Category Archives: Internet risk management strategies

Common Sense Lacking for Big Perils such as Georgia Hurricane or WorstCase Worm

KClark.jpg Why it’s not good to depend on common sense for really big perils:
The models these companies created differed from peril to peril, but they all had one thing in common: they accepted that the past was an imperfect guide to the future. No hurricane has hit the coast of Georgia, for instance, since detailed records have been kept. And so if you relied solely on the past, you would predict that no hurricane ever will hit the Georgia coast. But that makes no sense: the coastline above, in South Carolina, and below, in Florida, has been ravaged by storms. You are dealing with a physical process, says Robert Muir-Wood, the chief scientist for R.M.S. There is no physical reason why Georgia has not been hit. Georgias just been lucky. To evaluate the threat to a Georgia beach house, you need to see through Georgias luck. To do this, the R.M.S. modeler creates a history that never happened: he uses what he knows about actual hurricanes, plus what he knows about the forces that create and fuel hurricanes, to invent a 100,000-year history of hurricanes. Real history serves as a guide it enables him to see, for instance, that the odds of big hurricanes making landfall north of Cape Hatteras are far below the odds of them striking south of Cape Hatteras. It allows him to assign different odds to different stretches of coastline without making the random distinctions that actual hurricanes have made in the last 100 years. Generate a few hundred thousand hurricanes, and you generate not only dozens of massive hurricanes that hit Georgia but also a few that hit, say, Rhode Island.

In Nature’s Casino, By Michael Lewis, New York Times, August 26, 2007

And of course a hurricane did hit the Georgia coast before detailed records were kept, in 1898. The article notes that before Hurricane Andrew, insurers believed that a Florida hurricane would cost max a few billion. The actual cost was more like $15.5 billion, predicted only by one woman: Karen Clark, founder of A.I.R.

Sure, the Georgia coast doesn’t have any single concentration of wealth like Miami. But it does have a swath of wealth that could be taken down by a single storm. And complacent owners who think it can’t ever happen, just like people in Thailand didn’t believe Smith Dharmasaroja before the 2004 Tsunami.

Meanwhile, on the Internet, the few insurers of Internet business continuity are winging it and most companies have no insurance at all, despite online crime becoming increasingly sophisticated, leveraging the global reach of the Internet, and the possibility of a global worm that could cause $100 billion damage still being out there.

-jsq .

DRM: The Secret that Can’t be Kept

Cory Doctorow on why DRM can never work:
It’s great for email, but it can never work for movies, TV shows or music, because in the case of “copy protection” the receiver is also the person that the system is meant to guard itself against.

Say I sell you an encrypted DVD: the encryption on the DVD is supposed to stop you (the DVD’s owner) from copying it. In order to do that, it tries to stop you from decrypting the DVD.

Except it has to let you decrypt the DVD some of the time. If you can’t decrypt the DVD, you can’t watch it. If you can’t watch it, you won’t buy it. So your DVD player is entrusted with the keys necessary to decrypt the DVD, and the film’s creator must trust that your DVD player is so well-designed that no one will ever be able to work out the key.

Pushing the impossible, by Cory Doctorow, Guardian Unlimited, Tuesday September 4 2007

So as long as you can keep a secret from yourself, DRM will work….

-jsq

To Insure or Not to Insure?

firewallmovie.jpg Iang reminds me that it was on his blog, Financial Cryptography, that I saw the rough estimate of how much an identity theft costs, that is, about $1,000.

He follows up on my post of yesterday about LifeLock, discussing a company called Integrity which insures identities in Second Life. Or, actually, insures any lawsuits resulting from "inappropriate content", whatever that is.

Then he gets to the real quesion:

How viable is this model? The first thing would be to ask: can’t we fix the underlying problem? For identity theft, apparently not, Americans want their identity system because it gives them their credit system, and there aren’t too many Americans out there that would give up the right to drive their latest SUV out of the forecourt.

On the other hand, a potential liability issue within a game would seem to be something that could be solved. After all, the game operator has all the control, and all the players are within their reach. Tonight’s pop-quiz: Any suggestions on how to solve the potential for large/class-action suits circling around dodgy characters and identity?

— If Insurance is the Answer to Identity, what’s the Question?, Iang, Financial Cryptography, September 11, 2007

This wraps right around to the original reaction of the person from whom I heard it (hi, Anne Marie) on a list that is silent.

I have several thoughts about this:

Continue reading

Outrage at Outrage Management

outrage.png
management.png

So we were discussing Peter Sandman’s recommendations for outrage management, which mostly have to do with how to deal with management not doing something that you’ve given them rational reasons to do, because of some emotional resistance or other. The opposite problem also occurs: they believe you; they just don’t care. Then you could use some outrage.

Alex brings up two good points in the previous comments:

I’m afraid that outside of usefulness in those communications channels, I just would hesitate to use the term "Outrage". For example, creating "Outrage" metrics sounds like you’re working in hollywood publicity for Paris Hilton, not protecting business assets. 🙂

Yes, exactly, it’s usefulness in these communications channels, that is, with management, that emotion, up to and including outrage, has to be used and managed.

Continue reading

Metricon: Puzzle vs. Mystery

rct_pointing2.jpg Here at Metricon 2.0, many interesting talks, as expected.

For example, Russell Cameron Thomas of Meritology mentioned the difference between puzzle thinking (looking only under the light you know) and mystery thinking (shining a light into unknown areas to see what else is out there). Seems to me most of traditional security is puzzle thinking. Other speakers and questioners said things in other talks like "that’s a business question that we can’t control" (literally throwing up hands); we can only measure where "we can intervene"; "we don’t have enough information" to form an opinion, etc. That’s all puzzle thinking.

Which is unfortunate, given that measuring only what you know makes measurements hard to relate to business needs, hard to apply to new, previously unknown problems, and very hard to use to deal with problems you cannot fix.

Let me hasten to add that Thomas’s talk, entitled "Security Meta Metrics—Measuring Agility, Learning, and Unintended Consequence", went beyond these puzzle difficulties and into mysteries such as uncertainty and mitigation.

Not only that, but his approach of an inner operational loop (puzzle) tuned by an outer research loop (mystery) is strongly reminiscent of John R. Boyd’s OODA loop. Thomas does not appear to have been aware of Boyd, which maybe is evidence that by reinventing much the same process description Thomas has validated that Boyd was onto something.

-jsq

ROI v. NPV v. Risk Management

southwestcfo.jpg There’s been some comment discussion in about security ROI. Ken Belva’s point is that you can have a security ROI, to which I have agreed (twice). Iang says he’s already addressed this topic, in a blog entry in which he points out that
Calculating ROI is wrong, it should be NPV. If you are not using NPV then you’re out of court, because so much of security investment is future-oriented.

ROI: security people counting with fingers? Iang, Financial Cryptography, July 20, 2007

Iang’s entry also says that we can’t even really do Net Present Value (NPV) because we have no way to calculate or predict actual costs with any accuracy. He also says that security people need to learn about business, which I’ve also been harping on. I bet if many security people knew what NPV was, they’d be claiming they had it as much as they’re claiming they have ROI. Continue reading

Security ROI: Possible, but Not the Main Point

gordon.jpg Many people have argued about wondered whether information security can have a computed Return on Investment (ROI). The man who co-wrote the book on ROI, Managing Cybersecurity Resources: A Cost-Benefit Analysis says yes, it’s possible, but in general, “maximizing the ROI (or IRR [real economic rate of return]) is, in general, not an appropriate economic objective.” What, then?
Rather than trying to derive the ROI of security investments, a much better strategy is to work on the related issues of deriving an optimal (or at least desirable) level of information security investments and the best way to allocate such investments. This strategy is the focus of the Gordon-Loeb Model (for a brief summary of the focus of this model, and a link to the actual paper, go to: (http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/faculty/lgordon/Gordon%20Loeb%20Model%20cybersecurity.htm

Email from Dr. Lawrence Gordon: Security ROI possible but not optimal, use other metrics, Posted by Kenneth F. Belva, bloginfosec.com, 18 July 2007

Belva reads the recommended paper and finds it to say:
The Gordon-Loeb Model also shows that, for a given level of potential loss, the optimal amount to spend to protect an information set does not always increase with increases in the information set’s vulnerability. In other words, organizations may derive a higher return on their security activities by investing in cyber/information security activities that are directed at improving the security of information sets with a medium level of vulnerability.
From which Belva concludes that “we do understand Information Security to have a return.” Well, yes. Continue reading

Precision Can Hide Accuracy

target.png Metrics are good, but just because they’re precise doesn’t mean they’re useful:
I’ve been thinking a little bit about “threat/vulnerability” pairing. You know the drill, go out, get a scan – match the scan data to existing exploits, and voila! You’ve got risk.

Now regular readers and FAIR practitioners know that I don’t believe this exercise gives you risk at all. In fact, in FAIR terms, I’m not sure this exercise does much for finding Vulnerability.

My Assertion To You: The industry loves T/V pairing because it is precise. It looks good on paper, and if you’re a consultant doing it, it looks like you’ve earned your hourly rate. We love The precision of T/V pairing gives us a false sense of accuracy.

Accuracy, Precision, And Threat/Vulnerability Pairing, Alex, RiskAnalys.is, 23 July 2007

He goes on to point out you also need to consider who’s likely to attack you, as in such Threat Agents, as he calls htem, may be too stupid to use a given exploit, or too smart to use it because they’ve got a better way. He recommends some statistical analysis to help out.

I’d also recommend more basic steps, such as not using IE and shifting away from other monoculture software until you’ve got a mix of software from different sources. Those things will usually get you in trouble with sales and marketing, however, because hey, they’ve never had any problems, well, not many, and it’s not their job to fix them. The precise thing isn’t necessarily the right thing.

-jsq

Identify Theft Prevention

Here’s a useful list of mobile computing security guidelines, plus some links to collections of information loss incidents:

http://attrition.org/dataloss/,
http://breachalerts.trustedid.com/,
http://doj.nh.gov/consumer/breaches.html,
http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/ChronDataBreaches.htm

—: Information Security Policy 101 – Mobile Computing Policy,by The Trusted Toolkit, The Trusted Toolkit Blog, 23 July 2007

-jsq

Metricon 2.0

sundial.jpg
Photograph Copyright © 2007 Roy Tennant

It’s Metricon time again. Security metrics, to support business purposes, especially risk management. Well, that’s my interpretation.

Gunnar posts William Gibson’s take on the idea from his previous novel:

"We have no future because our present is too volatile.
We have only risk management.
The spinning of the given moment’s scenarios.
Pattern recognition…”

-jsq