Command, Control, and Conquer

Back in the ’90s, there was a game released called Command and Conquer, a strategic game whereby you had to manage resources, build, train and mobilise armies and conquer the neighbouring armies. It was a classic that spawned many spin-offs, sequels and addons for decades. What struck me about it though was how multi-skilled you had to be, especially in the later levels.

You couldn’t just be an excellent Field Marshall as you also had to manage resources, cash and other materials to create your buildings and structures that allowed you to create your army in the first place. You had to know logistics, how long something would take to build, train and mobilise, look into the future at new locations for better access to materials, and also have plans in place if the enemy attacked before you were ready.

Essentially, you were skipping from one crisis to the next, finely balancing between success and crashing failure. It sounds a lot like any modern-day incident management situation really.

In this week’s The Lost CISO (season 2), I take a quick look at incident management and highlight four key points to remember during an incident. In case you haven’t seen it yet. here it:

The bottom line is that, much like in the Command & Conquer game, you could plan ahead what you were doing because the environment was constantly changing, the unknowns were stubbornly remaining unknowns and the literal (in the case of the game) fog of war meant you can’t see more than just a few steps ahead. There are though some keys to success.

The first key point is that having a plan is all well and good, but as my military friend regularly tell me;

no plan survives contact with the enemy

Why? Because the enemy much like life does random, unexpected and painful things on a regular basis. Incidents have a habit of doing the same thing, so if your plan is rigid, overly explicit and has little room to ad-lib or manoeuvre in, it will fail.

Therefore, my approach has always been to build any kind of plan around four simple areas:

  • Command
  • Control
  • Communication
  • Collaboration

In other words, decide who is in charge, decide who is responsible for what areas, ensure everyone knows how to talk to each other, ensure everyone works openly and honestly with everyone else. There may be some other details in there as well, but really, if you have these four areas covered your plans will remain flexible and effective, and you may find yourself being able to close incidents more quickly and efficiently.

With all that extra time on your hands, you can then spend some time basking under the Tiberian sun.


The Runners and Riders of Lockdown

After over six weeks of some kind of lockdown here in the UK, and similar amounts of time elsewhere in the world, it has become very obvious to me that many companies out there are simply ill-equipped to deal with the change in lifestyle the lockdown demands.

By ill-equipped, I don’t just mean from a technology perspective, although we see some of that as companies reduce security requirements to get users online from home. What I mean is that culturally they are not equipped to deal not only with a workforce that needs to work remotely but also a market that is doing the same. Put simply; companies are struggling to re-gear their sales and marketing departments to this brave new world we find ourselves.

I say this because as an industry we are used to a plethora of in-person events happening where vendors can either have stalls displaying their latest products, or stages where carefully polished presentations and panels are put on for us to watch, learn and hopefully decide to buy their product from. Webinars and online events were there but were the distant, impoverished, uglier cousin of something live, in-person and your face. Indeed, just a few weeks before the lockdown I was at RSA Conference in San Francisco, where the very epitome of what I describe was played out for the world to see.*

Then suddenly, it all stopped. Conferences and shows were cancelled, events postponed indefinitely, and in many cases, the security product landscape just stopped. I understand why, in many cases, cash flow needed to be conserved in these unprecedented times. However, it very quickly became apparent that this was the new normal, and that the companies that didn’t embrace it would quickly become irrelevant. after all, if you can’t adapt to a few weeks of disruption, what kind of company are you, delivering products to an industry that needs to plan for disruption?

I watched “Have I Got News For you” in those first few weeks on the BBC, a topical panel show comprised of 5 people, and they did it by having the guests record from their homes.

Have I Got News For You, March 2020

It was different, the dynamic was… a little off… but the show went ahead, the jokes landed, and each subsequent show got better. In other words, the BBC just got on with it, embraced the change, and made it work.

The same needs to happen to many of the security vendors, as unfortunately, it is a case of remaining relevant throughout the lockdown, in the front of people’s minds, and showing that they can overcome adversity by delivering knowledge and information. Those that don’t do it, retract into their proverbial shells and wait for “normality” to return will suffer.

Also, let us assume that normality does return, whatever form that might take. Those that have embraced these alternative Zoom/Skype/Teams/Hangouts/whatever approaches may find they are just as valuable as in-person events and can operate both, side by side, now unconstrained by the lockdown and able to use film and audio in even more creative ways. Which company would you choose to work with in the future, the one who sat tight, and did little market outreach during the lockdown, or the company that continued to communicate with their clients and potential clients through different mediums, sometimes getting it wrong but continually innovating and improving. Which company has the better culture?

It isn’t even a matter of cost. The LinkedIn Live, Zoom, Webinar etc. technologies already existed and were invested in, just woefully underutilised.

The same argument also applies to work from home, as many organisations now realise that productivity isn’t hours sat at the office desk, but rather results.  Which organisation/manager would you want to work for? The one that never changes or the culturally adaptive one that is based on results and trust?

These are challenging times, but these are the times that are going to show many companies in their true light, and you can use this time to differentiate between them.

 

*I do love a good conference, and the benefits they bring to my peers and me are fabulous, in case you think I am biased against them.


Shameless Coronavirus Special Promotion – Risk Edition!

iu-18Many, many moons ago, my good friend and learned colleague Javvad Malik and I came up with a way to explain how a risk model works by using an analogy to a pub fight. I have used it in a presentation that has been given several times, and the analogy has really helped people understand risk, and especially risk appetite more clearly (or so they tell me). I wrote a brief overview of the presentation and the included risk model in this blog some years back.

And now the Coronavirus has hit humanity AND the information security industry. Everyone is losing their minds deciding if they should self isolate, quarantine or even just generally ignore advice from the World Health Organisation (like some governments have shown a propensity to do) and carry on as usual and listen to the Twitter experts. During a conversation of this nature, Javvad and I realised that the Langford/Malik model could be re-purposed to not only help those who struggle with risk generally (most humans) but those who really struggle to know what to do about it from our own industry (most humans, again).

Disclaimer: we adopted the ISO 27005:2018 approach to measuring risk as it is comprehensive enough to cover most scenarios, yet simple enough that even the most stubborn of Board members could understand it. If you happen to have a copy you can find it in section E.2.2, page 48, Table E.1.

Click the image to view in more detail and download.

The approach is that an arbitrary, yet predefined (and globally understood) value is given to the Likelihood of Occurrence – Threat, the Ease of Exploitation, and the Asset Value of the thing being “risk measured”. This generates a number from 0-8 going from little risk to high risk. The scores can then be banded together to define if they are High, Medium or low, and can be treated in accordance with your organisation’s risk appetite and risk assessment procedures.

In our model, all one would have to do is define the importance of their role from “Advocate” (low) to “Sysadmin” (high), personality type (how outgoing you are) and the Level of human Interaction your role is defined as requiring. Once ascertained, you can read off your score and see where you sit in the risk model.

In order to make things easier for you, dear reader, we then created predefined actions in the key below the model based upon that derived risk score, so you know exactly what to do. In these troubled times, you can now rest easy in the knowledge that not only do you understand risk more but also what to do in a pandemic more.

You’re welcome.

Note: Not actual medical advice. Do I really need to state this?


The Lost CISO who?

And why am I being spammed with Twitter and LinkedIn about him all the time at the moment?

I came up with the concept of The Lost CISO when I was working late in the office one night. I decided to start writing and doing something about it straight away, and even created the banner and took my own picture for it sat at my desk. I also pulled the graphics together there and then, not in Photoshop, but Apple Pages (I was an executive at the time and to my shame do not know how to use PhotoShop. It still came out alright I think, though.

youtube-banner-png.png

The idea was to create short informational videos, 2-3 minutes long, almost like a high energy presentation, in front of a green screen that I could then superimpose relevant imagery etc. It was a good concept, I thought, and within my technical skills with a camera and Final Cut Pro X. Or so I thought. I could also put all of my other InfoSec videos under the same brand, tying it up into a neat piece of branding. The films would be aimed at people simply are keen to learn, and no more. Not all of it will be groundbreaking stuff, but it will be researched, experienced or just advice that flies in the face of common knowledge. The basics, Plus, I suppose.

I created a test and shared it with some friend who gave me some honest feedback on quality, imagery etc.. I then did a first episode (bearing in mind each one took me about 7 days of intermittent working to edit), shared it again, and excitedly held my breath.

“Do not release this… it will do your personal brand more damage than good…”

Ouch.

Back to the drawing board; except I didn’t, life and work got in the way. Until twelve months went by, and I decided to just get this done properly once and for all. So I invested in some quality lighting, foley and a decent green screen, and even hired someone to do the filming and editing for me, and got to work. Of course, now I run my own business, I wasn’t able to prepare the topics as well as I wanted. To be honest, I pretty much flew through the filming so I could get onto the next job in my increasingly long To-Do list, but the quality, and to be honest, the creative talent I hired shines through far more than before.

As always, my success (such as it is) is tied to the talent of others. A lesson for everyone there, I think…

What’s the infosec lesson here? None really, although perhaps at a stretch I could say that just because my original idea failed didn’t mean it was a bad one, and I just needed the right resources. I don’t know, parallels to infosec education and awareness training maybe.

I hope you enjoy the series, and please do comment on them, let me know what you think and also if you would like a particular topic covered.

 

 

 

 


Keeping It Supremely Simple, the NASA way

Any regular reader (hello to both of you) will know that I also follow an ex NASA engineer/manager by the name of Wayne Hale. Having been in NASA for much of his adult life and being involved across the board he brings a fascinating view of the complexities of space travel, and just as interestingly, to risk.

His recent post is about damage to the Space Shuttle’s foam insulation on the external fuel tank (the big orange thing),and the steps NASA went through to return the shuttle to active service after it was found that loose foam was what had damaged the heat shield of Columbia resulting in its destruction. His insight into the machinations of NASA, the undue influence of Politics as well as politics, and that ultimately everything comes down to a risk based approach make his writing compelling and above all educational. This is writ large in the hugely complex world fo space travel, something I would hazard a guess virtually all of us are not involved in!

It was when I read the following paragraph that my jaw dropped a little as I realised  that even in NASA many decisions are based on a very simple presentation of risk, something I am a vehement supporter of:

NASA uses a matrix to plot the risks involved in any activity.  Five squares by five squares; rating risk probability from low to high and consequence from negligible to catastrophic.  The risk of foam coming off part of the External Tank and causing another catastrophe was in the top right-hand box:  5×5:  Probable and Catastrophic.  That square is colored red for a reason.

What? The hugely complex world of NASA is governed by a five by five matrix like this?

Isn’t this a hugely simplistic approach that just sweeps over the complexities and nuances of an immensely complex environment where lives are at stake and careers and reputations constantly on the line? Then the following sentence made absolute sense, and underscored the reason why risk is so often poorly understood and managed:

But the analysts did more than just present the results; they discussed the methodology used in the analysis.

It seems simple and obvious, but the infused industry very regularly talks about how simple models like a traffic light approach to risk just don’t reflect the environment we operate in, and we have to look at things in a far more complex way to ensure the nuance and complexity of our world is better understood. “Look at the actuarial sciences” they will say. I can say now i don’t subscribe to this.

The key difference with NASA though is that the decision makers understand how the scores are derived, and then discuss that methodology, then the interpretation of that traffic light colour is more greatly understood. In his blog Wayne talks of how the risk was actually talked down based upon the shared knowledge of the room and a careful consideration of the environment the risks were presented. In fact the risk as it was initially presented was actually de-escalated and a decision to go ahead was made.

Imagine if that process hadn’t happened; decisions may have been made based on poor assumptions and poor understanding of the facts, the outcome of which had the potential to be catastrophic.

The key point I am making is that a simple approach to complex problems can be taken, and that ironically it can be harder to make it happen. Everyone around the table will need to understand how the measures are derived, educated on the implications, and in a position to discuss the results in a collaborative way. Presenting an over complex, hard to read but “accurate” picture of risks will waste everyone’s time.

And if they don’t have time now, how will they be able to read Wayne’s blog?