Layer 8

Security is fundamentally about people, and everything we know about people is relevant to security. -- B. Schneier

Do we make a difference?

That’s really a loaded question, actually, because the answer could be both “yes” and be bad at the same time. wink

Hoff is changing “security” to “survivability” and believes that will make everyone magically delicious^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Henlightened and completely change the state of what we’re doing in our field.  It’s been a while since I’ve seen someone go all Wittgenstein on our asses, but I wish you the best of luck, my friend.  The Security Mike crack made me shoot blueberry cereal out my nose.

Do we make a difference?  I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure I do.

Over the last two years at my particular organization I can see a team that has grown from three account administrators to a real security function, one that has completely revamped our network and security infrastructure (and D*Z), implemented log consolidation and an internal CA, has rolled out whole disk encryption for laptops, and is responsible for fixing dozens of serious application security flaws.  Every time a user emails me and says, “I saw a suspicious email message in my mailbox, and thought you should know about it,” I know I’ve made a difference.  Every time a sysadmin comes to see me and says, “There’s something I think you should look at” or “I really think we need to fix this,” I know I’ve made a difference.  Every time we stop an attack through preventive measures, I know we’ve made a difference, because it would have gone like a hot knife through butter two years ago.

The rules of the game are completely different from what they were ten years ago.  As an ISO ten years ago, I didn’t need to worry about SOX, Basel II, GLB, or Patch Tuesday.  You could run servers with an uptime measured in hundreds of days without any problems and without any upgrades.  We had just unveiled our first public website and done our first formal pentesting.  We were convinced that log consolidation and normalization was a good idea but didn’t know how to do anything except roll our own.  My biggest enemies were floppy disks and modems.  (I’m sure Arthur remembers more about this time than I do, seeing as how he’s younger.)

Yes, a whole lot of discipline has disappeared from IT, and sometimes it seems like we’re the last bastions of it.  (Bastions?  Bastiges?) I’m not a smart person, so I’m waiting for the Enlightened Ones like Hoff and Spaf to tell me what I should be doing differently (besides thinking, in terrible grammar).  As soon as they tell me what I can do to fix the world I didn’t make and have to live in, I’ll be all over it. 

But I’ll still be calling it information security.

Posted by shrdlu on Thursday, October 18, 2007
(6) CommentsPermalink blogmarks Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Fark Favicon Furl Favicon Google Bookmarks Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TailRank Favicon

Comments

Canada on 10/18  at  11:41 AM:

Do we make a difference?

This would be a bad day to ask me that question :-(

I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure I do.

That’s right, rub it in grin

But I’ll still be calling it information security.

Unfortunately I don’t think changing the name will change my odds of making a difference. Enough of me sulking on your blog; I’m off to the garden to eat worms…

Christofer Hoff United States on 10/18  at  02:08 PM:

I know you’re just ribbing me, but please, please, please take
a good look at the definition of Information Survivability versus
that of Information Security.

Go check the blog again for the verbiage...information security
is a sucky descriptor.  If you make a difference, you should align
yourself with something that gives you a winnable end-goal.

It’s a hell of a lot more than just a ‘name’

I’m just glad y’all are talking about it.  My viral campaign for
my eeeeevil world domination is working.

Thanks for doing your part! wink

/Hoff

LonerVamp United States on 10/18  at  02:16 PM:

@Stacy: If those worms are tasty gummi, then that’s allowed! smile

arthur United States on 10/18  at  06:18 PM:

<quote>We were convinced that log consolidation and normalization was a good idea but didn’t know how to do anything except roll our own.  My biggest enemies were floppy disks and modems.  (I’m sure Arthur remembers more about this time than I do, seeing as how he’s younger.)</quote>

The scary thing is that in a lot of ways things haven’t changed that much. Just replace floppy disks with usb drives and modems with wifi access points. I don’t think I’m that much younger than you, besides I’m probably addled from too many juggling clubs to the head.

-A

shrdlu United States on 10/18  at  09:11 PM:

Hoff, I *have* read your definition, and I don’t buy it.

“A survivability approach combines risk management and contingency planning with computer security to protect highly distributed information services and assets in order to sustain mission-critical functions. Survivability expands the view of security from a narrow, technical specialty understood only by security experts to a risk management perspective with participation by the entire organization and stakeholders.”

Excuse me, but security IS about risk management and contingency planning.  That second sentence is just self-congratulatory wanking.  It begs the question by deciding to define security as a “narrow, technical specialty understood only by security experts,” when anyone knows that if you do it right, it IS a risk management perspective with participation by everyone.

Sorry, but I don’t see the diff between “survivability” and the “availability” of C/I/A.  But go ahead and use it if it makes you feel better.  And if it actually causes you to come up with a practical solution to the problems you and Spaf identify (and which we all know are there), then I may even consider embroidering it on my shorts.  How’s THAT for eeeevil world domination? wink

Christofer Hoff United States on 10/19  at  02:11 PM:

“Sorry, but I don’t see the diff between “survivability” and the “availability” of C/I/A.  But go ahead and use it if it makes you feel better.  And if it actually causes you to come up with a practical solution to the problems you and Spaf identify (and which we all know are there), then I may even consider embroidering it on my shorts.  How’s THAT for eeeevil world domination?”

Three things:

1) I don’t piss on hydrants for the sake of making a wet spot.  You can bet that
I have solutions and I plan on talking about them.

2) Survivability encompasses risk.  Security—AS IT IS PRACTICED IN THE MAJORITY TODAY—Does not.
Information assurance is a component of survivability, which is what you seem to be referring to.

3) I’ll send the return envelopes for your Skivvies...but you might not be pleased with the pattern
I choose.

/Hoff

Page 1 of 1 pages

Add a comment

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: