined to characterize how security needs to be at the heart of the DevOps process. This is in part principle and part tools. As a principle, DevSecOps fits with the concept of “shifting left,” that is, ensuring that security is treated as early as possible in the development process. So far, so simple.

From a tooling perspective, however, things get more complicated, not least because the market has seen a number of platforms marketing themselves as DevSecOps. As we have been writing our Key Criteria report on the subject, we have learned that not all DevSecOps vendors are necessarily DevSecOps vendors. Specifically, we have learned to distinguish capabilities that directly enable the goals of DevSecOps from a process perspective, from those designed to support DevSecOps practices. We could define them as: “Those that do, and those that help.”

This is how to tell the two types of vendor apart and how to use them.

Vendors Enabling DevSecOps: “Tools That Do”

A number of tools work to facilitate the DevSecOps process -– let’s bite the bullet and call them DevSecOps tools. They help teams set out each stage of software development, bringing siloed teams together behind a unified vision that allows fast, high-quality development, with security considerations at its core. DevSecOps tools work across the development process, for example:

  • Create: Help to set and implement policy
  • Develop: Apply guidance to the process and aid its implementation
  • Test: Facilitate and guide security testing procedures
  • Deploy: Provide reports to assure confidence to deploy the application

The key element that sets these tool sets apart is the ability to automate and reduce friction within the development process. They will prompt action, stop a team from moving from one stage to another if the process has not adequately addressed security concerns, and guide the roadmap for the development from start to finish.

Supporting DevSecOps: “Tools That Help”

In this category we place those tools which aid the execution, and monitoring, of good DevSecOps principles. Security scanning and application/infrastructure hardening tools are a key element of these processes: Software composition analysis (SCA) forms a part of the development stage, static/dynamic application security testing (SAST/DAST) is integral to the test stage and runtime app protection (RASP) is a key to the Deploy stage.

Tools like this are a vital part of the security layer of security tooling, especially just before deployment – and they often come with APIs so they can be plugged into the CI/CD process. However, while these capabilities are very important to DevSecOps, they can be seen in more of a supporting role, rather than being DevSecOps tools per se.

DevSecOps-washing is not a good idea for the enterprise

While one might argue that security should never have been shifted right, DevSecOps exists to ensure that security best practices take place across the development lifecycle. A corollary exists to the idea of “tools that help,” namely that organizations implementing these tools are not “doing DevSecOps,” any more than vendors providing these tools are DevSecOps vendors.

The only way to “do” DevSecOps is to fully embrace security at a process management and governance level: This means assessing risk, defining policy, setting review gates, and disallowing progress for insecure deliverables. Organizations that embrace DevSecOps can get help from what we are calling DevSecOps tools, as well as from scanning and hardening tools that help support its goals.

At the end of the day, all security and governance boils down to risk: If you buy a scanning tool so you can check a box that says “DevSecOps,” you are potentially adding to your risk posture, rather than mitigating it. So, get your DevSecOps strategy fixed first, then consider how you can add automation, visibility, and control using “tools that do,” as well as benefit from “tools that help.”

Continue Reading