Security ROFL 4

• [FR] This is not the SSH 0day you're looking for, about a fake SSH exploit.
• [EN] Flower sites hit hard by Valentine’s Day.
• [EN] UK Immigration Officer Puts Wife on the No-Fly List.
• [EN] An Update is Available for Your Computer, through [RO] That's how it goes with updates, the piece of comics below:
  
• [EN] Unsecured IP Security Cameras, which I guess you can verify by yourself.
• [FR] On mikropikol.net, the following comic strip:
  

Risk Management: Solving the CISO's Conflicts of Interests

The CISO's Conflicts of Interests
Acting as a CISO is usually a difficult position, because the CISO is asked to act both as a comprehensive risk manager for IT and as an IT security expert.

Depending on whom the CISO is reporting to, either the risk management side or the IT security side will show most. Suppose the CISO is reporting to the CIO and he'll spend most of his time auditing, helping write good procedures, good RFPs and so on. Now suppose the CISO is reporting to the company's CRO, he'll spend his time compiling statistics, forging risk estimation methods and so on.

There seems to be a conflict of interests if the CISO is working under the CIO. How could he report about a major risk? How could he at the same time prescribe additional security requirements and be the one to implement them? And there may also be a conflict of interests between the CRO's calculated risks and the CISO's inner sense of what's risky in IT.

An illusionary conflict
However, I think that's just an apparent conflict of interests, an illusion. I think there's a continuum of risk management maturity from the "gut feelings" to the successful risk assessment and evaluation. And security programs grow in maturity the same way: They start with obvious things, sometimes pushed by a legal constraint, and they grow into wide security project inspired by comprehensive frameworks, and they eventually cover the whole IT perimeter with pondered security measures.

As I see it, all three of the CISO, CIO and CRO have the same three goals for IT:

1. Delivering good services to the customer,
2. Ensuring the conservation of the (information) assets they're trusted with,
3. Keeping reputation high and lawsuits low by not sharing those assets with unwanted people.

That is, they all three share the same goals: Availability, Integrity and Confidentiality. They're simply not held accountable for the same parts:

• The CIO is usually accountable for part 1.
• The CRO is usually accountable for part 3, especially the "lawsuits" part.
• The CISO is accountable for some or all of them, depending on whom he reports to, and is especially accountable for the "confidentiality" part because of the required expertise.

So I think there's no real conflict of interests because the interests are, in fact, the same.

The path out of the illusion
The way to the disappearance of this illusionary conflict is an appropriate alignment of expectations between the CIO, the CRO and the CISO.
The CIO will want immediate technical solutions and the CRO will want risk models and ROI-like estimations.
The CISO's job is to make sure they both understand that there's no opposition between the two and that the maturity level of the security process will evolve to the point where they'll both be satisfied by the very same security measures, justified by the very same arguments.