According to the recently published ESG Research Report, “Assessing Cyber Supply Chain Security Vulnerabilities Within the U.S. Critical Infrastructure,” 68% of the critical infrastructure organizations surveyed had suffered at least one security breach over the past 24 months.
As if this wasn’t bad enough, the data reveals another alarming trend — organizations with the strongest levels of security are also the ones reporting the highest number of security incidents. Based upon survey responses about cyber supply chain security, ESG created a segmentation model with three groups: 1) Strong cyber supply chain security, 2) Marginal cyber supply chain security, and 3) Weak cyber supply chain security. As expected, organizations with strong cyber supply chain security had superior overall security as well.
Here is how the data breaks out when analyzed against the ESG cyber supply chain security taxonomy:
It could certainly be the case that the most secure organizations are the one under attack most often but there is another possible — and more frightening thesis — organizations with weak security may be unaware that they are under attack. After all, if you have weak processes, tools, controls, and security skills, it might be difficult to spot some of the more sophisticated malicious code or insider attacks.
If this is true, weak security at critical infrastructure organizations threatens national security and thus must be addressed.
Tags: CIP, Critical Infrastructure, cyber security, cyber supply chain security, DHS, malcode, malicious code, security attack Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
What’s needed for strong cyber security? Good security policies, processes, and technology safeguards, of course, but highly-secure organizations also integrate security into their corporate culture — from new employees to the corner office. Since the proverbial buck stops at the CEO’s desk, cyber security-conscious and proactive CEOs are a security professional’s best friend.
In its recent research report, “Assessing Cyber Supply Chain Vulnerabilities Within The US Critical Infrastructure” (Note: The report is available for download at www.enterprisestrategygroup.com), ESG Research asked security professionals working at critical infrastructure organizations (i.e., electric power, financial services, health care, etc.) to respond to the following question: “How would you rate your organization’s management team on its willingness to invest in and support cyber security initiatives?” The responses were as follows:
Obviously, executives need to sort through a maze of costs and spend shareholder dollars judiciously. Furthermore, security professionals are paid to be paranoid and will usually want more funding. That said, nearly one-fourth of respondents rated executive management support for cyber security as “fair” or “poor.” Remember too that we are talking about critical infrastructure here — our money, our power, our food, our health care, etc. Yikes! Even more frightening, 38% of survey respondents working at telecommunications companies rated their executive management’s support for cyber security initiatives as “fair” or “poor.” If your cell phone stops working soon, don’t be surprised.
I believe there are several problems here:
It’s time to address these issues. Business managers must realize that automation, digitization, and new applications come with a cyber security cost — period. Security professionals need better communications skills and tools to translate nerdy technospeak into more pedestrian language. Legislators need carrots and sticks to entice technically-challenged 60 year old CEOs to invest in cyber security. It’s that simple. Either we do these things or we wake up one day to darkness. It is our choice.
Tags: Barack Obama, CIP, Critical Infrastructure Protection, Cyber Coordinator, cyber security, cyber supply chain, Cyber supply chain assurance, cyber supply chain security, DHS, DOD, Enterprise Strategy Group, ESG, Howard Schmidt Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Before buying an old house, most people do a thorough home inspection to make sure that plumbing, heating, and electricity infrastructure is safe and stable. When purchasing a car for a new driver, many parents check the vehicle’s crash test rating. These actions are simply common sense due diligence since we want to make sure that our homes and children are safe.
Along the same line of reasoning, one would assume that critical infrastructure organizations (i.e., electric utilities, financial services, health care, food processing/agriculture, etc.) do the same type of due diligence on IT equipment and their IT vendors. After all, these IT systems are the underpinning of their services and thus the backbone of the critical infrastructure at large. One would assume that critical infrastructure organizations do this type of security due diligence, but unfortunately this is usually not true.
According to the new ESG Research Report, “Assessing Cyber Supply Chain Security Within the US Critical Infrastructure” (the report is available for free download at www.enterprisestrategygroup.com), IT product and vendor security audits are performed in a random and haphazard fashion. For example:
Why are many vendors getting a security free pass? I’m not sure. It may be that vendor and product security was no big deal in the past when cyber security was composed of network firewalls and desktop antivirus software. It could be that vendors wow their customers with speeds, feeds, and functionality to keep them from digging into geeky security issues. Perhaps they schmooze customers with sporting event tickets and golf outings to take their minds off of product security.
In any case, this behavior should be unacceptable henceforth. The threat landscape is getting more and more sophisticated each day, so each product’s security must stand out on its own.
Note to critical infrastructure organizations: Many IT vendors virtually ignore security in their product design and development. You should be doing a heck of a lot more security due diligence on IT products, vendors, and services, and institute procurement rules that mandate specific security metrics. Vendors should no longer have security–or insecurity–carte blanche.
Tags: Barack Obama, CIP, Critical Infrastructure Protection, cyber security, cyber supply chain, Cyber supply chain assurance, cyber supply chain security, DHS, DOD, Enterprise Strategy Group, ESG, Howard Schmidt Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
ESG Recently Published a new Research Report titled “Cyber Supply Chain Security Vulnerabilities Within The U.S. Critical Infrastructure.” The report can be downloaded here.
As part of the survey, we asked respondents whether the U.S. Federal Government should be more active with cyber security strategies and defenses. Most respondents believe that the answer is “yes;” 31% said that the U.S. Federal Government should be “significantly more active with cyber security strategies and defenses” while 40% believe that the feds should be “somewhat more active with cyber security strategies and defenses.”
Okay, but what exactly should the government do? ESG asked this question as well–here are the results:
Interesting mix of carrot and stick suggestions. I don’t think the IT industry would be too thrilled with “black lists” or changes in liability laws, so expect lobbyists to push for federal incentives and programs.
One other interesting note here: Heavily regulated critical infrastructure organizations with the highest levels of security were most likely to push for more stringent regulations. It appears that something is lacking in current cyber security legislation that heavily regulated organizations recognize and want to change.
Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, CIP, Critical Infrastructure Protection, cyber security, cyber supply chain, Cyber supply chain assurance, cyber supply chain security, DHS, DOD, Enterprise Strategy Group, ESG, Howard Schmidt Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
In 1998, then President Bill Clinton recognized that the United States was especially vulnerable to a cyber attack to its critical infrastructure. Clinton addressed Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) by issuing Presidential Directive 63 (PDD-63).
Soon after PDD-63, Deputy Defense Secretary John Harme cautioned the US Congress about the importance of CIP by warning of a potential “cyber Pearl Harbor.” Harme stated that a devastating cyber attack “is not going to be against Navy ships sitting in a Navy shipyard. It is going to be against commercial infrastructure.”
It’s been 12 years since this dire warning and the general consensus is that US cyber security vulnerabilities are worse, not better. Barack Obama recognized this problem as a candidate and then as President. Upon taking the oath of office, the President called for a 60-day security review, and then addressed the media in May 2009. The President stated, “it’s now clear this cyber threat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation. . . we’re not as prepared as we should be, as a government or as a country.”
The fundamental assumption here is that the US critical infrastructure is vulnerable to a cyber attack, but is this truly the case or just empty Washington rhetoric? Unfortunately, a recently published ESG Research Report reveals that the US critical infrastructure is vulnerable today and could become more vulnerable in the future without decisive near-term action.
ESG surveyed 285 security professionals working at organizations considered as “Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources” (CIKR) by the US Department of Homeland Security. Here are some key research findings:
Most of the report focused on cyber supply chain security. Simply stated, cyber supply chain security extends cyber security policies, processes, and controls to all parties that touch IT–technology vendors, software developers, business partners, etc. Most CIKR organizations are way behind here. Technology vendor security gets little oversight. Secure software development processes are immature. External IT relationships are secured through informal agreements and security data sharing.
In aggregate, the report provides real data quantifying these and other cyber security issues. The entire report is available for free download here.
Critical infrastructure protection and cyber security have been part of the lexicon in Washington since at least 1998. It is about time for less talk or more action. Hopefully, this report helps accelerate this activity.
Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, CIP, Critical Infrastructure Protection, cyber security, cyber supply chain, Cyber supply chain assurance, cyber supply chain security, DHS, DOD, Howard Schmidt, John Harme, PDD-63 Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
I spoke with SIEM vendor NitroSecurity yesterday to hear about what would normally be a low visibility announcement. NitroSecurity announced that it will support OSIsoft’s PI system, a data historian program for industrial control systems. With this integration, NitroSecurity’s SIEM platform (NitroView) can log, analyze, and correlate security events across IP and serial-connected industrial control devices.
If this news came 6 months ago, I would have listened politely, hung up the phone, and then quickly forgotten everything I heard. Stuxnet changed all this. Stuxnet provides a real-world example of malware specifically intended to infect, propagate, and potentially disrupt a control network. Some analysts believe that this has already happened — Stuxnet may have caused damages leading to a delay in the launch of Iran’s nuclear power plant at Bushehr.
Historically, industrial control systems like Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) reported their activity up to a database like OSIsoft which stored the data for basic business analysis. So what’s missing? Security smarts. There was no analysis or correlation going on to figure out whether control systems were behaving as they should or whether the data they provided was the least bit accurate. When a PLC says a closed pressure valve is actually open, it is a recipe for disaster. Integrating NitroView and OSIsoft adds security smarts to data collection. Remember Jack Lemmon tapping the gauge in the movie, “The China Syndrome,” and declaring, “hmm, that’s odd.” That’s what NitroSecurity does.
Basically, NitroSecurity and OSIsoft are addressing a problem in real-time which is good news. The bad news is that I don’t believe that security regulations like NERC CIP apply to control networks (Note: I urge readers to send comments to support or refute this statement). Hopefully this gets rectified soon.
The NitroSecurity/OSIsoft announcement also highlights that network security requirements can vary widely by industry and that some unique industry requirements may overlap with the U.S. critical infrastructure. Let’s hope Washington is taking notice here and that other security vendors follow NitroSecurity’s lead.
Tags: CIP, Critical Infrastructure, NitroSecurity, NitroView, OSIsoft, PLC, SCADA, Stuxnet Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Your email:
