Cybersecurity pros are badly in need of MENTORS: And here’s why…

Finding and keeping cyber-talent is a top global concern for public- and private-sector organizations alike. Yet, the prevailing theory among industry analysts is that there is a talent crisis, with ‘experts’ predicting that by 2022 there will be more than 1.8 million unfilled jobs.

The above graphic highlights one of the industry’s most glaring shortcomings: Everyone wants to hire cybersecurity pros, but no one wants to develop, guide, instruct and enhance the career effectiveness of inexperienced/entry-level candidates. It’s a self-destructive, self-refuelling, self-fulfilling prophecy – And it NEEDS to STOP! We simply don’t have an assembly line of top-tier, experienced cyber pros to choose from.

So how do we develop the next generation of cybersecurity leaders? What are some of the individual actions veteran security leaders can take? How do we help those without the finances to obtain expensive security training and certifications? What role does the government have to play?

There are multiple dimensions to the institutionalisation of cyber capacity building. For example, there’s a national response and an enterprise response — and ideally the two should be coordinated (but most often are not).

There are established commercial training and certification programs, which can verify the capabilities of individuals. However, while these certifications can be used to get hired, organizations still have to continuously invest in their employees’ development. This is particular important given how rapidly the threat landscape changes.

From a national perspective, capabilities need to be developed to build trust in the online systems that underpin the digital economy. Part of building trust is creating a workforce of cyber pros to address key threats. Government should create a workforce development program as part of a national cybersecurity strategy, and it should address training at the college, university and professional certification levels.

But in the absence of such actions by corporations or countries, we cybersecurity leaders need to take up the charge. We need to commit to mentoring as many young professionals as we humanly can. It’s not only incumbent upon us to support their career progress, but also to give back to the profession as well as contribute to the overall trust model that underpins the global Internet. Let’s do our part!

What Do Great Airports and Great Cybersecurity Have In Common?

My 5 best airports are as follows:

  1. Singapore Changi Airport
  2. Tokyo International Airport – Haneda
  3. Seoul Incheon International Airport
  4. Hamad International Airport – Doha
  5. Hong Kong International Airport

Conversely, my 5 worst airports are:

  1. Newark Liberty International
  2. Berlin Schönefeld International
  3. Charles de Gaulle-Paris International
  4. Reykjavik International Airport
  5. London Gatwick International

Great airports are designed to manage high volumes of traffic while maintaining robust, granular security. They get the basic and advanced things right, while maintaining user friendliness and efficiency. They provide seamless connectivity, and are agile and responsive. They combine people, process and technology effectively. And they involve all stakeholders in continuous improvement plans. Great cybersecurity also does these things well!

Expert Insights on Cyber Threats and Security

It is only a matter of time before an organisation experiences some kind of cyber incident.

In this podcast conversation with ICT Pulse, I discussed, among other things, how the threat landscape is changing, what should be included in a good Cybersecurity Incident Response Plan, whether cyber insurance is a good idea, and what is the top cybersecurity concern businesses face today.

Check it out here!

Facts vs Fiction: What’s the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Really About?

There’s still a vigorous debate going on about the ‘right to erasure’, also referred to by some as ‘the right to be forgotten.’ Its detractors strongly argue that it is tantamount to censoring lawful and factual information, and is dubious on principle. They also believe it to be deeply flawed as a method of protecting privacy.

I believe those to be simple-minded positions. The ‘right to erasure’ allows for data subjects to have their data scrubbed when it is no longer necessary for the purpose an organization originally collected it. It is also key when there is no overriding legitimate interest for an organization to continue with the processing. It also protects an individual when their data is being processed unlawfully or when an organization has to adhere to a court ruling.

To be more specific, Article 17 of the GDPR outlines the conditions under which the right to be forgotten takes precedent. An individual has the right to have their personal data erased when:

  • The personal data is no longer required for the original purpose an organization collected or processed it;
  • An organization is relying on an individual’s consent as the lawful basis for processing the data and that consent is withdrawn;
  • An organization is relying on legitimate interests as its justification for processing an individual’s data, the individual objects to this processing, and there is no overriding legitimate interest for the organization to continue with the processing;
  • An organization is processing personal data for direct marketing purposes and the individual objects to this processing;
  • An organization processed an individual’s personal data unlawfully;
  • An organization must erase personal data in order to comply with a legal ruling or obligation; and
  • An organization has processed a child’s personal data to provide them with specific information services.

However, there are several instance which override the right to erasure:

  • The data is being used to exercise the right of freedom of expression and information.
  • The data is being used to comply with a legal ruling or obligation.
  • The data is being used to perform a task that is being carried out in the public interest or when exercising an organization’s official authority.
  • The data being processed is necessary for public health purposes and serves in the public interest.
  • The data being processed is necessary to perform preventative or occupational medicine. This only applies when the data is being processed by a health professional who is subject to a legal obligation of professional secrecy.
  • The data represents important information that serves the public interest, scientific research, historical research, or statistical purposes and where erasure of the data would likely to impair halt progress towards the achievement that was the goal of the processing.
  • The data is being used for the establishment of a legal defense or in the exercise of other legal claims.
  • Furthermore, an organization can request a “reasonable fee” or deny a request to erase personal data if the organization can justify that the request was unfounded or excessive.

As is evident by a deeper look at the GDPR, a number of factors contribute to successfully having your data erased. Each request has to be assessed individually, the request must not interfere with other fundamental rights, it shouldn’t take precedent over the public interest, or countermand law enforcement requirements, etc. It is NOT a lawful reason to erase history or hide data about yourself that is embarrassing, and it doesn’t generally allow you to obscure your criminal past.

That being said, the issue of outdated and irrelevant information remaining indefinitely online is one that law has not effectively addressed (especially in the Internet Age). And it’s a dilemma that is predominantly more harmful for those who aren’t public figures — the folks who are in greater need of privacy protections from the law.

What the Government of Barbados Needs to Do to Get Fintech Right

There’s a common misconception that IT governance, risk and control (GRC) professionals like myself impose unreasonable demands on those trying to innovate and deliver human, social and economic benefits to society. But this is the furthest thing from the truth – our role is to ensure that those who are delivering technological solutions understand the risks and impacts associated with their IT platforms, and mitigate them in an adequate, effective, and sustainable manner.

The aforementioned point is key as I will go on to explore the privacy, security, and socio-economic implications of two recent announcements by the Government of Barbados pertaining to the implementation of Blockchain-related technology in the country. In a September 19th article titled ‘E-currency pilot coming’, it was stated that Prime Minister Mia Mottley “did not give details of the planned mobile wallet pilot project or when it would begin but gave the assurance that it would not be done in a reckless manner.” Barbados Today published an article on September 25th which stated ‘BSE to begin crypto-trading’, essentially heralding the decision of the Barbados Stock Exchange to trade in security tokens or crypto assets.

Given my intimate knowledge of privacy and security weaknesses in both the public and private sectors, the PM’s words do not instill in me any great confidence around the robustness of the security controls that will accompany these projects. The implementation of e-currency is a complex undertaking, that if not done correctly, can have a material impact on the country’s already weakened economic position. Security tokens are an extremely nascent solution with a lot of potential, but that doesn’t exempt them from security and privacy deficiencies. As such, I want to delve into some of the key areas that must be addressed before these solutions are widely deployed across our beloved nation.

Contract management and due diligence

Before any contracts are signed to commence these projects, the government must understand where personal data of Barbadian citizens will be stored. To provision users onto these platforms, personal data will need to be collected for AML and KYC purposes such as name, address, phone number, driver’s license, passport details, etc.

If the data is stored outside of Barbados, the privacy of Bajans may not be safeguarded as it will be subject to the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction in which the data resides (meaning that the legislation of a foreign country could permit them access to any and all data kept on Barbadian citizens). This is particularly concerning given the absence of data protection legislation in Barbados that would force any fintech company to ensure that transnational data flows must only occur where the destination country has an adequate legal framework in place to protect the rights of data subjects.

The lack of data protection legislation presents another problem in terms of imposing strict obligations on fintech providers to uphold the rights of data subjects. This includes setting requirements and fines for both data controllers and data processors as it pertains to protecting personal and sensitive data, obtaining consent to share personal/sensitive data, reporting data breaches to government and data subjects, among other rules. Hence, it would be in the best interests of Barbados citizens and foreign nationals if the 2018 Data Protection Bill was enacted into law before the launch of the new platforms.

In an ideal situation, the government should obtain 2-3 references from previous instances where the contracted parties have deployed solutions of this kind for other customers. However, it appears that Barbados will be the first country where the vendor will be deploying a ‘true’ e-currency platform, thus making the need for strong controls even more critical. As it pertains to tokenized securities, similar due diligence must be undertaken to protect our citizens.

The government must ensure that a qualified and independent security professional conducts a site visit to the vendors’ IT facilities to undertake a thorough assessment of their security controls. If this cannot be done, the vendor should be required to furnish government with a signed attestation from an independent and qualified third party that the IT facilities meet all the necessary best practice security requirements (e.g. physical security, grounding and lightning protection, environment monitoring, generators, etc.). Additionally, there should be a “right to audit” clause in the contract that allows the government to turn up at the vendors’ IT facilities at any time to conduct a security assessment.

The vendors’ financial statements should be reviewed by an independent auditing firm such as PwC, EY or Deloitte to ensure that they are in good standing and that they are able to remain going concerns for the foreseeable future. The viability of their business models should also be assessed as ‘feasible’. This would protect the country and its citizens from being left at the mercy of fintech service providers whose platforms enjoy massive uptake and integration into the socio-economic fabric of the country, and then they are quickly no longer in business.

With regards to PwC, EY, Deloitte, and other accounting firms (or any qualified professional services firm as a matter of fact), government should enlist one of them to have experienced IT auditors assigned full-time to both projects. This would ensure that IT governance, risk and control processes are embedded throughout the project lifecycles and don’t become an afterthought.

Another area of due diligence is assessment of the team who will be delivering and supporting the solutions. The government must obtain assurance that the right mix of skills is available to deliver and provide ongoing support for high performance, scalable and secure fintech platforms. Along with the technical positions, key roles that should be in place are Internal Audit (assurance), Privacy (compliance) and Information Security (availability, integrity and confidentiality).

Finally, a software escrow agreement that allows government access to the vendor’s proprietary code in the event they go out of business should be put into place […]

To view the remaining guidance on Technical Architecture, Deployment & Support, and Monitoring & Evaluation, you can read the entire blog here.

Should it be mandatory for CISOs to be part of the Board of Directors?

More and more boards are scrutinizing the impact of security and privacy issues on their businesses. However, taken action to being CISOs on to the board has been way too slow. The main challenge is that they don’t grasp that information security issues are not simply IT issues. For clarity, take a look at my article on ‘8 Reasons Why Cybersecurity Strategy and Business Operations are Inseparable‘.

The urgency now being seen from many boards is more so a knee-jerk response to government pressures and increased regulations in lieu of several high profile breaches that have shaken public trust. The former head of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Luis Agulilar made the following comment back in 2014:

“Board oversight of cyber risk management is critical to ensuring that companies are taking adequate steps to prevent, and prepare for, the harms that can result from such attacks.” He also issued a clear warning that “boards that choose to ignore or minimize the importance of cybersecurity oversight responsibility do so at their own peril.”

Regulators across the globe are making it clear that organizations must have robust privacy and security controls in place to manage the risks associated with technology-enabled commerce. As such, it is critically important that boards regardless of their companies’ industries have a security expert among them to expertly lead the organization in such matters. It is clear that government regulators will hold the Board of Directors accountable and liable for not discharging their duty to prevent harm to the corporation, including damage occurring from cyber attacks and data breaches. Individual directors themselves can be subject to derivative shareholder lawsuits and class-action suits from the company’s banks, business partners, vendors, customers and their own employees.

That being said, not many CISOs have the knowledge and experience; the executive capabilities required to translate into meaningful business terms the impact a cyber incident has on the organization and the activities undertaken to mitigate such events. Many members of the board are not engineers or IT professionals, let alone possess an understanding of technology governance, risk and control. The average board is comprised of approximately nine individuals but some can be as many as 30 persons, so it is imperative that the CISO familiarize himself with his audience to effectively deliver a solid presentation that resonates with them. It is helpful to go into the details of presentations one-to-one with individual board members, as many of them love going into depth and that is an ideal approach to influence the board on an individual basis. For actual board meetings, there is a firm agenda and time limitations that can lessen the strength and impact of CISO presentations.

One of the most effective presentations is the use of risk metrics as most board members in a formal session do not want to be inundated with techno-jargon (do this and watch their eyes glaze over). They want a helicopter perspective of the issues and with clear impact on how the organization as a whole is affected. Board members want visual quantification of risks with the most relevant data in simple language. Using benchmarks designating the past, present and future allows the audience to clearly see how the situation has changed, see the progress and efforts necessary to achieve a benchmark goal.

It is an uphill journey for a CISO to acquire a seat on the board. It is not for the faint-hearted as one is burdened with enormous responsibilities and the board members are the apex of the organization tasked with guiding its ultimate success or failure. Consequently, board membership is a delicate process as much is at stake in terms of the organization remaining a going concern.

CISOs are a necessity to have on the board but they must be savvy, experienced and strategic-minded executive to serve in that capacity. They must have the vision, thought leadership, relationship building skills, and grit to demonstrate value to the organization in this role.

The Impact of the GDPR on the Hospitality Sector

Today I held a General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) awareness seminar for members of the Barbados Hotel and Tourism Association (BHTA).

With regards to data security, there are few sectors more vulnerable to data-related threats than the hospitality sector. The volume of processed personal and credit card information being handed over to hotels, restaurants, etc. on a daily basis makes the sector extremely vulnerable. With the enforcement deadline having passed on 25 May, several companies in the sector have not updated their data protection processes, and are at risk for large financial penalties.

The seminar touched on key areas such as the following:

  1. Major Differences between the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC and the GDPR
  2. Overall readiness across the hospitality sector
  3. Capturing and using personal data going forward
  4. Consent and contextual use of personal data
  5. How the GDPR affects repeat business and email marketing
  6. How the GDPR affects third-party data processors
  7. The rights of data subjects under the GDPR
  8. The difference between ‘personal data’ and ‘sensitive data’, and how they should be treated
  9. Other key aspects of the GDPR such as the Data Protection Officer (DPO), Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIA) and ‘privacy by design’
  10. How to update strategies for websites, data governance, and marketing to become GDPR compliant

My takeaway from this session was that many businesses — small to large — have not made any steps to align their operations and processes with the requirements of the GDPR. Several others are defiantly refusing to address privacy and data protection within their organizations. However, what was gratifying is that I received a torrent of emails in the hours and days after from hoteliers, many of them eager to engage subject matter experts (SMEs) to assist in improving their control framework to meet the rigorous demands of the GDPR. Hopefully, this interest and willingness to improve is sustainable. There’s a lot of work to be done!

 

 

What is a virtual CISO? When and why should you hire one?

Chief information security officers (CISOs) are increasingly in-demand, and the very good ones are expensive and difficult to lock down. As more and more organizations who are without CISOs suffer breaches, how should they go about bringing such talent into their businesses?

Could an on-demand virtual CISO (vCISO) be the appropriate solution for them? A vCISO is essentially a security practitioner who provides their advice and insights to an organization on an outsourced and ongoing basis, usually part-time and remotely.

But why would a business engage a vCISO when they can hire a full-time CISO? The answer to this is not a simple one. Firstly, a vCISO is not a good fit for all organizations. Secondly, highly-regarded, experienced CISOs are not easily found, generally stay in a role for 2-3 years, and most importantly, come with a salary that is prohibitive for small to medium enterprises (SMEs).

vCISOs usually cost around 40% – 60% of what you would pay a full-time CISO, and their services can be delivered on-demand. Their benefits usually way exceed their costs. Virtual CISOs are highly experienced, knowledgeable, don’t have learning curve challenges, can integrate easily into a business, and won’t see the need to tiptoe or play nice when it comes to corporate politics. With this approach, it is strictly about outcomes, and a top-tier vCISO will provide critical board and executive engagement, metrics, and high-level reporting.

While different vCISOs come with varying skillsets, most should be able to deal with a plethora of activities from strategic to tactical. They can develop your information risk assessment methodology. They can create a robust framework of policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines. They can help your organization come to terms with GDPR, PCI-DSS and other compliance issues. They can address outsourced vendor risks, for example around cloud computing and IoT services. They can also assist with recruitment and establishing a high-performance team, devising the security vision and strategy, leading the RFP process for security solutions, refining incident response processes, and implementing COBIT 5.0 and ISO/IEC 27000. They might also support the coaching and training needs of newly hired CISOs and conduct awareness training and reporting to the Board of Directors.

Virtual CISOs are best suited to startups and growing companies, and are an ideal approach for bolstering the already in-place management team or basically leveraged as a short-term solution. The best vCISOs must be good communicators – vertically and horizontally, and especially at the board level. They must be able to work with companies across diverse industries and with varying risk profiles and backgrounds. They must be capable of communicating clearly what business risks companies are exposed to as it relates to cybersecurity. An effective vCISO must also be adaptable and quickly learn about the unique business environment their customer operates in. And once these things are known, the vCISO needs to bring their knowledge and skills to bear in terms of aligning the cybersecurity strategy with the business’ strategic objectives.

As they generally operate without budgets or responsibility for implementation, it is best if vCISOs are viewed as advisors and not as auditors or change managers. Cybersecurity is largely a business of relationship management, and traditional CISOs must win the hearts and minds of the executives and organizational leaders if they’re to move the enterprise forward. vCISOs don’t necessarily need to do this, as they are not visible and likely won’t be around for the long-term.

Why Bitcoin Will Not Solve the Caribbean’s Financial Inclusion Woes

What is Bitcoin? Is it electronic money?

There’s a deluge of hype around Bitcoin and blockchain technologies right now, and policymakers and regulators in the Caribbean are doing their best to wrap their heads around the advantages and disadvantages of this virtual currency. Similar questions are being contemplated in the ICTs for development (ICT4D) community, taking into account that electronic money (e-money) platforms such as Safaricom’s M-PESA have essentially solved the financial inclusion quandary for millions of people in Kenya. The service has now even expanded to Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, and India.

Besides sharing the characteristic of being digital, how do Bitcoin and e-money compare, especially with regards to reaching individuals who have previously been unable to access traditional financial services? Presently, there appear to be more differences than similarities between the two, and it’s critical not to confuse virtual currency with e-money.

Blockchain, in brief, is a record of digital events, distributed across multiple participants. It can only be updated by consensus between participants in the system, and when new data is entered, it can never be erased. The blockchain contains a true and verifiable record of each and every transaction ever made in the system. Launched in 2009, Bitcoin is a virtual, private currency that uses blockchain as an underlying, immutable public ledger. Bitcoins are ‘mined’ using distributed processing power across a global network of volunteer software enthusiasts. The supply mechanism is designed to grow slowly and has an upper limit of 21 million units as determined by a built-in algorithm. There is no central authority that controls blockchain or Bitcoin. There are no central banks that can be politically manipulated; and no way to inflate the value of a national currency by simply printing more money. Economic libertarians are ecstatic at the very thought of this. However, competing virtual currencies can be created that could have the net effect of devaluing the original.

Contrastingly, e-money is not a separate currency and is overseen by the same national regulatory authority that governs the printing of fiat money – as is the case with M-PESA and the Central Bank of Kenya. It’s an extension of a national currency like Jamaican dollars or Netherland Antilles guilders for use over digital networks to reduce the costs associated with handling physical cash. More specifically, it’s a one-to-one electronic store of value pegged to the cash receipt of the equivalent amount. To mitigate against risks like money laundering, terrorist financing, consumer protection, etc., the cash against which e-money is issued most often has to be deposited with fully regulated financial institutions.

The issue of financial exclusion

The issue of financial exclusion can be summarized into 2 categories: unbanked and underbanked. Unbanked individuals do not have an account at a regulated financial institution, while underbanked individuals have accounts, but frequently use alternative or unregulated financial services.

Before elaborating on the key factors behind financial exclusion, it is important to detail the effects of being unbanked to illustrate the severity of the problem. Unbanked individuals are faced with a heavy economic burden […]

The full article can be found on the CircleID website at: https://goo.gl/zn7Yg9

The State of Cybersecurity 2017 – Simplicity 2.0 Podcast

“Cybersecurity is a constant challenge for businesses. Niel Harper, Managing Director of Octave Consulting Group, shares tips to protect your company’s infrastructure from security threats, and offers ways to stay a step ahead of malware, hacking, and other attacks.”

I recently sat down with the Economist Group and Laserfiche (Simplicity 2.0 Podcast) to discuss the management of cybersecurity risks. These types of interviews tend to get very abstract, so I purposely wanted to touch on topics that would resonate with both corporations and end users.

The podcast in its entirety can be found here.