Cyber Reality: Quest for the Digital Castle...

On this Saturday morning the prayers are silent. For family, friends and also for the subject matter experts in business and the U.S. government.

They have been waking us up again to the reality of the Operational Risks we now face, to our ubiquitous digital-based economic infrastructure.

The message is clear to those insiders, who have been trying to defend our "Digital Castles" against tremendous odds of these seemingly invisible threats. Is it really, game over?

The short answer is yes. The current mindset should be, that every major business of valuable interest in the eyes of the enemy has already been compromised or soon to be. It is already too late. The stealth digital code is currently waiting in the shadows of your organizations hundreds or thousands of digital assets.

Whether it is the aging Dell Tower Desk Tops still running on Windows XP somewhere or the latest Android PDA/Apple IOS devices tethered to the corporate network does not matter. Your adversary has control of when and where to begin the attack on you and your organization.

So if this is the reality of the global state-of-play, in both the business world and also to government, what should the risk management strategy consist of going forward? How could we ever get to a point of advantage over those who seek to do us harm?

So internally, the prudent corporate business strategy should be for your General Counsel and the CIO of your organization to be already preparing themselves for the day that they will step before the press conference microphone to disclose the material breach of the companies intellectual capital or theft of assets.

They should already know, that it is just a matter time and not a denial that it will ever happen on their watch. If you are a Board Director and you still have not had "The Talk" with management about this stark reality, then you too are complicit in the scheme to present your stockholders and stakeholders with a false sense of confidence that you are safe and secure.

The new normal for forward thinking organizations is already being implemented for adverse events. The Crisis Management Team has already exercised the "Data Breach" scenario numerous times.

Your General Counsel and Chief Information Officer have rehearsed and practiced their testimony before opposing and adversarial questioning of your organizations information security processes.

The company subject matter experts are more than prepared to submit evidence of their best practices, industry standards compliance and previous tests of due diligence. The stage is set for the court room battles ahead:

The quest for the "Digital Castle" has been going on for years. Are you awake now or still living in a dream of denial on your state of achieving a Defensible Standard of Care…

Cyber Risk: Human Factors vs. Automation...

Operational Risk Management (ORM) is a growing multi-faceted mosaic comprised of people, processes, systems and external events. The risks to the enterprise are increasing at a dynamic speed and trajectory that requires the use of automated tools.

This is where risk to the enterprise may actually expand as executives and operational management rely on software to provide information assurance. The design and architecture of software needs a human-based fail-safe. It requires a human interface that allows and simultaneously requires human intervention. Has too much automation contributed to our increased levels of vulnerability?

Fortunately, the software designs have allowed for these opportunities and for a human-factor to ask "What if" questions. Those questions that may arise after an automated alert from the system tells us that something is outside the baseline parameters set for the system, the sensor or the alarm.

Now we go back to Operational Risk and the nature of thinking from a security and safety perspective. What is the continued reliance on automated systems doing to the human capital who have been charged with the over all "Standard of Care" for the enterprise?

We believe that they may have lost the ability to ask the right questions, at the right moment and with the correct contextual understanding.

What is the truth? Is it true? What evidence do we have that this is true? How do you know that the evidence is not spoiled or compromised? If we know the truth, then what do we do next? Is the software really telling us the truth?

The security and the safety of the enterprise is counting on you. And more importantly, the enterprise is asking you to question the software. The "rule-sets" that you have chosen as a result of the programmers and architects decisions can no longer be trusted.

Is our system learning? In what capacity is the system learning in context with the human interaction for judgement, intuition and ethical emotions? Are you with us? The next generation of "Cyber Security" Innovators are now at the edge of significant new breakthroughs and solutions.

"Active Defense" has been and is a controversial topic du jour, yet the next few years will be a new age of understanding, cultural bifurcations and significant global collaboration.

Our entire platform of digital trust is at stake and the conversation has finally made its way to the nation state policy levels.

Operational Risk Management (ORM) will remain a key factor in decision points for the enterprise, the consumer and the operators of critical infrastructure across the globe.

Lets work on keeping the human factor in the loop as automation continues to give us a false sense of security and safety...

New Vision: Security Operations Center and CIU...

Flashback over 8 years ago when there was a convergence of thinking about the topic of a "Defensible Standard of Care" going on in the industry.

The key Operational Risk Management news from the 2011 RSA Conference was coming in, yet there were inside sources who still needed to be interviewed. What did they think was the most brilliant presentation or idea(s) presented?

This particular release caught some eyes as it addressed much of the thinking on the latest evolution of the Security Operations Center (SOC).  How much of this is still relevant today:

New Vision for Security Operations: Six Core Elements

The vision includes six core elements and prescriptive guidance for how to incorporate these elements into existing security operations. These elements include:

• Risk planning: The new SOC will take a more information-centric approach to security risk planning and invest in understanding which organizational assets are highly valuable and essential to protect. With priorities based on GRC policies, security teams need to conduct risk assessments that focus on the “crown jewels” of the enterprise.
• Attack modeling: Understanding attack modeling in a complex environment requires determining which systems, people and processes have access to valuable information. Once the threat surface is modeled, organizations can then determine potential attack vectors and examine defense steps to isolate compromised access points efficiently and quickly. RSA® Laboratories has developed theoretical models based on known APT techniques and employed game theory principles to identify the most efficient means of severing an attack path and optimize defense costs.
• Virtualized environments: Virtualization will be a core capability of tomorrow's SOC – delivering a range of security benefits. For example, organizations can "sandbox" e-mail, attachments and URLs suspected of harboring malware. Anything suspicious can be launched in an isolated hypervisor and the virtual machine can be cut off from the rest of the system.
• Self- learning, predictive analysis: To remain relevant in tomorrow's IT environment, a SOC will need to truly integrate compliance monitoring and risk management. The system should continually monitor the environment to identify typical states which can then be applied to identify problematic patterns early. Statistic-based predictive modeling will be able to help correlate various alerts. Developing such a system will require real-time behavior analysis innovations, although some of these elements are available today.
• Automated, risk-based decision systems: A key differentiator of a more intelligent SOC will be its ability to assess risks instantly and vary responses accordingly. Similar to risk-based authentication, the SOC will employ predictive analytics to find high-risk events and then automatically initiate remediation activities. The prospect of dynamic typography is one of the most exciting areas of this type of systems automation for the cloud. To implement an APT, an attacker must understand network mapping and be able to model it. In response to this, organizations can remap their entire network infrastructure to disrupt an attacker’s reconnaissance efforts. This is akin to physically rearranging a city at frequent intervals – and the entire process can be automated so that links between systems stay intact and dependencies are handled without human intervention.
• Continual improvement through forensic analyses and community learning: Although forensic analysis can be resource-intensive, it is an imperative element of a SOC and key to mitigating the impact of subsequent attacks. Virtualized environments can provide snapshots of the IT environment at the time of the security event providing useful information if detection of the attack was delayed. Having a way to share information about attack patterns will be the future of the SOC. This concept should be embraced in order to exchange threat information within respective industries and better predict the path of the APT and thereby determine countermeasures.

The evolution of the SOC in your enterprise may start in some unconventional places. Who is it in your organization that is responsible for the loss of corporate assets?

Who in your company is the one who determines what items are counted as losses to the bottom line?

Who does the enterprise look to when the crisis hits and people are looking for answers in minutes, not hours, or days?

Who picks up the phone to answer the call from the local FBI Field Office?

These may not be the people you think of in the CIO's office or IT department. These people however need to be part of the combined Security Operations Center solution in the company.

The Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) now requires the intersection of prudent strategy from the business leadership, the accounting or finance leadership and the risk management leadership.

If the CIO is looked upon as the key executive running a "Utility" inside the enterprise, think again.

This blog has discussed the "Corporate Intelligence Unit" in years past :

Beyond the utilization of threat assessment or management teams, enterprises are going to the next level in creating a "Corporate Intelligence Unit" (CIU). The CIU is providing the "Strategic Insight" framework and assisting the organization in "Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care."

The framework elements that encompass policy, legal, privacy, governance, litigation, security, incidents and safety surround the CIU. It includes with effective processes and procedures that provides a push / pull of information flow. Application of the correct tools, software systems and controls adds to the overall milestone of what many corporate risk managers already understand.

The best way in most cases to defend against an insider attack and prevent an insider incident is to continuously help identify the source of the incident, the person(s) responsible and to correlate information on other peers that may have been impacted by the same incident or modus operandi of the subject. "Connecting The Dots" with others in the same company or with industry sector partners, increases the overall resilience factor and hardens the vulnerabilities that are all too often being exploited for months if not years.

In retrospect, you can be more effective investigating and collecting evidence in your company to gain a "DecisionAdvantage". To pursue civil or criminal recovery of losses from these insider incidents, you may not go to law enforcement, but it's likely they will come to you once they get a whistle blower report, catch the attacker and/or they have the evidence that you were a victim.

How your organization pulls together the right people to staff and operate your "CIU" is going to depend on your culture, funding and current state of the threat.

BALTIMORE—Sean Gallagher - 6/5/2019, 9:25 AM
It has been a month since the City of Baltimore's networks were brought to a standstill by ransomware. On Tuesday, Mayor Bernard "Jack" Young and his cabinet briefed press on the status of the cleanup, which the city's director of finance has estimated will cost Baltimore $10 million—not including $8 million lost because of deferred or lost revenue while the city was unable to process payments. The recovery remains in its early stages, with less than a third of city employees issued new log-in credentials thus far and many city business functions restricted to paper-based workarounds.

Here is another thought. A thorough review of the current funding, staffing and strategy of a SOC or CIU in the enterprise, may even become a priority at the next "Board of Directors" meeting.

Unthinkable: Adapting in New World Disorder...

Will 2018 bring more data breaches, lost laptops and insider threats than 2017?  This is why CSO's, CPO's and corporate General Counsels have their teams working overtime.

When the enemy is increasing their attacks, utilizing new strategies and leveraging the existing base of compromised organizational intellectual and data assets, the future horizon becomes ever more clear. 

The statistics don't lie.  1579 documented Data Breaches occurred in 2017. Up 44.7% according to reports by the Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) compared to the previous year.  It is the new normal.

The Insider Threat Program (InTP) however, remains a key focus for Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals because human behaviors are exaggerated during periods of stress, fear and uncertainty. This means that people who may have never considered doing something to jeopardize their reputations, may now be up against a wall.

When there is no obvious exit and no way out, people will do extraordinary things to get ahead, beat the odds and hedge their own risk portfolio of life.

In Joshua Cooper Ramo's book "The Age of the Unthinkable", "Why the New World Disorder Constantly Surprises Us and What We Can Do About It" the author discusses the concept of Deep Security. His analogy of how to think about "Deep Security" is the biological immune system:

"A reactive instinct for identifying dangers, adapting to deal with them, and then moving to control and contain the risk they present."

The key word in Ramo's writing is "Adapt".  Being Adaptive.  However, prior to this there are two other very vital words that we feel are even more imperative. Instinct. Identifying. In other words, Proactive Intuition.

Ask any savvy investigator on how she solved the case and you may hear just that, "I had a hunch."

Talk with a Chief Privacy Officer in any Global 500 company.  You might get them to admit they have a sense that their organization will be the target of an "Insider data breach" incident in the coming year or two.

Do you remember signing off on reading and your acceptance of the employee handbook?  When did your organization last make changes to the Corporate Employee policies?  We would start with the updates to the following sections:

• MEDIA CONTACT
• SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY
• REMOTE ACCESS POLICY
• E-MAIL, VOICE MAIL AND COMPUTER NETWORK SYSTEM PRIVACY
• (YOUR ORGANIZATION) RIGHT TO ACCESS INFORMATION
• SYSTEMS USE RESTRICTED TO COMPANY BUSINESS
• FORBIDDEN CONTENT
• PASSWORD SECURITY AND INTEGRITY
• INTERNET ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
• POLICY ON USE OF SOFTWARE
• COMPANY PROPERTY
• PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS/NON-DISCLOSURE OF COMPANY INFORMATION 

Due to the increasing complexity of IT systems, cloud computing, data networks and the hundreds or thousands of laptops and mobile devices circling the globe with company executives and employees is enough to predict that a major breach will occur.

Being adaptive and having proactive intuition in the modern enterprise does not come natural. You have to work at it and it requires a substantial investment in time and resources to make it work effectively.  Proactive Intuition.

Once you realize that all of the controls, technology and physical security are not going to keep you out of harms way, you are well on your way to reaching the clairvoyance of "The Age of the Unthinkable."

Higher Purpose: A Mission of Trust...

As you walk into that next meeting with another co-worker or even a colleague for a coffee catch-up, pause and reflect.  Think about how you could (1) make this encounter not only productive and (2) simultaneously enhance the relationship of trust.

All too often we are focused on getting something of value from the meeting.  We are blinded by the purpose of the meeting or have preconceived ideas on how the time together will be of value, or a waste of time.  Now think differently.

A true professional in any business, unit, agency or organization is there to "Build Trust".  The day-to-day or hour-to-hour interactions you have with others is vital.  A true professional in any domain, industry or vocation, can aspire to a higher purpose than the normal roles of a stated job description.

One thing is certain when it comes to meeting with other people and the value or outcomes obtained, trust is a major factor in the future outcomes of the relationship.  Have you ever wondered why certain people you meet, take so long to trust you?  How are you going to accomplish your intended purpose working with this superior or subordinate if they don't trust you?  What about that new client or business partner?

At the most fundamental level, the trust gurus and authors have been writing about a spectrum of trust for eons:

Zero Trust >>>>>Trust Exists >>>>>Implicit Trust

From ground zero of your first encounters with another person, your goal is to move towards a point on the spectrum where "Trust Exists".  Then your goal is to keep moving to the right and towards a place of "Implicit Trust".  This is when you don't even think about it anymore.  How many people do you know where this is the case, even within your own family?

So what?

As an Operational Risk professional, velocity is everything.  Yet you already know that uncontrolled velocity alone can be fatal.  The risk factors associated with business, government or the manufacturing process of a highly engineered electronic component are always present.  Always changing.  Creating new obstacles or new harm.  In our current state, 24x7x365 pervasively connected society, the trust factors are even more important and vital to moving towards "Implicit Trust".

Here are a few examples in the news this past year, where Operational Risk Management (ORM) was a factor:

Samsung Galaxy Note 7

On 2 September 2016, Samsung suspended sales of the Galaxy Note 7 and announced an informal recall, after it was found that a manufacturing defect in the phones' batteries had caused some of them to generate excessive heat, resulting in fires and explosions. A formal U.S. recall was announced on 15 September 2016.

Yahoo

When Yahoo said on Thursday that data from at least 500 million user accounts had been hacked, it wasn't just admitting to a huge failing in data security -- it was admitting to the biggest hack the world has ever seen.

Until Thursday, the previous largest known hack was the 2008 breach that hit almost 360 million MySpace accounts, according to a ranking by the "Have I been pwned" website. Like the Yahoo breach, the hack was only publicly disclosed this year after data was offered on a hacker forum.

National Healthcare Fraud

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell announced today an unprecedented nationwide sweep led by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force in 36 federal districts, resulting in criminal and civil charges against 301 individuals, including 61 doctors, nurses and other licensed medical professionals, for their alleged participation in health care fraud schemes involving approximately $900 million in false billings.

National Security Agency

A federal contractor suspected in the leak of powerful National Security Agency hacking tools has been arrested and charged with stealing classified information from the U.S. government, according to court records and U.S. officials familiar with the case.

In each one of these few example cases, relationships between people started with a meeting encounter.  Over time, the product, service or personal relationship outcomes involved a failure of people, processes, systems or external events.  The core components of Operational Risk Management (ORM).

Raising the level of trust across personal, business or government encounters is only possible, with effective "TrustDecisions".  The Decisions to Trust another person, product or service have several elements.  These are vital for the mission to grow towards "Implicit Trust" and simultaneously with the safety and security necessary to reduce the risk of failure.

The Mission

The mission as a co-founder of a new startup or the CEO of a Global 500 is to ensure the survival of the organization. We all know the failure rate for new companies. Just ask Dun & Bradstreet for the statistics or even your local Venture Capitalist who is celebrating failures these days. So beyond just the survival of the organization, is the imperative to establish a cultural and operating environment where people feel encouraged, creative and unencumbered to fulfill their job requirements and goals.

The Take Away

Operational Risks are inherent in any new or established business endeavor. The earlier the Operational Risk Management (ORM) design begins in the trusted relationship evolution, the more resilient you will ultimately become. The framework of the system-of-systems, the look and feel of the cultural environment and the end state visions are all at stake. Take the time and include the expertise to work on the "TrustDecisions" foundation of your enterprise.

Ensure the survivability of the new products or service solutions, that are so valuable to our economy and our nation.  Embrace Operational Risk Management early in your relationships and allow it's presence while it preserves all that you have worked for and dreamed of...

Intuition: Security in a World Without Borders...

"Technology is not going to save us.  Our computers, our tools, our machines are not enough.  We have to rely on our intuition, our true being."  --Joseph Campbell

On a crisp Fall morning, one week after the U.S. National Election we were lining up outside the Harry S. Truman Building outside the United States Department of State.  The Bureau of Diplomatic Security - Overseas Security Advisory Council was hosting it's 31st Annual Briefing.

This years briefing was focused on "Security in a World Without Borders" and as we passed through our ID check and screening, the anticipation was high.  It's private sector constituents from the Fortune Global 500 to the small U.S.-based professional services firm had one key similarity.

Leaders in attendance recognize that their business is integrated forever with a exponentially expanding system of interconnected machines.  CxO's across the globe are competing for business in the era of "The Fourth Industrial Revolution" where the vulnerabilities extend beyond the Critical Assets of the enterprise.

This years keynote address was by Richard Davis, CEO of U.S. Bancorp.  His talk was heartfelt by many as he recounted his rise from the days at the branch level securing the vault.  Now he emphasized most of his effort was focused on Operational Risk Management (ORM).  Data, Identities and Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) were on his mind everyday now.

Beyond the threats of a Post-ISIL Levant and operating in a world of Transnational Organized Crime, the room was almost full on Day 2 for this 10:45AM panel discussion:  "Developing an Insider Threat Program" and was moderated by Elena Kim-Mitchell, ODNI.

The OSAC participants on the panel were:

• Roccie S., Capital One | Financial
• Stanley B., Rolls-Royce North America | Defense Industrial Base
• Joseph L., Southern Company | Energy

Each of these experts described the high-level architecture of their respective organizations design and approach to an "Insider Threat Program" (InTP) and they had consensus on one key element.

The "Human Factor".  The point that they all wanted to insure the audience understood clearly, is that all of the analytics software, data loss prevention (DLP) tools and sophisticated technology was not going to stop a determined and motivated adversary.

So what?

Your intuitive abilities as a human shall not be ignored or discounted.  How many times have you said to yourself, "I knew something wasn't right with that person".  In fact, many times we are alerted to the anomalous behavior of a co-worker because we have the human-factors of intuition that is working 24x7 in our brains.

Gavin de Becker has said it best in his book "The Gift of Fear," yet we must not forget that behavior is something that can be applied to everyone:

• We seek connection with others.
• We are saddened by loss and try to avoid it.
• We dislike rejection.
• We like recognition and attention.
• We will do more to avoid pain then we will do to seek pleasure.
• We dislike ridicule and embarrassment.
• We care what others think of us.
• We seek a degree of control over our lives.

As our software systems learn and we begin to rely more often on the algorithms to recognize, translate and predict, we must not lose sight of our human intuition.  Do you have it?  Yes.  Are you using it more often and more effectively?  We hope you will be.

How often have we all said, the signs were there.  How many times are the clear and present indicators in the workplace being ignored?  A organizations "Duty of Care" is continuously at stake.  Human Factors alone, just as software systems alerts alone will continuously expose the enterprise to significant loss events.  Here is just one example from the Washington Post:

The Pentagon’s Defense Security Service announced this year that contractors will be required to implement programs that are designed “to detect, deter and mitigate insider threats.” Contractors will be required to designate a senior insider threat official to oversee the program and provide training on how best to implement it.

While many details of the Martin case are not yet known, it is clear that it is not good for Booz Allen to have a second employee charged with stealing secrets from one of its most important customers, officials said.

What is the solution?

Government contractors, private sector businesses and their small and medium enterprises that are within the supply chain ecosystem for products and services, are continuously challenged.  They are under the growing umbrella of a myriad of federal acquisition guidelines.

In addition, various export, civil liberties and privacy laws focused on preserving the integrity and trust of the United States in an international marketplace, are compliance mandates for your global commerce.

New solutions are required as a result of the increasing spectrum of threats from individuals in the workplace, to the cyber nexus infiltrating your trade secrets and theft of intellectual property.

The TrustDecisions “Insider Threat Program” (InTP) has been designed from the ground up with organizations operating in highly regulated “Critical Infrastructure” sectors, including Financial, Energy and the Defense Industrial Base (DIB).

Many companies have already started the establishment of an “Insider Threat Program” (InTP).  Utilizing Subject Matter Experts from TrustDecisions will provide your organization with the confidence and continuous assurance that you stay on course.

“Achieving Trust” with employees, clients and suppliers is paramount in our digital 24x7x365 economy.  Designing and adapting the InTP to your unique culture and the changing threat landscape is a vital strategy.

Vigilance: The Casualty of the Truth...

On the other end of a planned cyber threat are the motives and plans by a person.  Sometimes that person puts into play the use of a "Bot" to carry out many of their planned steps in their scheme.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals have been classifying these cybercriminals for a decade or more yet even now in 2016 they are getting more formal profiles:

BAE Systems, the London-based, multinational security company, recently released profiles of “six prominent types of cybercriminals” and detailed how they could hurt companies around the globe, officials say.

Threat intelligence experts at BAE Systems have compiled a list, “The Unusual Suspects,” that has been created from “research that uncovers the motivations and methods of the most common types of cybercriminals,” according to BAE. “The intention of the campaign is to help enterprises understand the various enemies they face so they can better defend against cyberattacks.” BAE Systems officials have profiled six cybercriminal types:

• The Mule – naive opportunists that may not even realize they work for criminal gangs to launder money;
• The Professional – career criminals who work 9-to-5 in the digital shadows;
• The Nation State Actor – individuals who work directly or indirectly for their government to steal sensitive information and disrupt enemies’ capabilities;
• The Activist – motivated to change the world via questionable means;
• The Getaway – the youthful teenager who can escape a custodial sentence due to their age;
• And The Insider – disillusioned, blackmailed or even over-helpful employees operating from within the walls of their own company.

These individuals and groups have caused billions of dollars in losses and caused significant harm to millions of people and organizations.  Now what?

It will be many more years to come, before the laws catch-up to the technology and those who use the vector of the Internet to carry out their crimes against humanity.  Law enforcement has their hands continually tied by the laws and the geographic challenges of a global epidemic.  Governments and politicians are in constant battle over the privacy vs. security philosophy and all the legal issues.

While the wheels of Parliament, or the U.S. Congress slowly turn and the mechanisms for law enforcement become more robust for evidence collection, investigations and prosecutions, there are significant strategies of resilience that we must focus our respective vigilance.  It is not anything new per se, just a renewed emphasis and a new commitment to redesigning our digital environments.  We can do better.

For now, what if we just pick one cybercriminal type to focus on.  The "Insider".

The "Insider" is most likely in almost every formal organization today, working diligently to mask and perpetuate their goals until they are revealed.  It is your "Duty of Care" to continuously deter, detect, defend and document within your enterprise.  The "Insider" could be anyone and so how can the organization work ever more so vigilantly?

It begins at the core of the business and the culture that surrounds those principles within your company, your team or your relationship with suppliers.  The environment you build and sustain shall have the transparency and the elements necessary to sustain a culture where the "Insider" is incapable of operating.  Where the culture itself, makes the environment impossible for the "Insider" to operate without disclosure.

We would encourage Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals to incorporate new found strategies, new management tools and a renewed effort to extinguish the "Insider" threat across the globe.  The best way we can do this today, is to work on the culture and to establish the foundations for future "Trust Decisions" within the enterprise.  The root of changing the culture and achieving the desired future environment, begins with every single decision to trust.

The journey ahead will be long and full of new found challenges.  The vision of the future and the outcomes received will soon be more apparent.  Now the real work begins to start the journey with your own organization, with each person and understanding the environment and culture you seek.  And remember:

"In war, truth is the first casualty."

Aeschylus
Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC - 456 BC)

Rugged DevOps: Reengineering for our Next Generation...

The reengineering of the Internet is now underway for our next generation beyond the millennials.  The unification of corporate software development and information security teams are experiencing a deja vu and reminiscent of scenes from the 1993 movie "Groundhog Day."  Operational Risk Management (ORM) is hopeful that we are having a new resurgence of software vulnerability management thinking.  Why?

"A weather man is reluctantly sent to cover a story about a weather forecasting "rat" (as he calls it). This is his fourth year on the story, and he makes no effort to hide his frustration. On awaking the 'following' day he discovers that it's Groundhog Day again, and again, and again. First he uses this to his advantage, then comes the realization that he is doomed to spend the rest of eternity in the same place, seeing the same people do the same thing EVERY day."  --Groundhog Day

We are seeing the reunification of 1990's Software Quality Assurance (SQA) thinking, combined with the rigor of new 21st century rapid software development disciplines.  It is called "Rugged DevOps."  Application development life cycles are getting shorter these days.  That is because modern day software development life cycles are taking a more component-based approach, with the reuse of standardized software capabilities.  This makes sense, as long as the use of software quality assurance tools and services are not abandoned and new tools and processes are embraced.

Welcome to "Rugged DevOps."  This Forrester report, "The Seven Habits of Rugged DevOps" will give you more context:

Habit 1: Increase Trust And Transparency Between Dev, Sec, And Ops

Habit 2: Understand The Probability And Impact Of Specific Risks

Habit 3: Discard Detailed Security Road Maps In Favor Of Incremental Improvements

Habit 4: Use The Continuous Delivery Pipeline To Incrementally Improve Security Practices

Habit 5: Standardize Third-Party Software And Then Keep Current

Habit 6: Govern With Automated Audit Trails

Habit 7: Test Preparedness With Security Games

"Enabling Digital Trust of Global Enterprises" in the next decade will require software development organizations to embrace security and risk professionals simultaneously, on a more consistent and non-adversarial basis:

DevOps practices can only increase speed and quality up to a point without security and risk (S&R) pros' expertise. Old application security practices hinder speedy releases, and security vulnerabilities represent defects that can leave a company open to cyberattacks. But DevOps practitioners can leap forward with both increased speed and quality by including S&R pros in DevOps feedback loops and including security practices in the automated life cycle. These new practices are called rugged DevOps. This report presents the seven main principles of rugged DevOps so I&O pros and developers can break down barriers with S&R pros and achieve faster releases with stronger application security.

Chief Information Officers (CIO), Chief Privacy Officers (CPO), Chief Legal Officers (CLO), Chief Operating Officers (COO), Chief Security Officers (CSO) and maybe the Chief Executive Officers (CEO) are now paying more attention to these issues.

Here are 9.5 million more reasons why:

In 2007, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California against Facebook on behalf of 3.6 million users of Facebook concerning its “Beacon” program. KamberLaw represented the plaintiffs in this action and Cooley LLP represented Facebook. This suit was settled in 2009 and was granted final approval by the Hon. Richard Seeborg in March 2010. As part of the settlement, the parties created the Foundation (the Digital Trust Foundation) “the purpose of which shall be to fund projects and initiatives that promote the cause of online privacy, safety, and security.” The case settled for $9.5 million, with the Foundation receiving approximately $6.7 million after attorney’s fees, payments to plaintiffs, and administrative costs. There were four objectors to the settlement, two of whom appealed the approval to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently the Supreme Court. But ultimately, in November 2013, the appeals were rejected and the Foundation was funded. The Foundation will distribute more than $6 million and will close its doors once all of the grants have been distributed and completed.

The corporate Board of Directors conversations about the topic of "Digital Trust" is now ongoing and the subject of new business units.  Security vs. Privacy has been a recent media frenzy between some of our technology companies and the U.S. government.  Your elected officials in the U.S. House of Representatives are also on the hot seat now, to produce new relevant legislation.  The courts are adding more privacy and data breach cases to the docket each week.  The "Digital Equilibrium Project" is being established and will hopefully include an international set of stakeholders.

Authoring the rules that everyone understands and everyone can agree on, sets the stage or playing field for the environment of competition to engage with some sense of civility.  Rules will be broken in plain sight and the referee (law enforcement, judges, courts, juries) will impose a penalty, while potentially millions of people watch live.  Is it a penalty kick or just a loss of down?

Think global.  Think at the speed of light.  Think about the trust of e-commerce transactions where millions of people rely on our computing machines every waking minute of the day.  Where Zettabytes of data are in use.  The rules on the "Digital Playing Field" are vital to our future social and economic well being.

"Rugged DevOps" is another and necessary component of a safe, private and secure Internet ecosystem.  Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals are evermore concerned, with the root cause of our current Privacy vs. (soon to be "And") Security headlines.  Digital Trust is hard to achieve and yet easy to forfeit.  It is time for us to begin "Reengineering for our Next Generation".

Board Directors Perspective: Data Risk Business Process Reengineering...

The ranks of established Fortune 500 companies have been studied in the latest NYSE Corporate Board Member's Annual Directors Survey.  Spencer Stuart asked several telling questions in the Operational Risk Management (ORM) domain and the results may be enlightening:

Corporate Board Member's 12th Annual Director Survey Delves into How Directors Are Managing Some of Today's Most Pressing Issues for Public Companies While Keeping Their Boards Nimble:

This year we received nearly 500 responses from directors who didn’t mind sharing their opinions and comments on these issues. More than 70% came from those who identified themselves as outside directors, and another 20% said they serve as board chair or lead director. Forty-four percent have served on a board for more than 10 years, and another 33% have served five to 10 years. Just over 30% are at companies whose annual revenues are in the $1.1 billion to $5 billion range.

In fact, 55% of the directors we surveyed don’t believe it’s reasonable to expect that a public company board can ever fully get its arms around all the different aspects of risk in the current corporate environment (Figure 1), particularly the newer forms of technology risk like cyber risk and social media risk.

If you think "Social Media Risk" is NOT on the mind of the Board of Directors these days, then you would be correct:

Figure 2

Has Your Board Put Social Media on the Agenda?

Yes - 35%
No - 65%

The Social Media Risk to the enterprise has yet to be clearly defined to the majority of the Directors these days or they need more education on what the risks really are to the company.

If you think in 2015 a majority of the Board of Directors are still unsure about "Cyber Risk" you would also be correct:

Figure 6

How Confident Are You That Your Board Is Adequately Overseeing Cyber Risk?

Very -15%
Somewhat - 63%
Not Confident - 23%

The oversight of "Cyber Risk" to the enterprise is still in question by 85% of the Directors.  Why?

To quote Spencer Stuart's Report:

Boards must be ready to oversee a myriad of risks, especially those related to cyber security—and the social media realm—which is unfamiliar territory for some current directors (Figure 6). As a result, forward-thinking boards looking to refresh their ranks will want to add members who have technological and social media experience to guide the board in an arena where it is all too easy to make innocent but often damaging corporate blunders. Boards also value directors who have industry, financial, and regulatory experience, our results show.

Unfamiliar territory for Board Members?  Some current directors who are focused on corporate strategy or mergers and acquisitions would certainly not always have the knowledge or understanding of what the real "Operational Risks" are in the cyber and social media categories.  This makes sense.

What about adding new Board Members who have cyber and social media experience?  The enterprise must certainly pivot and adapt to this changing landscape of risks.  Will adding new Board Members make a difference?  Not likely.

There are some who are now advocating a "Presumption of Data Breach" strategy.  Simply put, what are we doing now, that our enterprise has been breached?  Instead of, what will we do if we ever have a data breach?  This subtle shift in thinking around the Board Room might move the percentage higher from only 15% who are "very confident" in overseeing their enterprise Cyber Risk today.

What if the Board of Directors had a discussion with management each meeting about what they were doing to contain the breach?  You see, the shift in mindset begins a whole new set of dialogue that is proactive and working on an existing business problem that requires remediation but also new thinking.  Unlike the reactive strategy of waiting until the legal and regulatory rules mandate the admission that a breach has actually occurred.

Finally, what if the enterprise were to embark on a Data Risk Business Process Reengineering (BPR) initiative?  You remember the BPR era from the 90's right?  Having a "Presumption of Data Breach" strategy should require the complete reengineering of our Data Enterprise Architecture itself.

Is end-to-end encryption the answer?  No.  Is segmentation of network design the answer?  No.  Are Next-Generation-Firewall's the answer?  No.  Is corporate end user education on cyber risks the answer?  No.  Are new rules and legislation the answer?  No.  Is a combination of all of these the answer?  Probably yes.

Data Risk Business Process Reengineering is a topic worthy of discussion at the next Board of Directors Meeting.  Include all the stakeholders.  Allocate the funds and the resources.  Next year the goal will be for 25% of directors to be very confident in the oversight of cyber risk in the Corporate Board Member survey.

In the mean time, the use of encrypted apps will become more pervasive:

Our Privacy Practices, in Brief:

Wickr has to collect some information from you in order to provide our Services to you, but we do so in a highly limited, highly secure way.

We use military-grade encryption. Our encryption is based on 256-bit symmetric AES encryption, RSA 4096 encryption, ECDH521 encryption, transport layer security, and our proprietary algorithm. 

We canʼt see information you give us. Your information is always disguised with multiple rounds of salted, cryptographic hashing before (if) it is transmitted to our servers. Because of this we donʼt know — and canʼt reveal — anything about you or how you use the Wickr App.

Deletion is forever. When you delete a message, or when a message expires, our “secure shredder” technology uses forensic deletion techniques to ensure that your data can never be recovered by us or anyone else.

You own your data. We do not share or sell any data about our users. Period.

Intellectual Property: Material Risks Disclosure- Assumption of Breach...

The rules of the game may have changed across the corporate landscape.  Corporations that have been proactive in the management of Operational Risks, are making headlines in the published press. There is a race to build new 100,000 Sq. Ft. data centers around the globe, in order to satisfy the insatiable competitive appetite of bandwidth hungry enterprises:

Sony Pictures Entertainment is fighting back. 

The studio behind the “Spider-Man” franchise and “The Social Network” has taken technological countermeasures to disrupt downloads of its most sensitive information, which was exposed when a hacking attack crippled its systems in late November.

The company is using hundreds of computers in Asia to execute what’s known as a denial of service attack on sites where its pilfered data is available, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter. 

Sony is using Amazon Web Services, the Internet retailer’s cloud computing unit, which operates data centers in Tokyo and Singapore, to carry out the counterattack, one of the sources said. The tactic was once commonly employed by media companies to combat Internet movie and music piracy. 

In one of the most devastating cyber security breaches in recent memory, a hacking group calling itself Guardians of Peace claimed to have stolen just under 100 terabytes of Sony Pictures’ financial information, budgets, payroll data, internal emails and feature films and has slowly leaked portions of it to public file-sharing sites such as PasteBin.

The cyber war has been facilitated by the rise of substantial new digital weapons and the cloud-based compute power to make it all happen.  The question is not who is behind the latest DoS of "PasteBin" as much as when the next Stuxnet-like design will gain favor, by a private sector organization.  You see, the use of sophisticated offensive cyber malware is not new.  No different than conventional chemical weapons that are developed by nation states, the variants and new "Zero Days" ultimately could end up in the hands of militias and clandestine dark sites on the net for sale.

In the recent book "Countdown to Zero Day" by Kim Zetter, the point is made:

Before Stuxnet, most of America’s military and intelligence cyber-operations focused on stealing or distorting data, or used cyber-tools to help direct U.S. weapons. Stuxnet was envisioned by U.S. officials as a replacement for a conventional weapon. Using a computer virus or worm to gum up the works of something from within would provide an alternative to, say, destroying a nuclear facility from the air. Stuxnet appears to have done that. “Stuxnet stands alone as the only known cyberattack to have caused physical destruction to a system,” Zetter writes.

The physical digital copying, erasure or even encryption of corporate data, that then becomes the focus of an extortion plot, is the Operational Risk Management (ORM) business problem that remains on your Board Room doorstep. The Sony Board of Directors now understand the liability of dealing with a $100 million plus incident, as an adverse material event, spawned from the cyber domain.  The rules of the digital game have changed.  Now what can be done about this particular wake up call?

Besides getting your outside counsel ramping up for a tremendous cache of billable hours and your Information Governance Teams burning the midnight oil, the future strategy is now evolving.  How many digital files in your corporation contain proprietary Intellectual Property (IP)?  If you don't know the answer, then we recommend that you start counting.  You need to figure out what the value is, of all this data and for good reason.  At the other end of the Operational Risk spectrum are the SEC regulatory issues in the U.S..  Jeffrey Carr explains here:

“Consistent with the Regulation S-K Item 503(c) requirements for risk factor disclosures generally, cybersecurity risk disclosure provided must adequately describe the nature of the material risks and specify how each risk affects the registrant. Registrants should not present risks that could apply to any issuer or any offering and should avoid generic risk factor disclosure.” 

The value of your particular organizations Intellectual Property can then be compared against the requirements for your IP, on a global basis.  What countries or companies are spinning up Research & Development operations in the same IP space that your organization is operating in?  What U.S. companies are encouraged to relocate a manufacturing plant overseas?  Why is this significant? The correlation is that if there are a rising number of foreign R&D labs focused on your particular category of IP, then you can guess that your company is going to be a substantial target for sustained industrial espionage.  Regulatory burdens exist and yet may not be the greatest risk.

When there is not enough time or money to infiltrate your organization with insider human assets, then the outsourcing of digital theft campaigns will begin, or a combination of insider theft operations in cooperation with outsourcing.  The hackers-for-hire trade, is larger than you may know.  How much do you think a nation state would pay for a "Stuxnet" Zero Day on the open market in todays U.S. dollars?  Mid to high six figures.  Not likely.  7 or 8 figures is getting closer.

While the malware designed for the exfiltration of data from Sony Pictures is different than Stuxnet's design to disrupt a specific type of Siemens Controller for a certain IR-1 centrifuge, the intent and motive may be quite similar.  To disrupt and destroy the capabilities of your adversary.  Now the question for Sony is whether this was a nation state or simply a "disgruntled insider," or possibly both that can be attributed to the sabotage attack.

The complexity and the longevity of the risk is evident.  The magnitude and the impact of the destruction is apparent.  Are you sure you don't have an Insider Threat?  See appendix C here:

This fourth edition of the Common Sense Guide to Mitigating Insider Threats provides the most current recommendations of the CERT® Program (part of Carnegie Mellon University's Software Engineering Institute), based on an expanded database of more than 700 insider threat cases and continued research and analysis. It introduces the topic of insider threats, explains its intended audience and how this guide differs from previous editions, defines insider threats, and outlines current patterns and trends. The guide then describes 19 practices that organizations should implement across the enterprise to prevent and detect insider threats, as well as case studies of organizations that failed to do so. Each practice includes features new to this edition: challenges to implementation, quick wins and high-impact solutions for small and large organizations, and relevant security standards. This edition also focuses on six groups within an organization-human resources, legal, physical security, data owners, information technology, and software engineering-and maps the relevant groups to each practice. The appendices provide a revised list of information security best practices, a new mapping of the guide's practices to established security standards, a new breakdown of the practices by organizational group, and new checklists of activities for each practice.

Information Leaks: Risk Of The Data Supply Chain...

There is a well known threat that has been talked about with the Board of Directors behind closed doors for years. This threat is not new to most Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals and yet executive management is still in denial that it could happen to us. Have you or someone in your C-Suite ever awakened one morning and wondered how the companies new plans for a merger are now in the published press? What about that new research and development breakthrough that ends up with another company with a similar process being patented a week or a month ahead of you?

What is the threat? Call it competitive intelligence, economic espionage, press leaks, loose lips or advanced persistent threat (APT), it does not really matter. The threat remains from all those people, rivals, industry peers, countries, states, allies and enemies that are working 24 x 7 x 365 to copy your valuable information and use it for their own advantage. What advantage depends on who obtains the valuable information and how they will eventually use it or sell it.

What is even more fascinating to most subject matter experts, is the amount of information that is still created and allowed to be compromised in some way that is false, fake and designed to confuse the adversary. So what is it, that much of executive management still does not understand about all of this? 

The "source" of the vulnerability that is leaking or allowing the secret or confidential information to be compromised. They still to this day are naive to the potential source. This source is not even inside their own company or organization in many cases. It is within the organizations data supply chain somewhere, but where is it exactly?

The answer is only possible to narrow down, if you absolutely know where your data and secret or confidential information is collected, transported and stored, in the hands of trusted third parties, outside the four walls of your business. That is the remedial first step. Creating a definitive map of who has custody of your data through some kind of third party agreement. The agreement could be with any number of key business partners in your data supply chain:

• Banker
• Venture Capitalist
• Accountant
• Attorney
• Insurer
• Internet Service Provider
• Utility
• Data Telecom Provider
• Wireless Telecom Provider
• Payments Processor
• Document Custodian or Shredder

This short list is a good place to begin your quest for better understanding where the source of your information leak may be. Now think about this list and ask yourself who might have the most robust set of staff, resources and technology savvy people to keep your data safe. Regardless of the service level agreements or engagement letters in place, who is the most vulnerable on this list?

Even more important may be the question of which one of your data supply chain business partners, has the least amount of resources, people and state-of-the-art detection systems for the APT, Zeus, and other mechanisms that are exfiltrating your data to another country. When was the last time you asked any of your business partners to walk you into their IT department for a look around with your CIO or CTO?

Believe us when we say that if you get that "Deer in the Headlights" look on your business partners face, you are in trouble. You can bet that the attackers are not attacking you, as much as they are attacking your data supply chain. If you say in public or on your public filings that you have your primary outside counsel firm as "Red, White and Blue," you can be assured that your adversaries will take notice.

You see, just because your organization has spent millions or billions on new data centers with the most sophisticated technologies available to counter your cyber adversaries, how can you be sure that your business data supply chain has done the same? There is only one way to do that and it is in person and on site. You may consider this level of due diligence before handing over your business for the merger and acquisition project or the development of a vital new component for your new patented product. A model "Request for Information" (RFI) on the business partners controls and capabilities for securing your sensitive, confidential and secret information shall be a first step requirement.

The second step shall be to get an inventory of what systems your data supply chain partner has in place to mitigate the risk of a data breach. At the top of that list, should be the management system that governs all the other hardware and software systems. So even if your business partner says they are using RSA NetWitness on their corporate networks and Fixmo MRM for their mobile devices, that is not going to be enough.

The overarching "Management System" is not about technology. It is not about your favorite eDiscovery or computer forensics guru. It is about the way your business partner trains and educates it's people. It is about how those people use relevant business controls to secure your secrets, confidential data and records. Look at their behavior around this topic of "Achieving A Defensible Standard of Care" and you will soon discover whether you have found the most ideal banker, accountant or attorney to entrust to your digital supply chain.

Black Swan: Strategy Execution for the "Outlier"...

The Black Swan is a surprise event and the idea that a catastrophe can strike without warning. What does your organization plan for? The low consequence high frequency incident or the high consequence low frequency incident? The ratio can tell you what your "Resilience" factor is to Operational Risk loss events. Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) can give you some forward looking view into the risk portfolio yet what about the resilience to the Black Swan?

A black swan is a highly improbable event with three principal characteristics: It is unpredictable; it carries a massive impact; and, after the fact, we concoct an explanation that makes it appear less random, and more predictable, than it was. The astonishing success of Google was a black swan; so was 9/11. For Nassim Nicholas Taleb, black swans underlie almost everything about our world, from the rise of religions to events in our own personal lives.

Why do we not acknowledge the phenomenon of black swans until after they occur? Part of the answer, according to Taleb, is that humans are hardwired to learn specifics when they should be focused on generalities. We concentrate on things we already know and time and time again fail to take into consideration what we don’t know. We are, therefore, unable to truly estimate opportunities, too vulnerable to the impulse to simplify, narrate, and categorize, and not open enough to rewarding those who can imagine the “impossible.”

Your organization is no doubt spending time on the Operational Risk Management (ORM) events that consistently are in the high frequency "In Your Face" category. In a highly regulated industry sector such as finance, health care or energy the oversight mechanisms require a continuous analysis of risk based upon the criticality of these sectors to the overall resilience of the economy. Yet it is the "Outlier" incident that comes at the most unexpected time that is the real threat and the incident catalyst, that could be your "Black Swan". You never know when it is going to be coming, so you must plan, prepare and imagine that someday it will happen.

Enabling Global Operational Risk Management (ORM) requires thinking beyond models and outside the box analysis of the "Resilience Factor," should an outlier impact the organization, the state or the country. The resources, personnel and systems focused on these areas of risk are small today. But not for long. Just ask those people who had been working 24/7 since the "Fukushima" or "Lehman Brothers" crisis. Or more importantly, the plaintiff lawyers preparing their briefs for the inevitable aftermath of litigation over, who knew what, when.

One prediction into the future could be that litigation will follow all "Black Swan" incidents. If you are in a highly vulnerable industry sector because it's part of the critical infrastructure of the global grid, then you already know you are in the middle of the target zone. What is amazing to many in the after-action reporting is how much we continue to under estimate the magnitude of a lack of planning and resources devoted to these low frequency high consequence events.  Enter Target Corporation:

Is Target to Blame for Its Data Breach? Let the Lawsuits Begin 

By Joshua Brustein December 26, 2013 

The lawsuits started almost immediately after Target’s (TGT) admission that hackers had stolen information related to the credit-card accounts of 40 million shoppers. At least 11 customers are now pursuing class-action suits against the retailer, claiming it was negligent in protecting their data. 

Losing control of sensitive customer data is a fact of life for American companies. They’re collecting more of it, and they are often outgunned by hackers, who are highly motivated to get at it. It’s not even clear how much legal responsibility they have to protect it. “There is limited judicial guidance on what constitutes negligence in the cybersecurity area,” says Craig Newman, a partner at Richard Kibbe & Orbe who follows legal issues related to security.

Unauthorized Access: Civil CFAA Legal Risk Strategy...

A tutorial on the definition of a "loss event" is appropriate for those who seek greater understanding of "Operational Risk Management" (ORM).   Specifically when it comes to the civil litigation strategy utilizing the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" (CFAA) 18 U.S.C. 1030.

What is a loss?  Easy:  Loss = cost.  "Any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment and restoring the data, program, system or information to its condition prior to the offense and any revenue lost, cost incurred or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service."

So the remedies available are economic damages, loss damage and injunctive relief.  Not exemplary damages or attorneys fees.  Don't let that last one scare you from using CFAA, as an effective deterrent in your arsenal as a General Counsel.  The basic threshold is that the victim incurred a loss during any one year period, of at least $5,000.00.

For the focus of this blog post, we will talk about "Insiders" who exceed authorized access, that is access in a way not entitled.  Typically employees or others in the business supply chain, who may have the use of a password or key to gain access to information only known or available by another employee, such as a supervisor or system administrator.

It is imperative here to state the importance of finding an attorney that truly understands this law, from a civil, not a criminal perspective.  The complaint must provide factual content that the Plaintiff has suffered the type of damage to "data, a program, a system or information."  Think more about business interruption and the expenses related to investigation, remediation and integrity of operations.  An employee who leaves the company and has e-mailed proprietary information of clients or proposals to their personal account, is not what we are talking about here.

What about the employee who decides to damage or destroy organizational records or of their primary area of responsibility, (database of client contacts, meeting notes, reports and proposals) or even those of the entire company.

The term “damage” means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information and the term “loss” means any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service.  Here is just one example:

Tech Systems, Inc. v. Pyles, 2013 WL 4033650 (ED VA Aug. 6, 2013) (4th Cir)
After being terminated, former employee forwarded company emails and deleted company emails from mobile device before returning it to employer because they contained incriminating evidence. Court granted spoliation finding and jury returned verdict for violating Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, among other claims.

This is just a single case of how a single disgruntled employee, decided to proactively get revenge with a former employer, Tech Systems, Inc. of Alexandria, VA, a U.S. defense contractor.  Why organizations do not utilize the tools such as CFAA to find civil remedy, on a more regular basis is the question at hand.

CFAA is designed to be legally effective on a broad scale and for good reason.  It does however, require that someone uses it with the right intent and legal purpose.  We predict that more civil cases will be filed, as General Counsels and attorneys better understand how to effectively utilize it, in combination with other laws associated with Intellectual Property Theft.  As judges and more cases are tried, the momentum will pick up.  So what?

Booz Allen Hamilton v. Snowden.  Not yet?  Just a Violation of a "Code of Ethics" and fired?  Not likely.

The revelation that Snowden got access to some of the material he leaked by using colleagues' passwords surfaced as the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee approved a bill intended in part to tighten security over U.S. intelligence data. 

One provision of the bill would earmark a classified sum of money - estimated as less than $100 million - to help fund efforts by intelligence agencies to install new software designed to spot and track attempts to access or download secret materials without proper authorization. 

The bill also requires that the Director of National Intelligence set up a system requiring intelligence contractors to quickly report to spy agencies on incidents in which data networks have been penetrated by unauthorized persons.

 United States of America v. Edward J. Snowden.  Filed under seal June 14th, 2013. Offenses include 18 U.S.C. 641, Theft of Government Property.  18 U.S.C. 793(d), Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information.  18 U.S.C. 7989a)(3), Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence to an Unauthorized Person.

Civil CFAA Legal Risk Strategy can be utilized in many cases where the magnitude of the loss and the economic exposure to a U.S. government contractor, is not on the radar of the U.S. Attorney.  Keep it in mind...

Privacy 3.0: The Genesis of EarthCom...

Information classification in the private sector is gaining traction again as the nature of sensitive national security leaks are published in the popular press.  Data breach laws and cyber legislation is a daily discussion on Capitol Hill.  CISOs and CSOs even at the Washington Post are in "Incident Response Mode" after a successful phishing exploit by the Syrian Electronic Army.  These Operational Risk Management (ORM) challenges are not only on the rise because of the amount of information that is exchanged each day in an era of the "Internet of Things"; these risks are now front and center as "Privacy 3.0" evolves in the Cloud.

Andrew Serwin of The Lares Institute puts it all in context:

The question confronting modern-day privacy scholars is this: Can a common law based theory adequately address the shifting societal norms and rapid technological changes of today’s Web 2.0 world where legislatures and government agencies, not courts, are more proactive on privacy protections?

As private sector companies produce the technology solutions to accomodate the exponential expansion of our global ICT ecosystem, we must acknowledge the genesis of it's origin.  Human beings.  The products, systems, software and patents are the result of inventions by mankind.  Yet there is evidence that the evolution of ICT, whether it be in hardware, software or the data itself has similarity to biological evolution.  For decades scientists have studied the similarity of the ecosystems of information to the biology of immune systems.  These same smart and bold people have written books, journals and peer tested papers on the subject of transformational systems thinking.  Growth and change in the digital universe follows a biological path found in nature.

The organizational growth cycles are:

• Forming = entrepreneurship
• Norming = production
• Integrating = diversification

This cycle of growth has many labels, yet systems and organizational experts will say that the integrating phase of growth will encounter a bifurcation point, where it is necessary for the system to again innovate and form something new.  To adapt to its new environment.  If the system does not break away and create a new forming stage of the growth cycle, it will eventually perish.  This is why organizational change experts invented such innovations as the "Skunk Works" or why a private sector company breaks off a business unit and creates a whole new company.

Privacy 3.0 is now four years old.  Are we now at the bifurcation stage of the societal information growth cycle and the speed of business is leaving existing government rule of law in the rear view mirror?  Andy Serwin from his 2009 paper said:

Given the changes in society, as well as the enforcement mechanisms that exist today, particularly given the FTC's new focus on “unfairness,” and the well-recognized need to balance regulation and innovation, a different theoretical construct must be created--one that cannot be based upon precluding information sharing via common law methods. Instead, the overarching principle of privacy of today should not be the right to be let alone, but rather the principle of proportionality. This is Privacy 3.0.

As information flows through the manmade veins of supersonic light or invisible waves of zeros and ones around our planet, we are approaching a "Breakpoint."  A place in time, where the system will need to bifurcate in order to survive.  The system of privacy proportionality in government circles has been four levels of classification:

• Restricted = For Official Use Only (FOUO)
• Confidential
• Secret
• Top Secret (TS)

In the years ahead, as you hold your IP Phone (iPhone) to update Twitter, Foursquare, Facebook or WordPress App, you are behaving in the Privacy 3.0 ecosystem.  While you are at work in the public or private sector using Google Business Apps in the cloud, your behavior and your words including personal data such as your semantics or GPS coordinates, are entering one of four levels of sensitivity.

In order to make the leap to our next systemic "Breakpoint", we will need to design in proportional privacy to our Operational Risk Framework.  Without it, the system will decay and ultimately cease to exist.  Is privacy an after thought in your organization?  What information governance education takes place on a continuous basis?  How do you monitor and measure?  Have you tagged the information into four levels of sensitivity?  These are just a few of the questions that the Privacy 3.0 enterprise is encountering, at the genesis of an ICT "EarthCom."

Legal Risk: General Counsel Digital Leadership...

Operational Risks continue to plague any senior manager with the title of "Corporate General Counsel". "Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care" remains ever so challenging. General Counsel digital leadership is required by the Board of Directors. A recent Corporate Executive Board Report outlined some of their top line issues in a recent Corporate Counsel article by Catherine Dunn:

1. Regulatory issues will converge, while regulation of issues will fragment.

What it means: Common issues—such as data privacy, executive compensation, anti-bribery, and antitrust—are gaining importance in the eyes of regulators the world over, says Lee. But countries and states are regulating those issues in different ways, which makes it more difficult for companies—and in-house legal teams—to harmonize their policies.

2. Information will grow exponentially.

What it means: E-discovery requests are getting bigger (think terabytes, not gigabytes) and the quality of meta-data that could be subpoenaed is getting better (like someone's location, as identified by GPS technology). As more and more information comes into play, the study finds, it "will increase the premium of how companies organize and manage their information."

3. Dueling demands for corporate transparency and consumer privacy will collide.

What it means: Consumer demands for privacy will place more emphasis on data security and how companies shore up their IT infrastructure. "The end result for legal departments is that, at the very least, they're going to need to become more [technologically] literate," says Lee. And again, legal teams will also have to deal with a variable set of regulations, depending on where companies operate.

While consumers want to protect their own information, they also want to to have more information about corporations, information about executive compensation packages, private conversations between executives, and company investments.

4. The legal department's center of gravity will shift.

What it means: As companies expand into emerging markets to capitalize on growth opportunities, risks will follow. "It's going to be more important for those risks to be managed locally," Lee says. The report hypothesizes, then, that in-house legal teams will become more decentralized, decamping from corporate headquarters for local terrain. "Culture is an often-underestimated factor with regard to risk," Lee adds. Seeing as how different countries identify, report, and react to misconduct in different ways, that will also add to the need for on-site legal teams.

Another facet of this shift is that in-house lawyers will take on additional responsibilities—such as auditing and keeping an eye on corporate integrity and employee behavior.

5. The legal services market will mature.

What it means: If five to 10 years ago companies wondered which law firm to partner with, today it's not just traditional firms that are competing for the work, Lee says. Legal- and business-processes outsourcers are "very good for discrete pieces of work," such as discovery and document review, he says, and that could "rival or surpass the quality of law firms."

How fast is fast enough these days to provide your members or customers notice that their bank account has been hacked and money has been transfered to transnational criminal syndicates across the globe? Six hours is too long according to this latest suit against Comerica Bank in Michigan, USA:

It started with a simple e-mail that landed in the inbox of Experi-Metal Inc.'s controller, Keith Maslowski, in January 2009. The message appeared to come from the company's bank, and Maslowski followed the directions to click on a link and enter confidential log-in data and other codes as part of routine maintenance. The details are laid out in a lawsuit that the small metal shop in Sterling Heights, Michigan, filed against Comerica. Scam artists used Maslow­ski's codes to initiate more than 85 wire transfers, moving $1.9 million out of the company's account to China, Estonia, Finland, Russia, and Scotland.

It took the bank only six hours to spot the unusual activity, notify the customer, and stop the transfers. But it wasn't good enough for the federal judge. Court documents show that the company had only two prior transfers in two years. On June 13 U.S. district court judge Patrick Duggan in Detroit ruled that Comerica was responsible for the $560,000 that remained unrecovered because the bank didn't act "in good faith." The judge ruled that "a bank dealing fairly with its customer, under these circumstances, would have detected and/or stopped the fraudulent wire activity earlier."

Yet another example of the Operational Risks that require more preventive measures for the savvy "General Counsel" (GC) of 2011 and beyond. To what degree are there other "Tripwires" in place for the GC to become a nerve center for detecting those incidents and behavior that is strange or not normal. After all, you can't be everywhere and no one can effectively work 24 x 7. So there remains only one answer. Automation working with Operational Risk experts.

How do the programmers know how many transfers are out of a normal range? In the case of Comerica, Judge Duggan ruled that six hours was too long to stop the fraudulent transfers. You see, the risk for establishing the right business rules can't lie completely with anyone who is doing the programming. Business management, consumers and risk management experts all need to be in the process of developing the triggers and alerts that allow faster response on incidents such as this one.

The number of data breaches and other cyber criminal activities will continue to rise as long as the General Counsel remains aloof or segmented from the departments and business units that can establish effective automated "Trip Wires" to get notified when something is "Not Normal".

Here are just few of the larger and most reported incidents in 2011 according to Law.com:

2011
April 1: Epsilon Inc., the world's largest e-mail marketer, reveals an unauthorized entry into Epsilon's e-mail system, exposing customer names and e-mail addresses.

April 26: Sony Network Entertainment America and Sony Computer Entertainment America disclose a "carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated criminal cyberattack designed to steal personal and credit card information." The intruders stole identity data from about 77 million PlayStation Network and Qriocity customer accounts.

May 10: Citigroup Inc. discovers a breach exposing more than 360,000 customer names, account numbers, and contact information. Citigroup waits almost a month before notifying its customers, and later says $2.7 million was stolen.

May 24: The Los Angeles Times reports that a Bank of America Corporation insider leaked detailed customer data to a ring of identity thieves resulting in $10 million in losses. The bank later confirmed the loss, which occurred sometime last year but came to light only recently, when the bank began informing customers.

June 15: Automatic Data Processing Inc., the world's largest payroll processor, says personal data of one of its 550,000 corporate clients was breached. It ­provided no details.

So what is the answer for the General Counsel? The "Plan-Do-Check-Act" lifecycle applies to the GC just as others in the corporate enterprise. Information Governance is no different for the legal department than it is for the CIO. The problem is, how much are both working in concert so that the holders and managers of digital information are working side by side the legal eagles of the company? Not enough in a world where transnational criminals, advanced persistent threat and insiders are testing your controls and the latency of your alert mechanisms on a daily basis.

The companies plagued with the incidents highlighted in the popular press are working hard to prevent the vulnerabilities exploited by those tasked with finding them. They have invested millions of dollars in technology and sophisticated tools for detection and defense. In todays world of 4 Billion devices connected to wireless networks and ultimately the Internet; working hard just will not suffice anymore.

The General Counsel working in concert with the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), Chief Information Officer (CIO) and even the Chief Security Officer (CSO) along with outside contract consultants typically defines who is responsible for the ongoing defense of the corporate enterprise. The question now remains; "What is the single Management System that they are all using to manage risk in the organization?" Unfortunately, the answer may be that they are not using the same management system. When your organization has not agreed upon a single management system for risk management then there is no wonder that you have opened yourself up to the possibility of failure. Utilizing a single international standard such as ISO 27001: 2005 could be the beginning of a unified effort by the entire stakeholder community in your organization.

Certifying your Information Security Management System against ISO/IEC 27001 can bring the following benefits to your organization:

• Demonstrates the independent assurance of your internal controls and meets corporate governance and business continuity requirements
• Independently demonstrates that applicable laws and regulations are observed
• Provides a competitive edge by meeting contractual requirements and demonstrating to your customers that the security of their information is paramount
• Independently verifies that your organizational risks are properly identified, assessed and managed, while formalizing information security processes, procedures and documentation
• Proves your senior management’s commitment to the security of its information
• The regular assessment process helps you to continually monitor your performance and improve