Awareness

Paul McCartney wrote “The Long and Winding Road” while the Beatles were in the throes of dissent and months away from breaking up. Listening now to the song’s yearning lyrics and plaintive melody, is it possible that Sir Paul actually anticipated the NIST Cybersecurity Framework’s Recover function, and was imagining the category titled Recovery Planning?

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” Although catchy, we all know that the real keys to success after failure are reflection and adaptation, not mere persistence.

It’s been nearly two years since we addressed cyber insurance in the Cyber Tactics column, so I decided to get an update from Bob Parisi, Managing Director at Marsh.

Mike Tyson notably said, “Everyone has a plan ‘till they get punched in the mouth.” So, how do you ensure the same doesn’t hold true for your company’s incident response plan when a real breach occurs?  Enter the NIST Framework category titled Mitigation.

Albert Einstein once observed, “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

Cybersecurity is out of control. Literally. 

A significant part of incident response involves communication.

We find ourselves in the middle of football season as we tackle the NIST Cybersecurity Framework’s “Respond” function.

It takes months for most computer intrusion victims to learn they were breached.  Unfortunately, the hackers get busy much sooner, often stealing data within days if not minutes.

To quote Shakespeare, “What’s in a name?”

This article is the twelfth in our ongoing series exploring the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. 

Network security practitioners often look to solve technical problems with technical solutions: “The engineers got us into this mess; they can get us out of it.”

When students and staff at the Coast Guard Academy needed their laptops and mobile phones repaired, they called Larry Mathews. For over a decade, Mathews owned the local computer repair shop. Then he pleaded guilty to computer intrusion.

Tell somebody that you’re planning to make a plan, and you’ll get some snide looks. But tell somebody that you have a good plan in place, and it instills a sense of preparation and confidence.

Cybersecurity is a topic so broad that the NIST Framework addresses the concept of “Data Security” as just one of 22 important risk categories.

The NIST Framework lists “awareness and training” as a key component of network protection. But how do you go about it? 

As part of our continuing series on the NIST Framework, we completed our review of the “Identify” category last month.  

Starting last August, we began the current series of articles to provide our readers with a deep dive into the NIST Framework and its approach to Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond to and Recover from cybersecurity incidents.

Privacy considerations are rising in business significance, and not simply as a matter of data breach liability.

Placed within the Identify function of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework is a category called Risk Assessment.

Good governance should translate into your organization having high confidence that these four principles hold true.

This is the second in a recurring series that explores the cybersecurity principles and best practices found within the National Institute of Standards & Technology Cybersecurity Framework. You may recall from last month’s column that NIST organizes cybersecurity risk management into five high-level functions: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond and Recover.

This is the first in a recurring series that explores the functions, categories and subcategories of the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) cybersecurity framework.

Mention cybersecurity and immediate thoughts turn to technical controls such as firewalls, endpoint detection and patching systems. While these and other technical controls certainly are necessary, they must work in tandem with administrative and physical controls in order to form a mature risk mitigation program. This month, we will explore some of the physical aspects of cyber risk management, which inherently relies upon on-site security personnel and employee training for proper execution.

This month’s column takes over where we left off in April, bringing to a close our Top 10 list of widely held cybersecurity myths. This month’s list should prove no less provocative.

We have been following the same cybersecurity approach, more or less, for over a decade. Yet, most everyone agrees that the problem continues to grow worse. Perhaps we are not on the right course. Maybe we are operating on false assumptions. The following list (to be continued in next month’s column) is meant to promote a dialogue about what, in my view, are widely held cybersecurity myths.

Consider the irony of withholding threat and vulnerability information in the name of national security that, if properly disseminated, would do more to help our national security.

I recently interviewed Marc Goodman, founder of the Future Crimes Institute and author of the recently published book “Future Crimes: Everything is Connected, Everyone is Vulnerable, and What We Can Do About It.” In his book, Goodman sets forth with great precision the frightening extent to which current and emerging technologies are harming national and corporate security, putting people’s lives at risk, eroding privacy, and even altering our perceptions of reality.

Congress has proposed dozens of bills related to cybersecurity topics over the last decade, all of which went nowhere. That is, until recently.