Posted by: Arian Eigen Heald
Admins and Auditors, Compliance, Data Breaches, IT Compliance - Policies, TCM (Truly Clueless Management)
Heartland Security has attempted to point the “Public Finger of Blame” at the hapless QSA auditor they used for PCI compliance, saying that the “QSA let us down.” So who is in charge of security, Heartland or the auditor?
Security is a corporate posture, not a pass/fail compliance test. You can pass the test and the next day change settings on the firewall that turn it into a router. Is the QSA still responsible? Nope. We don’t really know all the details of what happened at Heartland. But we do know that being compliant does not equal being secure. Never has, never will.
For a well written post excising this “Finger,” check out this article on CSO, written by Ben Rothke and Anton Chuvakin. Let’s just say that blaming the door lock when you’ve left the windows open is not a viable public relations option.
The corporate security posture should provide a mandate, from the top down, of the company’s position on information security. The power of C-level executives enforcing the mandate has to come into play. Otherwise it’s just window dressing – and open windows are no way to manage the security of your environment.
What IS the corporate policy? How effective is it? Is management promoting AND funding it? Policies that are effective also protect the information of employees. Everybody wins, even, long term, the stockholders.