The Open Group July Conference Emphasizes Value of Placing Structure and Agility Around Enterprise Risk Reduction Efforts

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast about the how to achieve better risk management with better analysis of risk factors.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes. Download the transcript. Sponsor: The Open Group.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect Thought Leadership Interview series, coming to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference on July 15, in Philadelphia. Registration to the conference remains open. Follow the conference on Twitter at #ogPHL.

Gardner

I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host and moderator throughout these discussions on enterprise transformation in the finance, government, and healthcare sector.

We're here now with a panel of experts to explore new trends and solutions in the area of anticipating risk and how to better manage organizations with that knowledge. We'll learn how enterprises are better delivering risk assessment and, one hopes, defenses, in the current climate of challenging cybersecurity. And we'll see how predicting risks and potential losses accurately, is an essential ingredient in enterprise transformation.

With that, please join me in welcoming our panel, we're here with Jack Freund, Information Security Risk Assessment Manager at TIAA-CREF. Jack has spent over 14 years in enterprise IT, is a visiting professor at DeVry University, and also chairs a Risk-Management Subcommittee for the ISACA. Welcome back, Jack.

Jack Freund: Glad to be here, Dana. Thanks for having me.

Gardner: We're also here with Jack Jones, Principal at CXOWARE, and he has more than nine years of experience as a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). He is also an inventor of the FAIR, risk analysis framework. Welcome, Jack.

Jack Jones: Thank you very much.

Gardner: We're also here with Jim Hietala, Vice President, Security, at The Open Group. Welcome, Jim. [Disclosure: The Open Group is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Jim Hietala: Thanks, Dana, good to be here.

Gardner: Let’s start with you, Jim. It’s been about six months since we spoke about these issues around risk assessment and understanding risk accurately, and it’s hard to imagine things getting any better in the last six months. There’s been a lot of news and interesting developments in the cyber-security landscape.

So has this heightened interest? What are The Open Group and others are doing in this field of risk assessment and accuracy and determining what your losses might be and how that can be a useful tool?

Hietala: I would say it has. Certainly, in the cybersecurity world in the past six or nine months, we've seen more and more discussion of the threats that are out there. We’ve got nation-state types of threats that are very concerning, very serious, and that organizations have to consider.

Hietala

With what’s happening, you've seen that the US Administration and President Obama direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop a new cybersecurity framework. Certainly on the government side of things, there is an increased focus on what can we do to increase the level of cybersecurity throughout the country in critical infrastructure. So my short answer would be yes, there is more interest in coming up with ways to accurately measure and assess risk so that we can then deal with it.

Perception shift

Gardner: Jack Jones, do you also see a maturity going on, or are we just hearing more in the news and therefore there is a perception shift? How do you see things? How have things changed, in your perception, over the last six to nine months?

Jones

Jones: I continue to see growth and maturity, especially in areas of understanding the fundamental nature of risk and exploration of quantitative methods for it. A few years ago, that would have seemed unrealistic at best, and outlandish at worst in many people’s eyes. Now, they're beginning to recognize that it is not only pragmatic, but necessary in order to get a handle on much of what we have to do from a prioritization perspective.

Gardner: Jack Freund are you seeing an elevation in the attention being paid to risk issues inside companies in larger organizations? Is this something that’s getting the attention of all the people it should?

Freund: We're entering a phase where there is going to be increased regulatory oversight over very nearly everything. When that happens, all eyes are going to turn to IT and IT risk management functions to answer the question of whether we're handling the right things. Without quantifying risk, you're going to have a very hard time saying to your board of directors that you're handling the right things the way a reasonable company should.

As those regulators start to see and compare among other companies, they'll find that these companies over here are doing risk quantification, and you're not. You're putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage by not being able to provide those same sorts of services.

Gardner: So you're saying that the market itself hasn’t been enough to drive this, and that regulation is required?

Freund

Freund: It’s probably a stronger driver than market forces at this point. The market is always going to be able to help push that to a more prominent role, but especially in information security. If you're not experiencing primary losses as a result of these sorts of things, then you have to look to economic externalities, which are largely put in play by regulatory forces here in the United States.

Jones: To support Jack’s statement that regulators are becoming more interested in this too, just in the last 60 days, I've spent time training people at two regulatory agencies on FAIR. So they're becoming more aware of these quantitative methods, and their level of interest is rising.

Gardner: Jack Jones, this is probably a good time for us to explain a little bit more about FAIR. For those listeners who might not be that familiar with it, please take a moment to give us the high-level overview of what FAIR is.

Jones: Sure, just thumbnail sketch of it. It’s, first and foremost, a model for what risk is and how it works. It’s a decomposition of the factors that make up risk. If you can measure or estimate the value of those factors, you can derive risk quantitatively in dollars and cents.

Risk quantification

You see a lot of “risk quantification” based on ordinal scales -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 scales, that sort of thing. But that’s actually not quantitative. If you dig into it, there's no way you could defend a mathematical analysis based on those ordinal approaches. So FAIR is this model for risk that enables true quantitative analysis in a very pragmatic way.

Gardner: FAIR stands for a Factor Analysis of Information Risk. Is that correct?

Jones: That is correct.

Gardner: Jim Hietala, we also have in addition to a very interesting and dynamic cybersecurity landscape a major trend getting traction in big data, cloud computing, and mobile. There's lots going on in the IT world. Perhaps IT's very nature, the roles and responsibilities, are shifting. Is doing risk assessment and management becoming part and parcel of core competency of IT, and is that a fairly big departure from the past?

Hietala: As to the first question, it's having to become kind of a standard practice within IT. When you look at outsourcing your IT operations to a cloud-service provider, you have to consider the security risks in that environment. What do they look like and how do we measure them?

It's the same thing for things like mobile computing. You really have to look at the risks of folks carrying tablets and smart phones, and understand the risks associated with those same things for big data. For any of these large-scale changes to our IT infrastructure you’ve got to understand what it means from a security and risk standpoint.

We have to find a way to embed risk assessment, which is really just a way to inform decision making and how we adapt all of these technological changes to increase market position and to make ourselves more competitive.

Gardner: Jack Freund or Jack Jones, any thoughts about the changing role of IT as a service and service-level agreement brokering aspects of IT aligned with risk assessment?

Freund: I read an interesting article this morning around a school district that is doing something they call bring your own technology (BYOT). For anybody who has been involved in these sort of efforts in the corporate world that should sound very familiar. But I want to think culturally around this. When you have students wondering how to do these sorts of things and becoming accustomed to being able to bring current technology, oh my gosh. When they get to the corporate world and start to work, they're going to expect the same sorts of levels of service.

To answer to your earlier question, absolutely. We have to find a way to embed risk assessment, which is really just a way to inform decision making and how we adapt all of these technological changes to increase market position and to make ourselves more competitive. That’s important.

Whether that’s an embedded function within IT or it’s an overarching function that exists across multiple business units, there are different models that work for different size companies and companies of different cultural types. But it has to be there. It’s absolutely critical.

Gardner: Jack Jones, how do you come down this role of IT shifting in the risk assessment issues, something that’s their responsibility. Are they embracing that or  maybe wishing it away?

Jones: It depends on whom you talk to. Some of them would certainly like to wish it away. I don't think IT’s role in this idea for risk assessment and such has really changed. What is changing is the level of visibility and interest within the organization, the business side of the organization, in the IT risk position.

Board-level interest

Previously, they were more or less tucked away in a dark corner. People just threw money at it and hoped bad things didn't happen. Now, you're getting a lot more board-level interest in IT risk, and with that visibility comes a responsibility, but also a certain amount of danger. If they’re doing it really badly, they're incredibly immature in how they approach risk.

They're going to look pretty foolish in front of the board. Unfortunately, I've seen that play out. It’s never pretty and it's never good news for the IT folks. They're realizing that they need to come up to speed a little bit from a risk perspective, so that they won't look the fools when they're in front of these executives.

They're used to seeing quantitative measures of opportunities and operational issues of risk of various natures. If IT comes to the table with a red, yellow, green chart, the board is left to wonder, first how to interpret that, and second, whether these guys really get it. I'm not sure the role has changed, but I think the responsibilities and level of expectations are changing.

Gardner: Part of what FAIR does in risk analysis in general is to identify potential losses and put some dollars on what potential downside there is. That provides IT with the tool, the ability, to rationalize investments that are needed. Are you seeing the knowledge of potential losses to be an incentive for spending on modernization?

Previously, they were more or less tucked away in a dark corner. People just threw money at it and hoped bad things didn't happen.

Jones: Absolutely. One organization I worked with recently had certain deficiencies from the security perspective that they were aware of, but that were going to be very problematic to fix. They had identified technology and process solutions that they thought would take them a long way towards a better risk position. But it was a very expensive proposition, and they didn't have money in the IT or information security budget for it.

So, we did a current-state analysis using FAIR, how much loss exposure they had on annualized basis. Then, we said, "If you plug this solution into place, given how it affects the frequency and magnitude of loss that you'd expect to experience, here's what’s your new annualized loss exposure would be." It turned out to be a multimillion dollar reduction in annualized loss exposure for a few hundred thousand dollars cost.

When they took that business case to management, it was a no-brainer, and management signed the check in a hurry. So they ended up being in a much better position.

If they had gone to executive management saying, "Well, we’ve got a high risk and if we buy this set of stuff we’ll have low or medium risk," it would've been a much less convincing and understandable business case for the executives. There's reason to expect that it would have been challenging to get that sort of funding given how tight their corporate budgets were and that sort of thing. So, yeah, it can be incredibly effective in those business cases.

Gardner: Correct me if I am wrong, but you have a book out since we last spoke. Jack, maybe you could tell a bit about of that and how that comes to bear on these issues?

Freund: Well, the book is currently being written. Jack Jones and I have entered into a contract with Elsevier and we're also going to be preparing the manuscript here over the summer and winter. Probably by second quarter next year, we'll have something that we can share with everybody. It's something that has been a long time coming. For Jack, I know he has wanted to write this for a long time.

Conversational book

We wanted to build a conversational book around how to assess risk using FAIR, and that's an important distinction from other books in the market today. You really want to dig into a lot of the mathematical stuff. I'm speaking personally here, but I wanted to build a book that gave people tools, gave practitioners the risk tools to be able to handle common challenges and common opposition to what they are doing every day, and just understand how to apply concepts in FAIR in a very tangible way.

Gardner: Very good. What about the conference itself. We're coming up very rapidly on The Open Group Conference. What should we expect in terms of some of your presentations and training activities?

Jones: I think it will be a good time. People would be pleased to have the quality of the presentations and some of the new information that they'll get to see and experience. As you said, we're offering FAIR training as a part of a conference. It's a two-day session with an opportunity afterwards to take the certification exam.

If history is any indication, people will go through the training. We get a lot of very positive remarks about a number of different things. One, they never imagined that risk could be interesting. They're also surprised that it's not, as one friend of mine calls it "rocket surgery." It's relatively straightforward and intuitive stuff. It's just that as a profession, we haven't had this framework for reference, as well as some of the methods that we apply to make it practical and defensible before.

Once you learn how to do it right, it's very obvious which are the wrong methods and why you can't use them to assess risk.

So we've gotten great feedback in the past, and I think people will be pleasantly surprised at what they experienced.

Freund: One of the things I always say about FAIR training is it's a real red pill-blue pill moment -- in reference to the old Matrix movies. I took FAIR training several years ago with Jack. I always tease Jack that it's ruined me for other risk assessment methods. Once you learn how to do it right, it's very obvious which are the wrong methods and why you can't use them to assess risk and why it's problematic.

I'm joking. It's really great and valuable training, and now I use it every day. It really does open your eyes to the problems and the risk assessment portion of IT today, and gives a very practical and actionable things to do in order to be able to fix that, and to provide value to your organization.

Gardner: Jim Hietala, the emphasis in terms of vertical industries at the conference is on finance, government and healthcare. They seem to be the right groups to be factoring more standardization and understanding of risk. Tell me how it comes together. Why is The Open Group looking at vertical industries at this time?

Hietala: Specific to risk, if I can talk about that for a second, the healthcare world, at least here in the US, has new security rules, and one of the first few requirements is perform an annual risk assessment. So it's currently relevant to that industry.

Same with finance

It’s the same thing with finance. One of the regulations around financial organizations tells them that, in terms of information security, they need to do a risk assessment. In government, clearly there has been a lot of emphasis on understanding risk and mitigating it throughout various government sectors.

In terms of The Open Group and verticals, we've done lots of great work in the area of enterprise architecture, security, and all the areas for which we've done work. In terms of our conferences, we've evolved things over the last year or so to start to look at what are the things that are unique in verticals.

It started in the mining industry. We set up a mining metals and exploration forum that looked at IT and architecture issues related specifically to that sector. We started that work several years ago and now we're looking at other industries and starting to assess the unique things in healthcare, for example. We've got a one day workshop at Philadelphia on the Tuesday of the conference, looking at IT and transformation opportunities in the healthcare sector.

That's how we got to this point, and we'll see more of that from The Open Group in the future.

Gardner: Are there any updates that we should be aware of in terms of activities within The Open Group and other organizations working on standards, taxonomy, and definitions when it comes to risk?

In government, clearly there has been a lot of emphasis on understanding risk and mitigating it throughout various government sectors.

Hietala: I'll take that and dive into that. We at The Open Group originally published a risk taxonomy standard based on FAIR four years ago. Over time, we've seen greater adoption by large companies and we've also seen the need to extend what we're doing there. So we're updating the risk taxonomy standard, and the new version of that should be published by the end of this summer.

We also saw within the industry, the need for a certification program for risk analysts, and so they'd be trained in quantitative risk assessment using FAIR. We're working on that program and we'll be talking more about it in Philadelphia. Follow the conference on Twitter at #ogPHL.

Along the way, as we were building the certification program, we realized that there was a missing piece in terms of the body of knowledge. So we created a second standard that is a companion to the taxonomy. That will be called the Risk Analysis Standard that looks more at some of that the process issues and how to do risk analysis using FAIR. That standard will also be available by the end of the summer and, combined, those two standards will form the body of knowledge that we'll be testing against in the certification program when it goes live later this year.

Gardner: Jack Freund, it seems that between regulatory developments, the need for maturity in these enterprises, and the standardization that's being brought to bear by such groups as The Open Group, it's making this quite a bit more of the science and less of an art.

What does that bring to organizations in terms of a bottom-line effect? I wonder if there is a use case or even an example that you could mention and explain that would help people better understand of what they get back when they go through these processes and they get this better maturity around risk?

Risk assessment

Freund: I'm not an attorney, but I have had a lot of lawyers tell me -- I think Jim had mentioned before in his vertical conversation -- that a lot of the regulations start with performing annual risk assessment and then choose controls based upon that. They're not very prescriptive that way.

One of the things that it drives in organizations is a sense of satisfaction that we've got things covered more than anything else. When you have your leadership in these organizations understanding that you're doing what a regular reasonable company would do to manage risk this way, you have fewer fire drills. Nobody likes to walk into work and have to deal with hundred different things.

We're moving hard drives out of printers and fax machines, what are we doing around scanning and vulnerabilities, and all of those various things that every single day can inundate you with worry, as opposed to focusing on the things that matter.

I like a folksy saying that sort of sums things up pretty well -- a dime holding up a dollar. You have all these little bitty squabbly issues that get in the way of really focusing on reducing risk in your organization in meaningful ways and focusing on the things that matter.

Using approaches like FAIR, drives a lot of value into your organization, because you're freeing up mind share in your executives to focus on things that really matter.

If something happens downstream, and you didn't follow best practice, you're often asked to explain why you didn't follow the herd.

Gardner: Jack Jones, a similar question, any examples that exemplify the virtues of doing the due diligence and having some of these systems and understanding in place?

Jones: I have an example to Jack Freund’s point about being able to focus and prioritize. One organization I was working with had identified a significant risk issue and they were considering three different options for risk mitigation that had been proposed. One was "best practice,” and the other two were less commonly considered for that particular issue.

An analysis showed with real clarity that option B, one of the not-best practice options, should reduce risk every bit as effectively as best practice, but had a whole lot lower cost. The organization then got to make an informed decision about whether they were going to be herd followers or whether they were going to be more cost-effective in risk management.

Unfortunately, there’s always danger in not following the herd. If something happens downstream, and you didn't follow best practice, you're often asked to explain why you didn't follow the herd.

That was part of the analysis too, but at the end of the day, management got to make a decision on how they wanted to behave. They chose to not follow best practice and be more cost-effective in using their money. When I asked them why they felt comfortable with that, they said, "Because we’re comfortable with the rigor in your analysis."

Best practice

To your question earlier about art-versus-science, first of all, in most organization there would have been no question. They would have said, "We must follow best practice." They wouldn’t even examine the options, and management wouldn’t have had the opportunity to make that decision.

Furthermore, even if they had "examined” those options using a more subjective, artistic approach, somebody's wet finger in the air, management almost certainly would not have felt comfortable with a non-best practice approach. So, the more scientific, more rigorous, approach that something like FAIR provides, gives you all kinds of opportunity to make informed decisions and to feel more comfortable more about those decisions.

Gardner: It really sounds as if there's a synergistic relationship between a lot of the big-data and analytics investments that are being made for a variety of reasons, and also this ability to bring more science and discipline to risk analysis.

How do those come together, Jack Jones? Are we seeing the dots being connected in these large organizations that they can take more of what they garner from big data and business intelligence (BI) and apply that to these risk assessment activities, is that happening yet?

Jones: It’s just beginning to. It’s very embryonic, and there are only probably a couple of organizations out there that I would argue are doing that with any sort of effectiveness. Imagine that -- they’re both using FAIR.

There are some models out there that that frankly are just so badly broken that all the data in the world isn’t going to help you.

But when you think about BI or any sort of analytics, there are really two halves to the equation. One is data and the other is models. You can have all the data in the world, but if your models stink, then you can't be effective. And, of course, vise versa. If you’ve got great model and zero data, then you've got challenges there as well.

Being able to combine the two, good data and effective models, puts you in much better place. As an industry, we aren’t there yet. We've got some really interesting things going on, and so there's a lot of potential there, but people have to leverage that data effectively and make sure they're using a model that makes sense.

There are some models out there that that frankly are just so badly broken that all the data in the world isn’t going to help you. The models will grossly misinform you. So people have to be careful, because data is great, but if you’re applying it to a bad model, then you're in trouble.

Gardner: We are coming up near the end of our half hour. Jack Freund, for those organizations that are looking to get started, to get more mature, perhaps start leveraging some of their investments in areas like big data, in addition to attending The Open Group Conference or watching some of the plenary sessions online, what tips do you have for getting started? Are there some basic building blocks that should be in place or ways in which to get the ball rolling when it comes to a better risk analysis?

Freund: Strong personality matters in this. They have to have some sort of evangelist in the organization who cares enough about it to drive it through to completion. That’s a stake on the ground to say, "Here is where we're going to start, and here is the path that we are going to go on."

Strong commitment

When you start doing that sort of thing, even if leadership changes and other things happen, you have a strong commitment from the organization to keep moving forward on these sorts of things.

I spend a lot of my time integrating FAIR with other methodologies. One of the messaging points that I keep saying all the time is that what we are doing is implementing a discipline around how we choose our risk rankings. That’s one of the great things about FAIR. It's universally compatible with other assessment methodologies, programs, standards, and legislation that allows you to be consistent and precise around how you're connecting to everything else that your organization cares about.

Concerns around operational risk integration are important as well. But driving that through to completion in the organization has a lot to do with finding sponsorship and then just building a program to completion. But absent that high-level sponsorship, because FAIR allows you to build a discipline around how you choose rankings, you can also build it from the bottom up.

You can have these groups of people that are FAIR trained that can build risk analyses or either pick ranges -- 1, 2, 3, 4 or high, medium, low. But then when questioned, you have the ability to say, "We think this is a medium, because it met our frequency and magnitude criteria that we've been establishing using FAIR."

Different organizations culturally are going to have different ways to implement and to structure quantitative risk analysis.

Different organizations culturally are going to have different ways to implement and to structure quantitative risk analysis. In the end it's an interesting and reasonable path to get to risk utopia.

Gardner: Jack Jones, any thoughts from your perspective on a good way to get started, maybe even through the lens of the verticals that The Open Group has targeted for this conference, finance, government and healthcare? Are there any specific important things to consider on the outset for your risk analysis journey from any of the three verticals?

Jones: A good place to start is with the materials that The Open Group has made available on the risk taxonomy and that soon to be published risk-analysis standard.

Another source that I recommend to everybody I talk to about other sorts of things is a book called How to Measure Anything by Douglas Hubbard. If someone is even least bit interested in actually measuring risk in quantitative terms, they owe it to themselves to read that book. It puts into layman’s terms some very important concepts and approaches that are tremendously helpful. That's an important resource for people to consider too.

As far as within organizations, some organizations will have a relatively mature enterprise risk-management program at the corporate level, outside of IT. Unfortunately, it can be hit-and-miss, but there can be some very good resources in terms of people and processes that the organization has already adopted. But you have to be careful there too, because with some of those enterprise risk-management programs, even though they may have been in place for years, and thus, one would think over time and become mature, all they have done is dig a really deep ditch in terms of bad practices and misconceptions.

So it's worth having the conversation with those folks to gauge how clueful are they, but don't assume that just because they have been in place for a while and they have some specific title or something like that that they really understand risk at that level.

Gardner: Well, very good. I'm afraid we will have to leave it there. We've been talking with a panel of experts about the new trends and solutions in the area of anticipating risk and how to better manage organizations with that knowledge. We've seen how enterprises are better delivering risk assessments, or beginning to, as they are facing challenges in cyber-security as well as undergoing the larger undertaking of enterprise transformation.

This special BriefingsDirect discussion comes to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference in July 2013 in Philadelphia. There's more information on The Open Group website about that conference for you to attend or to gather information from either in live streaming or there are often resources available to download after the conference. Follow the conference on Twitter at #ogPHL.

So with that thanks to our panel. We've been joined by Jack Freund, Information Security Risk Assessment Manager at TIAA-CREF. Thank you so much, Jack.

Freund: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: And also Jack Jones, Principal at CXOWARE. Thank you, sir.

Jones: It's been my pleasure. Thanks.

Gardner: And then also lastly, Jim Hietala, Vice President, Security at The Open Group. Thank you, Jim.

Hietala: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: And this is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host and moderator through these thought leader interview series. Registration to the July 15 conference remains open to attend in person. I hope to see you there. We'll also be conducting some more BriefingsDirect podcasts from the conference, so watch for those in future posts. Thanks again for listening, and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes. Download the transcript. Sponsor: The Open Group.

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast about the how to achieve better risk management with better analysis of risk factors. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2013. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

• Managing transformation to Platform 3.0 a major focus of The Open Group Philadelphia conference on July 15
• The Open Group Conference Panel Explores How the Big Data Era Now Challenges the IT Status Quo
• Complexity from big data and cloud trends makes architecture tools like ArchiMate and TOGAF more powerful, says expert panel
• Using the Cloud for Big-Data Requires a New Recipe
• Big Data Success Depends on Better Risk Management Practices Like FAIR, Say The Open Group Panelists
• The Open Group Keynoter Sees Big-Data Analytics Bolstering Quality, Manufacturing, Processes
• The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum is Leading the Way to Securing GLobal IT Supply Chains
• Corporate Data, Supply Chains Remain Vulnerable to Cyber Crime Attacks Says Open Group Conference Speaker
• Open Group Conference Speakers Discuss the Cloud: Higher Risk or Better Security?

Big Data Success Depends on Better Risk Management Practices Like FAIR, Say The Open Group Panelists

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast on best managing the risks from expanded use and distribution of big data enterprise assets.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes. Download the transcript. Sponsor: The Open Group.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect thought leadership interview series coming to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference on January 28 in Newport Beach, California.

Gardner

I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and I'll be your host and moderator throughout these business transformation discussions. The conference itself is focusing on "big data -- the transformation we need to embrace today."

We're here now with a panel of experts to explore new trends and solutions in the area of risk management and analysis. We'll learn how large enterprises are delivering risk assessments and risk analysis, and we'll see how big data can be both an area to protect, but also used as a tool for better understanding and mitigating risks.

With that, please join me in welcoming our panel, Jack Freund, PhD, the Information Security Risk Assessment Manager at TIAA-CREF. Welcome, Jack.

Jack Freund: Hello Dana, how are you?

Gardner: I'm great. Glad you could join us.

We are also here with Jack Jones, Principal of CXOWARE. He has more than nine years experience as a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), and is the inventor of the Factor Analysis Information Risk  (FAIR) framework. Welcome, Jack.

Jack Jones: Thank you.

And we're also here with Jim Hietala, Vice President, Security for The Open Group. Welcome, Jim.

Jim Hietala: Thanks, Dana.

Gardner: Why is the issue of risk analysis so prominent now? What's different from, say, five years ago?

Jones: The information security industry has struggled with getting the attention of and support from management and businesses for a long time, and it has finally come around to the fact that the executives care about loss exposure -- the likelihood of bad things happening and how bad those things are likely to be.

It's only when we speak in those terms of risk that we make sense to those executives. And once we do that, we begin to gain some credibility and traction in terms of getting things done.

Gardner: So we really need to talk about this in the terms that a business executive would appreciate, not necessarily an IT executive.

Effects on business

Jones: Absolutely. They're tired of hearing about vulnerabilities, hackers, and that sort of thing. It’s only when we can talk in terms of the effect on the business that it makes sense to them.

Gardner: Jack Freund, I should also point out that you have more than 14 years in enterprise IT experience. You're a visiting professor at DeVry University and you chair a risk-management subcommittee for ISACA. Do you agree?

Freund: The problem that we have as a profession, and I think it’s a big problem, is that we have allowed ourselves to escape the natural trend that the other IT professionals have already taken.

Freund

There was a time, years ago, when you could code in the basement, and nobody cared much about what you were doing. But now, largely speaking, developers and systems administrators are very focused on meeting the goals of the organization.

Security has been allowed to miss that boat a little. We have been allowed to hide behind this aura of a protector and of an alerter of terrible things that could happen, without really tying ourselves to the problem that the organizations are facing and how can we help them succeed in what they're doing.

Gardner: Jim Hietala, how do you see things that are different now than a few years ago when it comes to risk assessment?

Hietala: There are certainly changes on the threat side of the landscape. Five years ago, you didn’t really have hacktivism or this notion of an advanced persistent threat (APT). That highly skilled attacker taking aim at governments and large organizations didn’t really exist -– or didn’t exist to the degree it does today. So that has changed.

Hietala

You also have big changes to the IT platform landscape, all of which bring new risks that organizations need to really think about. The mobility trend, the cloud trend, the big-data trend that we are talking about today, all of those things bring new risk to the organization.

As Jack Jones mentioned, business executives don't want to hear about, "I've got 15 vulnerabilities in the mobility part of my organization." They want to understand what’s the risk of bad things happening because of mobility, what we're doing about it, and what’s happening to risk over time.

So it’s a combination of changes in the threats and attackers, as well as just changes to the IT landscape, that we have to take a different look at how we measure and present risk to the business.

Gardner: Because we're at a big-data conference, do you share my perception, Jack Jones, that big data can be a source of risk and vulnerability, but also the analytics and the business intelligence (BI) tools that we're employing with big data can be used to alert you to risks or provide a strong tool for better understanding your true risk setting or environment?

Crown jewels

Jones: You are absolutely right. You think of big data and, by definition, it’s where your crown jewels, and everything that leads to crown jewels from an information perspective, are going to be found. It's like one-stop shopping for the bad guy, if you want to look at it in that context. It definitely needs to be protected. The architecture surrounding it and its integration across a lot of different platforms and such, can be leveraged and probably result in a complex landscape to try and secure.

Jones

There are a lot of ways into that data and such, but at least if you can leverage that same big data architecture, it's an approach to information security. With log data and other threat and vulnerability data and such, you should be able to make some significant gains in terms of how well-informed your analyses and your decisions are, based on that data.

Gardner: Jack Freund, do you share that? How does big data fit into your understanding of the evolving arena of risk assessment and analysis?

Freund: If we fast-forward it five years, and this is even true today, a lot of people on the cutting edge of big data will tell you the problem isn’t so much building everything together and figuring out what it can do. They are going to tell you that the problem is what we do once we figure out everything that we have. This is the problem that we have traditionally had on a much smaller scale in information security. When everything is important, nothing is important.

Gardner: To follow up on that, where do you see the gaps in risk analysis in large organizations? In other words, what parts of organizations aren’t being assessed for risk and should be?

Freund: The big problem that exist largely today in the way that risk assessments are done, is the focus on labels. We want to quickly address the low, medium, and high things and know where they are. But the problem is that there are inherent problems in the way that we think about those labels, without doing any of the analysis legwork.

We end up with these very long lists of horrible, terrible things that can be done to us in all sorts of different ways, without any relevance to the overall business of the organization.

I think that’s what’s really missing is that true analysis. If the system goes offline, do we lose money? If the system becomes compromised, what are the cost-accounting things that will happen that allow us to figure out how much money we're going to lose.

That analysis work is largely missing. That’s the gap. The gap is if the control is not in place, then there’s a risk that must be addressed in some fashion. So we end up with these very long lists of horrible, terrible things that can be done to us in all sorts of different ways, without any relevance to the overall business of the organization.

Every day, our organizations are out there selling products, offering services, which is  and of itself, its own risky venture. So tying what we do from an information security perspective to that is critical for not just the success of the organization, but the success of our profession.

Gardner: So we can safely say that large companies are probably pretty good at a cost-benefit analysis or they wouldn't be successful. Now, I guess we need to ask them to take that a step further and do a cost-risk analysis, but in business terms, being mindful that their IT systems might be a much larger part of that than they had at once considered. Is that fair, Jack?

Risk implications

Jones: Businesses have been making these decisions, chasing the opportunity, but generally, without any clear understanding of the risk implications, at least from the information security perspective. They will have us in the corner screaming and throwing red flags in there, and talking about vulnerabilities and threats from one thing or another.

But, we come to the table with red, yellow, and green indicators, and on the other side of the table, they’ve got numbers. Well, here is what we expect to earn in revenue from this initiative, and the information security people are saying it’s crazy. How do you normalize the quantitative revenue gain versus red, yellow, and green?

Gardner: Jim Hietala, do you see it in the same red, yellow, green or are there some other frameworks or standard methodologies that The Open Group is looking at to make this a bit more of a science?

Hietala: Probably four years ago, we published what we call the Risk Taxonomy Standard which is based upon FAIR, the management framework that Jack Jones invented. So, we’re big believers in bringing that level of precision to doing risk analysis. Having just gone through training for FAIR myself, as part of the standards effort that we’re doing around certification, I can say that it really brings a level of precision and a depth of analysis to risk analysis that's been lacking frequently in IT security and risk management.

In order to be successful sitting between these two groups, you have to be able to speak the language of both of those groups.

Gardner: We’ve talked about how organizations need to be mindful that their risks are higher and different than in the past and we’ve talked about how standardization and methodologies are important, helping them better understand this from a business perspective, instead of just a technology perspective.

But, I'm curious about a cultural and organizational perspective. Whose job should this fall under? Who is wearing the white hat in the company and can rally the forces of good and make all the bad things managed? Is this a single person, a cultural, an organizational mission? How do you make this work in the enterprise in a real-world way?

Freund: The profession of IT risk management is changing. That profession will have to sit between the business and information security inclusive of all the other IT functions that make that happen.

In order to be successful sitting between these two groups, you have to be able to speak the language of both of those groups. You have to be able to understand profit and loss and capital expenditure on the business side. On the IT risk side, you have to be technical enough to do all those sorts of things.

But I think the sum total of those two things is probably only about 50 percent of the job of IT risk management today. The other 50 percent is communication. Finding ways to translate that language and to understand the needs and concerns of each side of that relationship is really the job of IT risk management.

To answer your question, I think it’s absolutely the job of IT risk management to do that. From my own experiences with the FAIR framework, I can say that using FAIR is the Rosetta Stone for speaking between those two groups.

Necessary tools

It gives you the tools necessary to speak in the insurance and risk terms that business appreciate. And it gives you the ability to be as technical and just nerdy, if you will, as you need to be in order to talk to IT security and the other IT functions in order to make sure everybody is on the same page and everyone feels like their concerns are represented in the risk-assessment functions that are happening.

Jones: I agree with what Jack said wholeheartedly. I would add, though, that integration or adoption of something like this is a lot easier the higher up in the organization you go.

For CFOs traditionally, their neck is most clearly on the line for risk-related issues within most organizations. At least in my experience, if you get their ear on this and present the information security data analyses to them, they jump on board, they drive it through the organization, and it's just brain-dead easy.

If you try to drive it up through the ranks, maybe you get an enthusiastic supporter in the information security organization, especially if it's below the CISO level, and they try a grassroots sort of effort to bring it in, it's a tougher thing. It can still work. I've seen it work very well, but, it's a longer row to hoe.

Gardner: There have been a lot of research, studies, and surveys on data breaches. What are some of the best sources, or maybe not so good sources, for actually measuring this? How do you know if you’re doing it right? How do you know if you're moving from yellow to green, instead of to red?

Becoming very knowledgeable about the risk posture and the risk tolerance of the organization is a key.

Freund: There are a couple of things in that question. The first is there's this inherent assumption in a lot of organizations that we need to move from yellow to green, and that may not be the case. So, becoming very knowledgeable about the risk posture and the risk tolerance of the organization is a key.

That's part of the official mindset of IT security. When you graduate an information security person today, they are minted knowing that there are a lot of bad things out there, and their goal in life is to reduce them. But, that may not be the case. The case may very well be that things are okay now, but we have bigger things to fry over here that we’re going to focus on. So, that's one thing.

The second thing, and it's a very good question, is how we know that we’re getting better? How do we trend that over time? Overall, measuring that value for the organization has to be able to show a reduction of a risk or at least reduction of risk to the risk-tolerance levels of the organization.

Calculating and understanding that requires something that I always phrase as we have to become comfortable with uncertainty. When you are talking about risk in general, you're talking about forward-looking statements about things that may or may not happen. So, becoming comfortable with the fact that they may or may not happen means that when you measure them today, you have to be willing to be a little bit squishy in how you’re representing that.

In FAIR and in other academic works, they talk about using ranges to do that. So, things like high, medium ,and low, could be represented in terms of a minimum, maximum, and most likely. And that tends to be very, very effective. People can respond to that fairly well.

Gathering data

Jones: With regard to the data sources, there are a lot of people out there doing these sorts of studies, gathering data. The problem that's hamstringing that effort is the lack of a common set of definitions, nomenclature, and even taxonomy around the problem itself.

You will have one study that will have defined threat, vulnerability, or whatever differently from some other study, and so the data can't be normalized. It really harms the utility of it. I see data out there and I think, "That looks like that can be really useful." But, I hesitate to use it because I don't understand. They don't publish their definitions, approach, and how they went after it.

There's just so much superficial thinking in the profession on this that we now have dug under the covers. Too often, I run into stuff that just can't be defended. It doesn’t make sense, and therefore the data can't be used. It's an unfortunate situation.

I do think we’re heading in a positive direction. FAIR can provide a normalizing structure for that sort of thing. The VERIS framework, which by the way, is also derived in part from FAIR, also has gained real attraction in terms of the quality of the research they have done and the data they’re generating. We’re headed in the right direction, but we’ve got a long way to go.

Gardner: Jim Hietala, we’re seemingly looking at this on a company-by-company basis. But, is there a vertical industry slice or industry-wide slice where we could look at what's happening to everyone and put some standard understanding, or measurement around what's going on in the overall market, maybe by region, maybe by country?

The ones that have embraced FAIR tend to be the ones that overall feel that risk is an integral part of their business strategy.

Hietala: There are some industry-specific initiatives and what's really needed, as Jack Jones mentioned, are common definitions for things like breach, exposure, loss, all those, so that the data sources from one organization can be used in another, and so forth. I think about the financial services industry. I know that there is some information sharing through an organization called the FS-ISAC about what's happening to financial services organizations in terms of attacks, loss, and those sorts of things.

There's an opportunity for that on a vertical-by-vertical basis. But, like Jack said, there is a long way to go on that. In some industries, healthcare for instance, you are so far from that, it's ridiculous. In the US here, the HIPAA security rule says you must do a risk assessment. So, hospitals have done annual risk assessments, will stick the binder on the shelf, and they don't think much about information security in between those annual risk assessments. That's a generalization, but various industries are at different places on a continuum of maturity of their risk management approaches.

Gardner: As we get better with having a common understanding of the terms and the measurements and we share more data, let's go back to this notion of how to communicate this effectively to those people that can use it and exercise change management as a result. That could be the CFO, the CEO, what have you, depending on the organization.

Do you have any examples? Can we look to an organization that's done this right, and examine their practices, the way they’ve communicated it, some of the tools they’ve used and say, "Aha, they're headed in the right direction maybe we could follow a little bit." Let's start with you, Jack Freund.

Freund: I have worked and consulted for various organizations that have done risk management at different levels. The ones that have embraced FAIR tend to be the ones that overall feel that risk is an integral part of their business strategy. And I can give a couple of examples of scenarios that have played out that I think have been successful in the way they have been communicated.

Coming to terms

The key to keep in mind with this is that one of the really important things is that when you're a security professional, you're again trained to feel like you need results. But, the results for the IT risk management professional are different. The results are "I've communicated this effectively, so I am done." And then whatever the results are, are the results that needed to be. And that's a really hard thing to come to terms with.

I've been involved in large-scale efforts to assess risk for a cloud venture. We needed to move virtually every confidential record that we have to the cloud in order to be competitive with the rest of our industry. If our competitors are finding ways to utilize the cloud before us, we can lose out. So, we need to find a way to do that, and to be secure and compliant with all the laws and regulations and such.

Through that scenario, one of the things that came out was that key ownership became really, really important. We had the opportunity to look at the various control structures and we analyzed them using FAIR. What we ended up with was sort of a long-tail risk. Most people will probably do their job right over a long enough period of time. But, over that same long period of time, the odds of somebody making a mistake not in your favor are probably likely, but, not significantly enough so that you can't make the move.

But, the problem became that the loss side, the side that typically gets ignored with traditional risk-assessment methodologies, was so significant that the organization needed to make some judgment around that, and they needed to have a sense of what we needed to do in order to minimize that.

That became a big point of discussion for us and it drove the conversation away from bad things could happen. We didn’t bury the lead. The lead was that this is the most important thing to this organization in this particular scenario.

Through that scenario, one of the things that came out was that key ownership became really, really important.

So, let's talk about things we can do. Are we comfortable with it? Do we need to make any sort of changes? What are some control opportunities? How much do they cost? This is a significantly more productive conversation than just, "Here is a bunch of bad things that happen. I'm going to cross my arms and say no."

Gardner: Jack Jones, examples at work?

Jones: In an organization that I've been working with recently, their board of directors said they wanted a quantitative view of information security risk. They just weren’t happy with the red, yellow, green. So, they came to us, and there were really two things that drove them there. One was that they were looking at cyber insurance. They wanted to know how much cyber insurance they should take out, and how do you figure that out when you've got a red, yellow, green scale?

They were able to do a series of analyses on a population of the scenarios that they thought were relevant in their world, get an aggregate view of their annualized loss exposure, and make a better informed decision about that particular problem.

Gardner: I'm curious how prevalent cyber insurance is, and is that going to be a leveling effect in the industry where people speak a common language the equivalent of actuarial tables, but for security in enterprise and cyber security?

Jones: One would dream and hope, but at this point, what I've seen out there in terms of the basis on which insurance companies are setting their premiums and such is essentially the same old “risk assessment” stuff that the industry has been doing poorly for years. It's not based on data or any real analysis per se, at least what I’ve run into. What they do is set their premiums high to buffer themselves and typically cover as few things as possible. The question of how much value it's providing the customers becomes a problem.

Looking to the future

Gardner: We’re coming up on our time limit. So, let's quickly look to the future. Is there such thing as risk management as a service? Can we outsource this? Is there a way in which moving more of IT into cloud or hybrid models would mitigate risk, because the cloud provider would standardize? Then, many players in that environment, those who were buying those services, would be under that same umbrella? Let's start with you Jim Hietala. What's the future of this and what do the cloud trends bring to the table?

Hietala: I’d start with a maxim that comes out of the financial services industry, which is that you can outsource the function, but you still own the risk. That's an unfortunate reality. You can throw things out in the cloud, but it doesn’t absolve you from understanding your risk and then doing things to manage it to transfer it if there's insurance or whatever the case may be.

That's just a reality. Organizations in the risky world we live in are going to have to get more serious about doing effective risk analysis. From The Open Group standpoint, we see this as an opportunity area.

Risk is a system of systems. There are a series of pressures that are applied, and a series of levers that are thrown in order to release that sort of pressure.

As I mentioned, we’ve standardized the taxonomy piece of the Factor Analysis Information Risk  (FAIR) framework. And we really see an opportunity around the profession going forward to help the risk-analysis community by further standardizing FAIR and launching a certification program for a FAIR-certified risk analyst. That's in demand from large organizations that are looking for evidence that people understand how to apply FAIR and use it in doing risk analyses.

Gardner: Jack Freund, looking into your crystal ball, how do you see this discipline evolving?

Freund: I always try to consider things as they exist within other systems. Risk is a system of systems. There are a series of pressures that are applied, and a series of levers that are thrown in order to release that sort of pressure.

Risk will always be owned by the organization that is offering that service. If we decide at some point that we can move to the cloud and all these other things, we need to look to the legal system. There is a series of pressures that they are going to apply, and who is going to own that, and how that plays itself out.

If we look to the Europeans and the way that they’re managing risk and compliance, they’re still as strict as we in United States think that they may be about things, but  there's still a lot of leeway in a lot of the ways that laws are written. You’re still being asked to do things that are reasonable. You’re still being asked to do things that are standard for your industry. But, we'd still like the ability to know what that is, and I don't think that's going to go away anytime soon.

Judgment calls

We’re still going to have to make judgment calls. We’re still going to have to do 100 things with a budget for 10 things. Whenever that happens, you have to make a judgment call. What's the most important thing that I care about? And that's why risk management exists, because there’s a certain series of things that we have to deal with. We don't have the resources to do them all, and I don't think that's going to change over time. Regardless of whether the landscape changes, that's the one that remains true.

Gardner: It sounds as if we’re continuing down the path of being mostly reactive. Is there anything you can see on the horizon that would perhaps tip the scales, so that the risk management and analysis practitioners can really become proactive and head things off before they become a big problem?

Jones: If we were to take a snapshot at any given point in time of an organization’s loss exposure, how much risk they have right then, that's a lagging indicator of the decisions they’ve made in the past, and their ability to execute against those decisions.

We can do some great root-cause analysis around that and ask how we got there. But, we can also turn that coin around and ask how good we are at making well-informed decisions, and then executing against them, the asking what that implies from a risk perspective downstream.

If we understand the relationship between our current state, and past and future states, we have those linkages defined, especially, if we have an analytic framework underneath it. We can do some marvelous what-if analysis.

We’re still going to have to make judgment calls. We’re still going to have to do 100 things with a budget for 10 things.

What if this variable changed in our landscape? Let's run a few thousand Monte Carlo simulations against that and see what comes up. What does that look like? Well, then let's change this other variable and then see which combination of dials, when we turn them, make us most robust to change in our landscape.

But again, we can't begin to get there, until we have this foundational set of definitions, frameworks, and such to do that sort of analysis. That's what we’re doing with the Factor Analysis Information Risk  (FAIR) framework, but without some sort of framework like that, there's no way you can get there.

Gardner: I am afraid we’ll have to leave it there. We’ve been talking with a panel of experts on how new trends and solutions are emerging in the area of risk management and analysis. And we’ve seen how new tools for communication and using big data to understand risks are also being brought to the table.

This special BriefingsDirect discussion comes to you in conjunction with The Open Group Conference in Newport Beach, California. I'd like to thank our panel: Jack Freund, PhD, Information Security Risk Assessment Manager at TIAA-CREF. Thanks so much Jack.

Freund: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: We’ve also been speaking with Jack Jones, Principal at CXOWARE.

Jones: Thank you. Thank you, pleasure to be here.

Gardner: And last, Jim Hietala, the Vice President for Security at The Open Group. Thanks.

Hietala: Thanks, Dana.

Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions; your host and moderator through these thought leadership interviews. Thanks again for listening and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes. Download the transcript. Sponsor: The Open Group.

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast on best managing the risks from expanded use and distribution of big data enterprise assets. Copyright The Open Group and Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2013. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

• The Open Group Keynoter Sees Big-Data Analytics Bolstering Quality, Manufacturing, Processes
• The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum is Leading the Way to Securing GLobal IT Supply Chains
• Corporate Data, Supply Chains Remain Vulnerable to Cyber Crime Attacks Says Open Group Conference Speaker
• Open Group Conference Speakers Discuss the Cloud: Higher Risk or Better Security?
• Capgemini's CTO on Why Cloud Computing Exposes the Duality Between IT and Business
• San Francisco Conference observations: Enterprise transformation, enterprise architecture, SOA and a splash of cloud computing
• MIT's Ross on how enterprise architecture and IT more than ever lead to business transformation