Posted by: GuyPardon
Capability Maturity Model Integration, compliance, conference, data protection, encryption, governance, Information security, MA data protection law, regulatory compliance, Risk assessment, risk management, Twitter, Virtualization
As I wrote yesterday, the Compliance Decisions Summit got off to a great start when Eric Holmquist and Richard Mackey considered the future of compliance in their talks before a crowded hall of auditors, compliance officers, CIOs and information security professionals.
The second half of the day featured Holmquist again, this time exploring a risk-based approach to information security governance, and Laurence Anker, speaking about managing the cost and complexity of compliance through governance.
We posted the following Twitter on our ITCompliance account over the course of the afternoon. The #CSD09 you see below is a hashtag we chose to track tweets related to today’s seminar. For a full explanation of what a hashtag is and how it works, please consult last week’s digest of compliance headlines from Twitter.
All four seminars from Compliance Decisions will be available soon from SearchSecurity.com and SearchCompliance.com, along with an exclusive interview with Mackey exploring the ramifications of virtualization to compliance management.
A Risk-Based Approach to Information Security Governance
Lunch over, video recorded w/Mackey on #virtualization & #compliance. Next: Holmquist on a risk-based approach to infosec governance. #CSD09
Information security must be approached as a business issue, not an IT issue. Then we can consider risk mgmt practices.” -Holmquist | #CSD09
RT @ scotpe Adding: “chief security officer does not belong in IT.” Where does s/he belong? [ <-- Good question. Any answers? ]
Lundquist recommends forming a #security council. Give it authority, include senior execs, make cross-disciplinary, safe & visible. #CSD09
Key insight for creating a culture of cooperation vs. risk: “Make it safe to fail” -Holmquist | Don’t underestimate “gut feelings” #CSD09
“Insiders are exponentially more of a threat than outsiders. The ability to respond quickly & effectively is critical” -Holmquist | #CSD09
“You can approach assessing risk in 4 ways: IT systems, electronic data, physical files & third parties. Focus on accountability.” #CSD09
“Risk is quantified in 4 broad categories: What’s at risk? What would be the impact? What could be the source? What can we mitigate?” #CSD09
Paused for another message from another sponsor of #CSD09 & a networking break. Door prize drawing up next for a Flip, iPod & a GPS unit.
Managing the Cost and Complexity of Compliance through Governance
Insurance for IT risk? Anker notes standard policies may not address IT exposures like a data breach or reputational damage. #CSD09
“An organization’s info & other intangible assets account for 80%+ of its market value.” -IT Governance Institute (ITGI) | #CSD09
Conclusions from Compliance Decisions
You’ll be reading, hearing more and seeing more of Holmquist, Anker and Mackey on SearchCompliance.com. All three men will be contributing experts in upcoming articles, podcasts or video.
Writers from both SearchSecurity.com and SearchCompliance.com will continue reporting on the Massachusetts data protection law and its ramifications for IT professionals and businesses nationwide. Clearly, many questions remain about the regulatory impact of the law on IT operations.
As Robert Westervelt reported, the deadline for the Massachusetts data protection and encryption law was extended to Jan. 1.
“We understand the impact of the current business environment and feel this is an appropriate time frame for companies to implement the necessary protections,” Daniel C. Crane, the Undersecretary of the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, said in a statement.
Westervelt noted a key change in the updated version of the regulation: “The extension includes a revision to the rules relaxing a requirement holding third parties accountable to the security rules. Under the original law, companies had to attest that a third-party provider was compliant with the regulations.”
As noted to the audience during the question-and-answer session with Anker, SearchCompliance.com recorded a podcast last month with Gerry Young and David Murray of the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation. The CIO and general counsel, respectively, discuss the details of the new data protection rules:
The provision of third-party compliance as proven by a “WISP” came up during the course the interview, if not under that name. Regardless of the documentation requirements, small businesses and enterprises alike considering outsourcing data protection and encryption compliance will need to make sure that service providers, VARs and consultants certify and appropriately explain where and how their work brings an organization into compliance with the Massachusetts statute.