The Trusted Computing Group and the National Institute of Standards and Technology Tuesday joined to give their blessing to the union of two technologies that each have championed: TCG with its network-access control standard called Trusted Network Connect, and NIST with its desktop-security configuration standard called the Security Control Automation Protocol
# The organization must understand which frameworks or framework elements are needed to address, at a minimum, the critical security concerns. When addressing control requirements, more is not necessarily better, and each additional control entity represents an investment in time, money, and effort.
# Choose a base framework to use. An organization should identify a base framework to contain the additional controls. This framework should be as broad as is viable, allowing for only minimal, more specific needs to be addressed.
# Break the identified framework elements down according to functional areas and combine controls into like families or tiers. Different frameworks often contain equivalent controls under different headings or focus areas. By understanding where the controls map to one another, existing controls can often simply be enhanced rather than having to add completely different compliance needs.
# Identify critical controls that address the most restrictive requirements. In many situations, there will be control objectives that must be accomplished, intermingled with additional categories that are simply “good-to-have”. The action items that are required for compliance needs should be categorized as more critical.
# Define control “numbering system” and nomenclature. For ease of evaluation and tracking, the combined framework elements should be indexed in a way that allows them to be viewed as parts of a whole. In addition, a formalized control language should be used to address concepts across the new framework, avoiding confusion as compliance efforts begin.
# Identify affected data. Just as it was necessary in the first step to identify which controls and frameworks were needed, it becomes necessary to reverse the process, ensuring that all elements of data that are subject to the collected controls. The majority of this information was known at the start of the exercise, but a second glance after consolidating the requirements often identifies additional data sources, repositories, and systems.
# Understand data flows. As critical as it is to understand the affected data elements, it is just as important to understand where those data elements reside and why. How the information is collected, processed, stored, and transmitted is essential to determining in-scope systems, applications, and processes that must adhere to the new framework.
# Formally define scope of data controlled by the frameworks. After identifying the data flow patterns and practices, a consolidated list of servers, systems, applications, processes, and governance items must be created and then reviewed against expected values.
# Reduce data scope aggressively. Each data control element is an investment in time, money, and effort. The same can be said for each element of the in-scope data that is addressed by the combined framework. Existing business processes and needs should be used to determine if data is being used or retained in inappropriate or unneeded areas. Where possible, data should be consolidated and purged, reducing the overall scope of control coverage, especially critical control requirements such as those brought on by legal or regulatory provisions. (Editor’s note: see Ben Rothke and David Mundhenk’s guidance on reducing PCI scope.)
# Classify affected data according to impact. Some controls will be identified as more critical, and the data elements associated with these will likewise be viewed as more sensitive. These classes of information assets should be classified and labeled to ensure that adequate attention is applied.
# Define data lifecycle elements based upon classification levels and requirements identified by various standards and practices. Once the combined framework controls are in place; the data is identified, scoped, and minimized; and classification levels have been established, a comprehensive data lifecycle program should be implemented. Through this process, end users can manage data elements, complying with the chosen control framework requirements without having to conduct extensive research into sometimes arcane control sets.
# Review existing infrastructure, policy, and procedure against the consolidated framework and data lifecycle requirements. Governance and operational resources must be reviewed against the newly developed framework and associated lifecycle elements. Where needed, changes should be made to support the new controls system.
# Implement consistent solutions across all data elements located within the tier. The supporting processes that enable the controls effectiveness should be viewed from the perspective of consistent, modular growth. Networks, systems, and management tools should be designed to scale or be replaced easily. Consolidated security programs (such as incident response, vulnerability management, and change management) and scheduled requirements (audits, penetration testing, vulnerability assessments, risk assessments, and reports) should be updated to address all required controls across the entire framework, resulting in a consistent, singular approach to compliance and readiness.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has once again pushed back its enforcement deadline for an identity theft –lated regulation called the Red Flags Rule.
The rule requires financial institutions and other organizations that extend consumer credit to develop and implement written policies for detecting and preventing identity theft.
The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) today filed a lawsuit against the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prevent the agency from subjecting medical practices to identify-theft regulations called “Red Flags Rules.”
Today, OWASP has released an updated report capturing the top ten risks associated with the use of web applications in an enterprise. This colorful 22 page report is packed with examples and details that explain these risks to software developers, managers, and anyone interested in the future of web security. Everything at OWASP is free and open to everyone, and you can download the latest OWASP Top 10 report for free at:
… When we asked the 379 respondents to our InformationWeek Analytics survey on regulatory compliance how many requirement sets their organizations are addressing, the No. 1 answer was four or more, at 35%.
A federal cybersecurity law edged closer to reality late last week when the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill to protect the personal data of Americans. The bill is a bipartisan effort sponsored by Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and co-sponsored by former Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, that would, among other things, force companies and data brokers to institute data privacy and security programs.
A U.S. House subcommittee approved Nov. 4 the Cybersecurity Coordination and Awareness Act, legislation that would require NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) to develop and implement a plan to ensure coordination within the U.S. government with regard to the development of international cybersecurity technical standards.
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee passes two bills that establish federal guidelines for data breach notifications.
Two sweeping bills that would set new standards for data breach notifications made their way out of the Senate Judiciary Committee Nov. 5.
The committee voted yes on the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2009 (S.1490) and the Data Breach Notification Act (S.139). The vote means the bills are now headed to the full Senate for its stamp of approval.
The rules, developed in accordance with the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA), require financial institutions and other organizations classified as “creditors” to develop programs to identify, detect and respond to indications of identity theft. A bill passed this week would amend FACTA and exclude health care, accounting and legal practices with 20 or fewer employees from having to comply with the regulations, set to be enforced starting next month.