Reputation Risk: Organizational Stewardship Revisited...

Reputation risk is becoming more of a topic of discussion these days. The loss of reputation results in several outcomes both economic and personal. The fact is that most of the time organizations are "Reacting" to a crisis, news leak or some other corporate failure.

You don't have to name names of people or companies to understand the impact that reputation has on the success or demise of an organization. What has to change to lower the severity and likelihood of loss events associated with "Reputation"?

First you have to ask yourself a couple of key questions:

1. What is your reputation worth?
2. Are you being Proactive or Reactive in managing and safeguarding your reputation?

The PR and marketing communications processes in your organization may have certain facets of the solution to better reputation risk management. However, these processes are designed with out the consciousness of proactive threat anticipation, detection, prevention and remediation.

What has become more clear to executives in proactive oriented companies is the requirement for a specific and strategic approach to Reputation Risk Management. This approach encompasses an emerging theme from the early nineties pioneered by author Peter Block. We call it Organizational Stewardship.

Organizational Stewardship as a core guiding principle is the cornerstone in managing an institutional reputation risk management process. It has three components that support this rekindled idea of applying the concepts of stewardship to the organization:

• Economic Accountability
• Information Management
• Business Integrity

Reputation Risk Management is about the proactive monitoring and management of a portfolio of threats in the organization. Several categories include:

1. Intellectual Property and Information Assets
2. Demonstrations, planned boycotts and social activism
3. Physical infrastructure including employees and suppliers
4. Legal threats including class actions, insider trading or whistle-blowers

Microsoft closed its free Internet chat rooms in 28 countries many years ago because of threats from pedophiles and junk e-mailers. This is an example of proactive reputation risk management. Unfortunately, this has opened the door to another related threat of hackers hijacking other Social Media accounts.

"Organizational Stewardship is a guiding principle. Once it is embedded into the organization it begins to permeate the mindsets of the individuals who are responsible for the conscious reputation risk management processes. Over time, these individuals help influence the corporate mindset, philosophy and ethics to a new found level."

Someday soon the executives in the board room will realize that managing reputation is not about keeping secrets and fighting fires. 

They will realize that they need to find a proactive, preventive and relevant strategy for achieving Organizational Stewardship in their company.

Pain or Joy: Change Management 101...

Habits are hard to change.  It takes discipline and continuous perseverance.

When was the last time you changed something that increased your revenue?  Your health.  Or your safety and security.

Change and managing change whether in the corporate ranks of your Fortune 500 Global Enterprise or back in your own personal life at home is a true challenge.

Before you even thought about what you needed to change in your business or your own life, you probably have encountered one of two experiences:

• Pain

• Joy

Which one of these two experiences have you recently encountered?

You see, our human behavior is quite predictable and it is usually one of these two motivators in life that will change your behavior.

Educating yourself and others you care about requires that you sometimes utilize one of these motivators in order to initiate new change.  Let’s begin with “Pain”.

These realities are exactly what the evil in our world today continues to prey on.  Those individuals who are unable or unwilling to change, and to manage change in their lives.

“It is really very simple. In the foreseeable future, we will not function as a global society without the Net and the immense digital resources and information assets of our society. The addiction is established—commerce, government, education, and our neighbors offer no option other than to require that we rely upon digital information in making decisions. But we will not function successfully if the war for control of those assets is lost. The battlefield, however, is the one on which trust is to be gained or lost—trust in the information we use, trust in the infrastructures that support us, and trust in the decisions we make in a digital world.”  Page 19 - Achieving Digital Trust | The New Rules For Business At The Speed Of Light  - Author Jeffrey Ritter

In your own digital life, these habits may be as simple as using the same password on multiple accounts that each of us rely on, each day or each week of our lives.  You know who you are.

As the continued use of “Ransomware” remains so pervasive across the globe and is utilized by so many criminal gangs and nation states, each one of us must consider our personal and business habits.

At home and at work.

It is now time to change.  It is time to change your digital habits so you may avoid the pain and continue to have even more joy in your life.

Take action.

Start a new habit now of changing the weak password on your bank accounts.  Make it 20 characters, and make it random.  Easily addressed when you "Use a Password Manager App".  Then set a reminder to change it on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year.

“Microsoft warns that ransomware threat actor Storm-0501 has recently switched tactics and now targets hybrid cloud environments, expanding its strategy to compromise all victim assets.

The threat actor first emerged in 2021 as a ransomware affiliate for the Sabbath ransomware operation. Later they started to deploy file-encrypting malware from Hive, BlackCat, LockBit, and Hunters International gangs. Recently, they have been observed to deploy the Embargo ransomware.

Storm-0501's recent attacks targeted hospitals, government, manufacturing, and transportation organizations, and law enforcement agencies in the United States.” —BleepingComputer

After you have successfully accomplished this simple task in your business and in your own personal life, remember:

The “Pain” of doing this simple “Change Management” step in your life, will help bring you continued “Joy” for so many years to come…:)

Godspeed!

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…

ITC: Managing Risk for Security Governance...

 In our converging world of both Information and Physical Security, there are resilient risk elements for the effective management of Information Technology & Communications (ITC).

Think of it as “Security Governance”.

Security Governance is a discipline, that all of us need to revisit and rededicate ourselves towards. The policies and codes we stand by to protect our critical assets, should not be compromised for any reasons. More importantly, security governance frameworks, must make sure that the management of a business or government entity be held accountable for their respective performance.

The stakeholders must be able to intervene in the operations of management, when these security ethics or policies are violated. Security Governance is the way that corporations or governments are directed and controlled. A significant element that is now being mandated by the Board of Directors, is the role of “Continuous Risk Management” in Security Governance.

ITC Security Governance, like Corporate Governance requires the oversight of key individuals on the Board of Directors. In the public sector, the board of directors may come from a coalition of people from the Executive, Judicial or Legislative branches.

The fundamental responsibility of management, whether in government or the corporate enterprise, is to continuously protect the assets of the organization or entity. Risk and the enterprise are inseparable. Therefore, you need a robust management system approach to continuous Security Governance, not just an annual audit.

If a corporation is to continue to survive and prosper, it must take security risks. A nation is no different. However, when the management systems do not have the correct controls in place to continuously monitor and audit enterprise security risk management, then we are exposing precious assets to the threat actors that seek to undermine, damage or destroy our livelihood.

An organization’s top management must Identify, Assess, Decide, Implement, Audit and Supervise their strategic risks. There shall be a strategic policy at the board level to focus on managing risk for security governance.

The security governance policy should mirror the deeply felt emotions of the organization or nation, to its shareholders and citizens. It should be a positive and trusting culture, capable of making certain that strategic adverse risks are identified, removed, minimized, controlled or transferred.

An enterprise is subject to a category of risk that can’t be foreseen with any degree of certainty. These risks are based upon events that “Might Happen”, but haven’t been considered by the organization. Stakeholders can’t be expected to be told about these risks because there is not enough information to validate or invalidate them.

However, what the stakeholders can demand, is a management system for continuous Security Governance that is comprehensive, proactive and relevant. The management system includes organizational structure, policies, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes, and growing resources.

It is this Security Governance management system that which we all should be concerned and which we seek from our executives, board members and oversight committees to provide. There should be a top management strategic policy to focus on managing risk for continuous security governance.

This risk management system should establish the foundation for ensuring that all strategic risks are identified and effectively managed. The policy should reflect the characteristics of the organization, enterprise or entity; it’s location, assets and purpose. The policy should:

1. Include a framework for governance and objectives
2. Take into account the legal, regulatory and contractual obligations
3. Establish the context for maintenance of the management system
4. Establish the criteria against what risk will be evaluated and risk assessment will   be defined

A process should be established for risk assessment that takes into consideration:

• Impact, should the risk event be realized
• Exposure to the risk on a spectrum from rare to continuous
• Probability based upon the current state of management controls in place
  

The strategic security risks that the organization encounters will be dynamic. The management system is the mechanism by which the executives identify and assess these risks and the strategy for dealing with them. It is this system which we are concerned about and which we seek to provide in order to achieve our Security Governance.

ITC Security Governance best practices are still rapidly growing and taps the thinking of various standards organizations including OECD, BSI, NIST, ISSA, BSA, ITAA, ASIS and dozens of other bodies of influence and knowledge. However, no matter what best practices an organization attempts to standardize on, beware of the attitudes of the employees and stakeholders.

Unless these stakeholders fully acknowledge what and why, they are being asked to do things, rather than just following the rulebook, the system will fail.

The organization that embraces change and introduces a Security Governance framework that not only manages the foreseen human risks, but also the unforeseen, will have a greater chance of survival.

The role of culture in the risk for security governance, is paramount for several reasons:

1. Any changes in risk management may require changes in the culture
2. The current culture is a dramatic influence on current and future security initiatives

Internal controls can provide reasonable assurance that an organization will meet its intended goals. At the same time, it is the people (Human Factors) who will fail the company in material errors, losses, fraud and breaches of laws and regulations.

This is why the risks the organization is facing are constantly changing and therefore why a management system for continuous security governance is necessary. The management system is there to provide resiliency to the risks it encounters and to control risk accordingly rather than eliminate it forever.

The board of directors will soon realize that managing risk for ITC Security Governance, is just as important to the success and compliance of the organization as Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley.

In fact, without effective ITC Security Governance in place, all of the rules won’t matter and the stakeholders will again be asking themselves after a major technology failure or privacy data or intellectual property breach; how could this happen to us?

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...

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."

Privacy Law: Scanning the Legal Horizon...

As our new knowledge-based organizations begin the startup phase, the thought of all of the implications of collecting and storing information may be secondary to raising capital.  However, once you have the core team in place and the business begins to scale, maybe it is time to look over the horizon.

Once you have reached the point in your companies growth curve to consider the hiring of a CFO and even an outside "General Counsel", the regulatory engine must be established within the enterprise.  Today, even the CISO in any major business across the United States has been challenged by rapidly changing digital privacy laws the past two years.

Especially in California, the CalECPA went into effect January 1, 2016 and in general is focused on law enforcement:

The landmark California Electronic Communications Privacy Act bars any state law enforcement agency or other investigative entity from compelling a business to turn over any metadata or digital communications—including emails, texts, documents stored in the cloud—without a warrant. It also requires a warrant to track the location of electronic devices like mobile phones, or to search them.

The simple fact that a company is doing business in the State of California and has employees operating there, puts a significant set of requirements and compliance issues that are top of mind.  This is why you see technology-oriented companies who have their Headquarters based here, developing robust guides for working within federal and state privacy laws.

A "Chief Information Security Officer" is not only charged with protecting the data within a confidentiality, integrity and assurance framework, but also working in tandem with the General Counsel and a Chief Privacy Officer.  The standards and the laws have significant hurdles that also require prudent Operational Risk Management strategies.

Now take all of this into consideration as your begin to plan for implementing an "Insider Threat Program" (InTP) within your organization.  The addition of a Human Resources component, Chief Information Officer and even perhaps 3rd Party Cloud supply chain vendors will all be in play.

So What?

So what is the legal profession in California focused on these days?  Just take a look at the Agenda for a March 2017 event at Berkeley Law:

Cybersecurity Regulatory Enforcement

New regulators, new laws, and new norms are causing cybersecurity responsibilities to proliferate. This discussion will feature insights on how cybersecurity lawyers navigate the growing thicket of information security rules from the perspective of both companies pursued by the FTC and multinationals operating under different legal regimes. It will consider challenges posed by insider breaches and obligations arising from the General Data Protection Regulation.

Practitioners Panel

Privacy practitioners from leading law firms and major online companies will share insights on how to stay afloat in increasingly turbulent waters.

Privacy Award

BCLT is proud to bestow its annual Privacy Award this year on
Susan Freiwald, University of San Francisco Law School
Nicole Ozer, ACLU of California

in recognition of their leadership in securing passage of CalECPA, which establishes the “gold standard” of a judicial warrant for government access to communications, location data and other information about our daily lives.

Keynote: Too Close for Comfort – AI, Cloud Computing, and Privacy 

Recent advances in artificial intelligence, robots, and machine learning are enabled by big data, digital cameras, and cloud computing. These advances open an enormous Pandora’s box in terms of security and privacy. Groundbreaking AI researcher Ken Goldberg will present potential responses, such as a concept for “Respectful Cameras,” a privacy-preserving system for industrial automation. He will explain why claims of an impending “Singularity” are greatly exaggerated and will propose an alternative, “Multiplicity,” where diverse groups of humans work together with diverse groups of machines to innovate and to solve complex problems.

Government Access

With digital evidence central to an increasing number of criminal and foreign intelligence investigations, government demands for access seem to steadily increase. From varying perspectives, this panel will explore emerging issues in government access to data stored with third parties.

Artificial Intelligence and the Right to an Explanation

The General Data Protection Regulation requires that organizations explain to individuals the logic behind decisions rendered by algorithms. This policy is aligned with growing efforts in the machine learning community to improve the interpretability of outputs. This panel will examine a broad range of efforts to address interpretability and potential biases in complex algorithmic systems.

Consent and Contract under EU Data Protection Law

EU privacy regulation continues to have worldwide relevance, especially affecting U.S.-based companies. This session will examine how consumer data can continue to be collected and used given the different approaches in the EU and U.S. to consensual mechanisms for authorizing personal data processing.

The CISO and the entire team of Operational Risk Management professionals at your organization, should be monitoring and creating new strategies to protect the organization.  Scanning the legal horizon on what the new challenges are and how to prepare, is the sign of a sound business strategy.

Startup Strategy: Opportunity of Digital Trust in a New Era...

The startup ecosystem of new ideas for SaaS platforms or mission based digital solutions are becoming evermore robust, in our growing economy.  As a result, Operational Risk professionals are more in demand to help new co-founders adapt to the legal, compliance and consumer transparency requirements, that will soon descend upon them.

It makes sense, that when you are starting a new company you first are focused on the product/mission and who the intended market or user will be.  Yet soon after this is defined and the "Go-to-Market" strategy is in place, there is a tremendous amount of Operational Risk design and implementation of internal capabilities, that will be required.  In just Social Media, here is just one example:

"As social networks continue to mature, they increasingly take on roles they may not have anticipated. Moderating graphic imagery and hate speech, working to address trolling and harassment, and dealing with dissemination of fake news puts companies like Facebook and Twitter in powerful societal positions. Now, Facebook has acknowledged yet another challenge: Keeping your data safe from surveillance. That’s harder than it may sound. When you post something publicly on a social network, anyone can view it—including law enforcement or federal agencies."

Since the dawn of the Internet, new startup companies have been developing algorithms and bots to scour the vast landscape of "data oceans" for relevant content.  As public Internet tools, databases and consumer-oriented web sites were developed for even Blogs (Blogger.com) such as this one, other companies were figuring out how to capture the data content in their searchable systems.

Years later, startups developed ways to develop the API as a new product-set, so that other companies could embed and utilize a set of data or capability and have it more integrated with a new set of functionality or service mission.  What is one company in this category focused on Twitter?  Gnip.com:

"PowerTrack provides customers with the ability to filter a data source’s full firehose, and only receive the data that they or their customers are interested in. This is accomplished by applying Gnip’s PowerTrack filtering language to match Tweets based on a wide variety of attributes, including user attributes, geo-location, language, and many others. Using PowerTrack rules to filter a data source ensures that customers receive all of the data, and only the data they need for your app."

So what?

If you are a startup company that is planning on a pledge to your customers to "Keeping your data safe from surveillance," just as the juggernaut Facebook is also currently doing, you have a tremendous amount of work and new processes/systems to get in place.  You are embarking not only on the steep growth curve of adding new customers and revenue; you are simultaneously under the mandate to help achieve a higher level of "Digital Trust" with those same customers.

Developing the policy alone is only the start.  Here is how Twitter is addressing it:

"To be clear: We prohibit developers using the Public APIs and Gnip data products from allowing law enforcement — or any other entity — to use Twitter data for surveillance purposes. Period. The fact that our Public APIs and Gnip data products provide information that people choose to share publicly does not change our policies in this area. And if developers violate our policies, we will take appropriate action, which can include suspension and termination of access to Twitter’s Public APIs and data products."

How Facebook and Twitter and Snapchat or LinkedIn and all of the hundreds of Social Media companies will scale up enforcement, is now the big question.  Maybe they have the deep pockets and resources to build and operate their "Digital Trust" business unit.  What about the new startup with only 6 or 7 figures in the bank from a seed or even "A" round of funding?

The policy implications and new federal laws being drafted in the United States and the European Union may be good indicators of where the future requirements will be defined for a new startup.  In the EU this week, the G20 finance ministers are converging on the topic of "Cyber Crime" soon after a recent indictment:

"Two intelligence agents from Russia, another G20 member, with masterminding the 2014 theft of 500 million Yahoo accounts. The indictment was the first time U.S. authorities have criminally charged Russian spies for cyber offences including for computer fraud, economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, and wire fraud."

How will the new startup who is focused on addressing transparency, privacy, and surveillance now "Enable Digital Trust of  Global Enterprises."  Here is a glimpse from the latest PwC CEO Survey:

"Yet, if forfeiting people’s trust is a sure-fire route to failure, earning their trust is the single biggest enabler of success. As an example, the progression from assisted to augmented to autonomous intelligence depends on how much consumers and regulators trust machines to operate on their own. That, in turn, depends on whether those who create the machines have the right risk and governance structures, the means to verify and validate their claims independently and the mechanisms to engage effectively with stakeholders."

"In short, trust is an opportunity, not just a risk. Many CEOs recognise as much: 64% think the way their firm manages data will be a differentiating factor in future. These CEOs know that prioritising the human experience in a virtual world entails treating customers with integrity."

Welcome to the new era of achieving Digital Trust...

CIU: Corporate Intelligence Unit...

Over six years later approaching 2017, Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals are experiencing the "New Normal."   In a 2010 CSO Magazine sponsored eCrime Digital Watch Report and survey of 535 companies there are some observations on Operational Risk Management worth examination.

This CERT report the same year was focused on the "Insider Threat" and the area of concern is still on "Digital Incidents by Insiders."  Seven years later, these numbers have only increased:

• Past 12 months the number of incidents reported increased 16%
• The per incident monetary loss (mean) was $394,700.00

Yet these two items are just the trend these days as our global work place becomes more mobile and stratified using more partners, offshore suppliers and other 3rd parties to accomplish the daily tasks and workloads. What is even more alarming are the following stats from the survey:

• 72% of the incidents were handled internally without any legal action or law enforcement.
• 29% of these incidents could not identify a subject responsible for committing a crime.
• 35% of these incidents could not proceed due to a lack of evidence.

Interpreting these numbers prompts several questions worth discovering. First, why were 28% of the incidents handled with some form of legal action or law enforcement? One of two reasons that we can surmise. The incident was exposed to the public as a result of the magnitude or harm that was caused by the incident. The organization was prepared to capture evidence, properly investigate the incident and pursue a recovery of the loss either in a civil or criminal process of law.

Second, why were 35% of the incidents unable to proceed due to a lack of evidence? The organization may be lazy or apathetic to these loss events or may have an insurance policy that covers these types of losses and was able to successfully recover the almost $400,000.00 incident average through this process.

Or, the organization is not capable of leveraging a sound "Digital Governance" and "Legal Policy" framework in order to properly investigate incidents that come from their own internal work place ecosystem of employees, partners, suppliers and other 3rd parties.

In order to gain "Strategic Insight" into these vital Operational Risk matters within the enterprise the organization must establish an intelligence-led investigation. Once the proper evidence collection and analysis is completed on the incident then members of a corporate crisis team or threat management council can make more informed decisions. That brings us to the final question. Why in 71% of the incidents was a subject not identified as being responsible?

The answer to this question has much to do with the previous one where there was a lack of evidence. However, our hunch is that many of these insider incidents were the result of an employee error, mistake or unintended consequences. The lost or stolen laptop from the unlocked car may fill some of this category.

Why would it be in the best legal interest of an organization to have a robust evidence collection capability supported by a sound "Policy Governance and "Legal Framework"?

• Duty of Care
• Duty to Warn
• Duty to Act
• Duty to Supervise

This blog has touched upon these four vital areas of vulnerability to adversarial litigation in the past because we know that whether you ask these questions internally or the state's Attorney General and the FBI ask these questions the answers must be discovered:

1. What did you know?
2. When did you know it?
3. What are you doing about it?

While the number of loss events due to errors or omissions and many times due to a lack of proper training and awareness programs is growing, so are the incidents as a result of the insider threat from:

• Fraud
• Sabotage
• Espionage
• Trade Secrets Theft

The modern day enterprise with preemptive, robust and collaborative law enforcement mechanisms in place has accepted the reality of the threat perspectives in their workplace ecosystem:

• Some individuals who make threats ultimately pose threats.
• Many individuals who make threats do not pose threats.
• Some individuals who pose threats never make threats.

Make sure you read those a few times. As a result of the reality that the workplace ecosystem is an evolving, dynamic and rapidly changing set of human elements, behaviors and motivations the justification for creating more "Strategic Insight" is a necessary mitigation strategy. There is a growing trend today for these enlightened organizations to create and effectively provide the resources for a corporate threat management team. This team is comprised of a spectrum of members that span the digital to physical domains within the company. This includes the Chief Risk Officer, General Counsel, Internal Audit, Public Relations, Human Resources, Corporate Security and Information Technology.

In another less formal survey by Dr. Larry Barton of 630 employers the question was raised on the employee communication channel that caused the company to act on a risk. 38% were through a digital messaging medium such as e-mail, text messages and blogs or social networking sites. The ability to monitor over one third of employee communication channels remains a daunting task to this day.

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 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.

What side of the incident spectrum you are on, either proactive or reactive could mean the difference on whether the attackers continue their schemes and attacks while continuously targeting those with the greatest vulnerabilities. In some cases, those attackers include the plaintiff bar and your evidence of "Duty of Care" is the bulls eye.

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".

Trusted Enterprise: Digital Science in Business...

Digital Trust has been a cornerstone for any serious organization in our 21st century era.  The foundation for an Operational Risk Management (ORM) design, begins with the engineering science of a sound and endurable platform for "Enabling Digital Trust of Global Enterprises."
The Accenture Technology Vision 2016 verifies "Digital Trust" as one of five major trends:

As every digital advancement creates a new vector for risk, trust becomes the cornerstone of the digital economy. Without trust, digital businesses cannot use and share the data that underpins their operations. To gain the trust of individuals, ecosystems, and regulators in the digital economy, businesses must possess strong security and ethics at each stage of the customer journey. And new products and services must be ethical- and secure-by-design. Businesses that get this right will enjoy such high levels of trust that their customers will look to them as guides for the digital future.  Source:  Accenture Technology Vision 2016

The concept of data ethics as a significant component of establishing "Digital Trust" is vital.  When you introduce the concept of ethics to the dialogue on software engineering in the global enterprise, there are several key considerations.  Adding the moral governance of actions taken as a result of insights derived from the analysis of information, is also a valid vector in the design of trustworthiness for modern digital applications.  Yet this means nothing, without first understanding how humans make their decisions to trust.  How effective the entire ecosystem of "Digital Trust" becomes will always come back to the root.  Digital Ground zero.

Ground zero for "Digital Trust" is the actual "Trust Decision" itself.  The science of the "Trust Decision" elements and process has been the focus of researchers and academic study for years.  In order for us to truly understand how to achieve digital trust in business, we must first grasp the science and evidence of the core elements and root of our "TrustDecisions."  Does "Achieving Digital Trust" in the enterprise ensure that, as a business you are "Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care"?   Not necessarily.

The two concepts are mutually exclusive, yet they still have affinity for each other.  Accenture's Technology Vision, provides the enterprise with sound reasoning about how to create a path towards improving digital trust, especially as it pertains to the reputation benefits associated with the "Brand."  Adding the element of ethics, drives the consumer thinking that the business has addressed privacy requirements in terms of the legal rules and usability factors.

Incorporating the conversation in the Board Room about data ethics (collection and use) or how as an enterprise you must design-in legal controls in order to alleviate liability, requires something new.  It requires all interested parties to go back to the root.  How does the human make a decision to trust?  How does a computer make a decision to trust another computer?

The people sitting around the Board Room table are thinking about creating more wealth.  They are not asking themselves, how do computers trust other computers?  In our digital age where decisions are being made as a result of the execution of zeros and ones at light speed, someone has to be designing the trust architecture with the right people in the enterprise.  The question is now at hand, who is that person or business unit?

The answer is going to be different in each business or organization.  What is the maturity of the particular digital ecosystem and how vast is the landscape for the computing assets?  One fact that must be acknowledged early on, is that it probably does not entirely exist today.  The ideal unit of people and systems that are necessary to achieve digital trust, are currently spread out across the typical silos of a business architecture.  IT, Marketing, Legal, Info Security, Privacy perhaps.  However, the dedicated and funded "Digital Trust" team, task force or department, has yet to be established.  So what?

Continue to operate as you are.  Without the advantage of truly understanding the elements of "Trust Decisions" and how this is relevant to "Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care."  A trustworthy computing division, may have existed in the past at your organization, yet initially with another focused mission,  "Cyber Crime" intervention.  You see, the idea of trust and why it is so vital to the success of the information technology industry is not new.  Smart malware researchers and software engineers understood this at the dawn of the Internet.  So why is this any different?

Trustworthy computing in the 90's is not the same as the application of "Trust Decisions" in the year 2016 and beyond.   Especially today, with the speed of cloud computing adoption and the outsourcing of core data transactions across borders.  The international implications of privacy laws and the routing and storing of data outside of your native country, is now in play.  Negotiations by a Nation State to bypass traditional use of mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) is the new normal:

If U.S. and British negotiators have their way, MI5, the British domestic security service, could one day go directly to American companies such as Facebook or Google with a wiretap order for the online chats of British suspects in a counter­terrorism investigation.

The transatlantic allies have quietly begun negotiations this month on an agreement that would enable the British government to serve wiretap orders directly on U.S. communication firms for live intercepts in criminal and national security investigations involving its own citizens. Britain would also be able to serve orders to obtain stored data, such as emails.  Source:  Washington Post

The requirements have changed.  The next era of "Achieving Digital Trust" requires so much more.  It now requires standing up and providing substantial resources to the "TrustDecisions" Unit within the enterprise.  What does this mean to the future of the Trusted Enterprise?

It means that the Chief Information Officer (CIO), Chief Privacy Officer (CPO), General Counsel and Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) will be using data and Digital Science to design a new architecture for the Trusted Enterprise.  They will deliver it to the desk of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) very soon.

Privacy Engineering: Mobile Standards for Digital Trust...

The landscape for software engineering standards within corporate organizations, is now on the radar of Operational Risk Management (ORM) experts.  What are the privacy and security related engineering design standards, that are being utilized at JP Morgan Chase, Citibank or Paypal for mobile App development?

Effective and standardized "Privacy Engineering" of mobile applications at organizations in Critical Infrastructure sectors such as Finance and Banking is just one example.  It is soon to be a greater focus of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and other U.S. regulators.  Why?

"Trust Decisions" are being made by consumers each day, as millions of of mobile banking customers download an application to their Android or iOS smart phones.  The consumer then has immediate exposure to the quality of the software engineering, by the UX/design and developer of the software App.  The standards being utilized by each organization for designing and engineering those Apps with privacy and security, may vary by who developed the application and for what particular operating system.

So what?  U.S. financial institutions software engineering departments and other highly regulated industries will be a continued and concentrated focus by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  Standards for privacy software engineering and disclosure of the rules will become even more of a critical factor.  Why?

As a result, to act within the time constraints of deadlines, the presence of fiercer competition, and the looming threat of higher lost-opportunity costs, you have no choice—you must presume the trustworthiness of the information you acquire to make decisions. Deciding now requires you to acquire the information you need from the most accessible source, with zero time to ask the important questions: “Where did this information come from? Who put this report together? Has the data been confirmed to be accurate? Who actually authored the analysis? Does this bank statement reflect all of our deposits?”

Answering these types of questions is inherent to how we make good decisions. You seek information that serves as fuel for your decision. You work hard to validate that the information can be trusted. You calculate toward your decision, constantly evaluating whether the information holds up its reliability. But in today’s 24/7/365, wired decision-making landscape, there is no time to ask those questions. Those controlling the information you need understand that pressure and require you to presume their digital information is trustworthy and reliable for making your decisions. Thus, to gain control of digital information is to succeed in imposing an enormous handicap—removing your ability to challenge its trustworthiness by asking the right questions.  Source:  Achieving Digital Trust by Jeffrey Ritter.

Is it possible to redesign mobile banking Apps, so that all Android or iOS software engineers must adhere to privacy and security engineering standards of practice?  The human-based "Trust Decisions" about whether to trust an application with personal identifiable information (PII) is currently buried in legal disclosures.  The privacy disclosures are written by lawyers, all different and in most cases never read, by the consumer prior to downloading the App.  Opt-in or Opt-out?

The future of mobile App Privacy and Security Trust engineering for consumers will be in the hands of government regulators soon and in concert with other laws associated with information security, such as the GLBA Safeguards Rule.  "Cyber Trust" indicators or other vital warning systems may be in the works.  Buyer Beware is the theme.

For years consumers have been looking at FDA Nutrition Labels and other Federal oriented tools, to provide more visible and rapidly effective disclosure.  Since the human being is making "Trust Decisions" on whether to download a software application to their computing device, they also may desire a method to quickly ascertain if the App is "Trustworthy."

Can they trust the application according to their particular appetite for risk?  What information will be shared with 3rd parties?  How will your information be used and collected while you are using or not using the application?  Here is one example of how a future warning "Privacy Label" may look before a consumer is permitted to download an application to their computing device.

What does the consumer experience today?  As one example, currently when you visit the App Store on an iOS mobile device such as the iPad, and then search for "Chase", the top choice is an App named Chase Mobile.  When you click on the "Get" button, it changes to "Install".  When you click on "Install" it prompts you to Sign In to iTunes Store.  Once you sign-in, the Chase Mobile App downloads to your device, the button then changes to "Open."

When you open the Chase Mobile App, it opens the first screen to "Log On".  There is a small "Privacy" button in the top left corner of the screen, however there is not an easy to understand Privacy Label that is visible before you actually "Log On" to Chase.  In the case of selecting the Privacy button in the upper left corner, it then reveals dozens of pages of legal documents explaining online privacy policy and U.S. consumer privacy notices.  There is however one easier to view grid, under the privacy notice that is helpful in understanding whether Chase shares personal information and whether as a consumer, you can limit this sharing.

The Critical Infrastructure sectors of the U.S. economy, that has a daily interface with consumers through mobile software Apps are now on notice.  Chief Legal Counsels, Chief Information Officers, Chief Privacy Officers and Software Engineering personnel, must address the reality of human behavior and how "Trust Decisions" impact legal risk and the ultimate perception of the corporate brand.

Legal Risk: The Insider Threat from Outside Counsel...

What will the "New Normal" be for the United States in the era of increased scrutiny on privacy law, civil liberties and the continuous quest for the security of the Homeland?  Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals are ever more focused on "Information Operations" and counterintelligence functions while simultaneously working side-by-side, with their own General Counsel.  The laws in each state are changing and being updated as the Federal legislation stalemate continues:

Connecticut Updates its Data Security Laws, Imposing Stringent New Requirements By Ellen Moskowitz on July 15th, 2015 Posted in Legislation

On June 30, 2015, the Governor of Connecticut signed into law S.B. 949, “An Act Improving Data Security and Agency Effectiveness.”[1] The new law updates Connecticut’s data security laws, including by adding a 90-day hard deadline for data breach reporting, requiring companies in some cases to offer data breach victims a year of free identify theft prevention services, imposing new and specific data security program requirements on health insurance companies and other entities subject to Insurance Department regulation, and requiring state agencies to impose certain detailed security requirements on state contractors that maintain personal information. With a near constant stream of data breaches affecting entities from health insurers to retail giants to the government, the law responds to growing fears of data security.

Under the new law, beginning October 1, 2015, a data breach will require any person or entity conducting business in Connecticut to give notice “without unreasonable delay,” but now no later than 90 days after discovery of the breach, to state residents whose personal information was breached or reasonably believed to have been breached. The Connecticut Attorney General stated in a press release that 90 days is an “outside limit” that does not diminish his discretion to take action against entities who “unduly delay” notification.[2] Importantly, the law also requires the provision of at least twelve months of free identity theft prevention and mitigation services, but only in cases where Social Security numbers are breached or reasonably believed to have been breached.

If you happen to be concerned about the "Insider Threat" within your enterprise, then you realize the importance of creating the foundations for a sound legal framework.  One that addresses the rules that must be followed and the protocols for building trust with key corporate partners.  This includes the outside counsel that your enterprise engages with on an annual basis.

So what legal duty of care do your retained outside counsel have to secure your information?  What do they have in the environments that they operate in that may cause additional legal risks for your enterprise?  Do they understand the difference between information security and confidentiality?

First tier supply chain partners such as outside counsel are no different than the cloud provider or the HVAC contractor that may have access to the corporate network.  So what is the root cause of substantial intellectual property theft and industrial espionage targeted on law firms?  Failing to understand the vast landscape of "Operational Risk."  This includes negligent conduct and intentional misconduct.  So what can you do now to improve the outcomes of managing the legal risks of "Outside Counsel"?

Start a Dialogue:  Request a commitment to review the privacy vs. security environment of the key retained firms who provide the outside legal work for the enterprise.  Provide a case example of your corporate information security structure and priorities.

Ask Questions:  The whole spectrum of information security deserves a deep dive in the dialogue on managing digital information, making effective "Trust Decisions" and addressing eDiscovery and Records Management questions.

Team Together:  What if you worked with your outside firm to create a solution that included a collaborative design, prioritized execution, insisted upon cooperative feedback and insured continuous improvement?  Get your legal teams to train together with your CISO and CIO security teams.

Revise the Engagement Letter:  The contracting language must include the nuances of information security, privacy controls and an informative strategic plan for the inevitable point in time when there is a data breach at your outside counsel.  More here:

As Willie Sutton supposedly said, he robbed banks “because that’s where the money is.”  That also explains why law firms and lawyers are increasingly the targets of cyber-intrusion, particularly phishing scams.  Apparently, phishing in legal waters can yield a full net of stolen information.

“Most likely” to take the bait
Verizon’s 2015 Data Breach Investigations Report has found that a company’s legal department is among the ones that are “far more likely to actually open [a phishing] e-mail than all other departments.”

In case you’ve been living under a rock, “phishing” is the attempt to obtain sensitive information fraudulently by means of a deceptive electronic communication that appears to come from a trustworthy source.  (Some link the term to the indie rock group Phish, but according to Computerworld magazine, the term was coined round 1996, with the obvious analogy to the sport of angling using a lure.  Under that view, the “ph” is a nod to an old form of telephone hacking known as “phone phreaking.”)

Shockingly, Verizon found that 23 percent of recipients open phishing messages, and 11 percent click on the fatal attachments.

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.