In the days since that conversation I’ve put some thought into the frameworks because in the end the aforementioned CISO was committed to finding the NIST experience and eventually did.  But what did that really mean?  Having fairly recently had the occasion to have both NIST 800-53 and the ISO 27000 documents  in front of me it was striking how similar they both were with only a few obvious distinctions to be made between the two.  Essentially the differences reflected more on the cultures that created them than the risk factors they were focused on (NIST = U.S.A and ISO = European).  But information technology architectures fundamentally are identical the world over so despite formatting and spelling they both are addressing the same challenges whether or not they realise it. And for those of us who have familiarity with both, to know one is to know both, even if those who are committed to either one disagree.  If you’ve worked on audit/assessment projects leveraging ISO 2700o material you’re immediately qualified to work on projects using the corresponding NIST framework and vice versa.   And if you have experience working with PCI standards guess what?  You can pretty much step in and work with either NIST or ISO content (except of course you have to expand your sights to include the entire infrastructure, not just on whatever touches PAN data).

My preference is that we would consolidate globally into the ISO frameworks where applicable and maybe even fit that in to the SSAE 16 process.  I’ve read enough toothless SAS 70/SSAE 16 reports to know that it’s easy enough to rig the system to your advantage.  And unless you’re a government agency that has to comply with NIST there’s little meaningful value to using NIST whereas being ISO 27000 certified carries a great deal of weight within the audit/assurance community.  Plus there’s the added benefit of having InfoSec practitioners all getting trained and practiced at both building out ISO 27000 compliant solutions and also knowing how to test the related controls.  Think about that, a single global security standard regardless of where you enter into the profession.  Having run a few practices in my career and way more than my fair share of engagements I can tell you that has great appeal.  Plus it would help eliminate awkward dialogues where my sixteen years of real and relevant experience is at least partially marginalized because it hasn’t all been with one particular standard.

Ultimately in the end a frameworks only meaningful advantage is that it theoretically ensures consistency in how controls are identified and assessed.  If you have someone who knows a framework but doesn’t really understand the details within that sort of defeats the process anyway, no matter how robust or thorough it may be.  Perhaps that’s why I consider it a non-issue when it comes to which frameworks a practitioner has used.  I’d much rather work with someone who understands the technology and has a good feel for the details rather than someone who knows that SDLC is addressed in SA-3 for NIST or Section 12.5 for ISO 27002.  But than again, I’ve always been more concerned with real risk, not perceived risk so this shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who’s read my content in the past.

A security framework by any other name would be just as comprehensive, you know what I mean?

I’ve personally reviewed and/or audited somewhere close to fifty business continuity/disaster recovery (BCP/DR) plans over the past decade.  I’ve also written or edited several of those as well in the past five years since moving into professional services for financial institutions.   Furthermore I’ve participated in roughly a half-dozen tests while still working within the infrastructure during the first part of my career.  Suffice to say I have at least an informed opinion regarding the viability of any such BCP/DR strategies.

Fundamentally there are a few varieties of  BCP/DR plans:  Those that are current and viable, those that convince your examiner that it’s current and viable and those that may have been viable years ago but bear no resemblance to your current business profile.  And beyond those there’s the worst of BCP/DR realities, the non-existent one.  But really in the end what your current state of preparedness comes down to is this – either you’re ready for an event or you’re not.   And in the past forty-eight hours that’s been made abundantly clear in the form of how many of my clients affected by Hurricane Sandy have navigated through what’s now clearly one of the worst weather events in my lifetime.

Around noontime yesterday (October 29, 2012) as weather conditions worsened and major metropolitan areas were literally shutting down for business I started checking up on a few clients.  The first thing I did was visit the website of every client that my practice has assisted with their BCP/DR strategy – each of them had updated their website to announce that branches in the affected areas were closed.  Some had a pop-up window with the update, others had a message displayed in either bright red letters, bold font or both.  As a standard design consideration each of them also had phone numbers clearly displayed and when I called a sampling real people answered and were available to assist me.  I inquired of a few of them where they were physically located and they were all located remotely and not on site in affected areas (much to their credit they were reluctant to share too much information).   The second thing I did was visit the website for a few clients whose BCP/DR plans were tagged during an audit/assessment as either being deficient or missing.  The websites were not updated and in all but one case I only learned that they were closed for the day after calling into a branch (one had an 800 number that was redirected to a real person).

Now I know this wasn’t a very deep or meaningful test of anyone’s ability to continue operations in the event of a disaster.   But what it did prove is that those institutions who had plans that were current and whose management team knew to rely upon had already thought through the little things that make a difference.   Someone knew to update the website, management knew to reroute calls away from unmanned branch locations.  I can only assume that the appropriate parties desginated to do so also contacted their regulators to inform them of their closing and that a phone chain was initiated informing staff thus keeping them off the roads and safe.  And because an important part of the plan creation/update process is both training and testing stakeholders are able to navigate through the decision tree and take appropriate related steps without having to think through it – one of the biggest challenges confronting management during a crisis.  The very best part of having a viable and current plan is that all the thinking has been done in advance and has been reviewed and validated which greatly reduces the chances that something (or someone) will be missed.

Here’s a sanity test:  If you didn’t know exactly where to begin the decision-making process or who to engage you’re in need of a new plan.  And if you did know but can’t be absolutely certain that others would be able to do the same in your absence, you’re in need of a new plan.  One of the rebuttals I’ve heard all too often when identifying a deficient or missing BCP is that management knows what to do should some manner of disaster strike.  That may be true but what happens if key people are unavailable or can’t be reached?

Seriously, when something like Hurricane Sandy occurs it’s the best time to consider how you’re institution would fare when navigating such an event.  Block off an hour within the next week with your key people, pull out your BCP/DR documentation and try and step through how you’d handle things under similar circumstances.  In a very short time you’ll gain a sense of whether or not you’re prepared and if necessary afford you the opportunity to improve.

Trust me on this – you don’t want to be in the middle of a disaster scenario and find out that your plan doesn’t work.

Truth be told, while I’ve spent somewhere near seventy-five percent of my time over the past ten years working for financial institutions I’ve also done a fair amount of work for insurance companies, mostly centered on SOX with occasional diversions into general risk assessment work.  The drivers in the insurance industry are different in terms of oversight and requirements and so the volume of work isn’t nearly the same.  But that by itself begs a question: Why isn’t the insurance industry as regulated as financial institutions?

I’ve now done major audit and assurance work for financial institutions, insurance companies and health care providers and for most of them the risk profile is almost identical in terms of non-public personal information.  So why isn’t the level of scrutiny equal across all three of them?  While some might start spouting about how it is, about how states routinely audit insurance companies and how the health care industry has to comply with HIPAA the truth is that banks and credit unions are held to a much higher degree of accountability than any other vertical.  Why is that?

I’m fond of routinely, almost incessantly beating the drum about how it’s all about the risk.  I get my initial client opportunities because I have a deep resume with relevant experience but I generate repeat business because I tend to whittle things down to what matters most both to my clients and to their oversight providers (auditors and examiners alike).  Compliance exists because risks need to be addressed – if the risks aren’t credible or likely the work should be adjusted to reflect that.  But where the risks are real they’re really real.  The type  of data shared with an insurance company is in many ways even more sensitive than anything shared with a bank and most of what’s shared with insurance companies is also shared with health care providers.  Yet there’s no true Federal oversight for the insurance industry and HIPAA is about as much of a toothless tiger as anything I’ve ever encountered.

I recently completed a boatload of documentation to get my family on a new health insurance plan.  I turned over every piece of sensitive information I have for every member of my family minus my bank account information because that’s what was required.  I had to provide all of this online and follow that up by sending them an impressive array of hard-copy documents with even more sensitive information that should never be kicking around in the public domain.   In the past I’ve also been required to provide my bank account information because one plan in particular would only provide coverage if they could automatically deduct monthly premiums via ACH drafts.  So now the insurance industry has access to it all; name, address, social security number, date-of-birth, maiden name, medical history and banking information.  And yet there’s no true oversight agency that’s responsible for making sure they’re protecting all of MY information.

To compound my frustration, of the four insurance companies I’ve conducted work for since 2006 (two of which are Fortune 5oo’s) exactly none of them have something akin to a Chief Information Security Officer.  They all have risk people focused on the business side of things (because that’s necessary to protect profitability) but that’s it.  There’s typically an information security manager who’s part of the infrastructure team but who almost never reports right into the senior-most technology person (e.g. CIO, CTO).  Any audit work that occurs is coordinated across multiple IT managers and on rare occasions there will be an audit/assurance manager.  However in the one example I personally know of where that position exists the person in the role was really just a converted IT manager who obtained a CISA designation – no fundamental audit or assessment experience.

The question has to be asked:  Why is it that banks and credit unions are heavily regulated regarding protection of non-public personal information but other industries with similar risk profiles are  not?  Why aren’t insurance companies required to comply with FFIEC-type guidance?  Why isn’t there a Federal regulatory agency that is responsible for keeping an eye on the insurance industry the way the FDIC, OCC, FRB and NCUA do so for their financial institutions?  And trust me, whatever oversight exists for the insurance and health care industry is largely ineffective.   Why is my sensitive information considered more at risk within a banking infrastructure than it is within an insurance infrastructure?  Having been on site for both and examined their internal controls  I can’t answer that question, that’s for certain.

Which is why I don’t much care for any manner of compliance-based assessments that are self-administered.

Companies have had this crazy notion for more than a decade now that the best way to identify and address risks inherent within the infrastructure is to ask key stakeholders a somewhat generic set of questions and use their responses to figure out what’s what.  Most of the time the people driving these initiatives are either information security professionals or corporate compliance people who either believe they already know where the problems are or are looking for the simplest and easiest way to satisfy some requirement.  But what they often fail to grasp is that it’s almost impossible to draft a common set of questions that either apply to the vast majority or worse, will be interpreted consistently across the stakeholder population.  Plus the perceived benefit of using a self-assessment approach to reduce effort and required support resources is almost always an illusion.  Most of the time saved in not having someone ask the questions and record the answers is instead consumed by needing to explain the format, explain the questions or trying to clarify and clean up the responses.  While supporting one such program recently each assessment required a kick-off meeting, a follow-up meeting to review the status of the assessment, a third meeting to review the initial draft of the questionnaire, a fourth meeting to review the resulting report(s) and a largely untracked number of hours to help generate all of the related support documentation.  Regardless of the size of the entity being assessed each one consumed somewhere close to eight hours.  While that might seem like a scary large number, the really scary part was that based on which risk analyst was responsible for the assessment and the personality/mindset of the stakeholder completing it the results looked very different from one another.  It was almost impossible to generate meaningful metrics across the assessment population because a “Yes” answer for one question might mean the same as an “N/A” in another; there was no way to know that.

Another issue I’ve always had with the self-assessment approach is that while some stakeholders take it seriously and do a remarkably thorough job, others race through it with little hesitation just to fill in the blanks and get it off their desk.  Sometimes you can detect which is which, sometimes you can’t.  Plus the approach fails to capture much of the rich and relevant information related to each question and the underlying risk behind it.  I recall conducting a team-driven risk assessment years ago where one stakeholder after the next covering a very broad sampling of the infrastructure kept lamenting on the lack of a proper disaster recovery plan.  They had something to show auditors/examiners but to a person no one believed it was a truly viable plan.  All but the CIO brought it up as a concern and when pressed a bit about why that was they all shared a common concern: If their main office was closed unexpectedly for twenty-four hours, regardless of the reason, they were likely out of business.  A related self-assessment question would ask “Do you have a current and recently tested DR plan?” – most respondents on that engagement would simply have selected “Yes” and moved on to the next question without ever being challenged to share their concerns.  Where’s the value in having a repository of questions and answers when it fails to capture the true essence or dimension of risk? 

And the biggest issue I’ve always had with self-assessment questionnaires and their related templates is that they’re so often poorly designed.  I can guarantee you that each of them has at least one question which makes zero sense to anyone who reads it.  They either answer it based on what they think it’s asking, answer with an “N/A” or require follow-up with the people managing the process to have it explained.  And you’d be amazed how many times even the author is challenged to provide a meaningful answer (including this guy).  One thing’s for certain, a self-anything needs to be designed and written so that everyone understands what they need to do without having their hand held.  Plus it’s rare that questionnaires are customized so that each stakeholder is only asked those questions that truly make sense.  An application owner should never be asked if their anti-virus solution is current and up-to-date.  A business process owner should never be asked about software change management.  Yet seldom have I encountered a self-assessment process which does anything like this and so the audience is burdened with time consuming yet unnecessary questions.

Really though in the end my overriding problem with the self-assessment approach is that it fails to capture the expertise and guiding hand of true risk and assurance people.  The process is often supported by analysts who don’t really have a feel for conducting assessments and are satisfied that all of the blanks are filled in.  I have a nose for when there’s something beyond a simple answer and know when to scratch at the surface to bring it to light.  By not allowing expert hands to guide the process potentially huge amounts of valuable and possibly critical details are being missed thus undermining any perceived value of the process.  When you consider that all tolled and tallied the self-assessment approach versus the guided assessment approach doesn’t really save you much time (if any) and that it results in a weaker finished product, why would you elect to use it?   One answer is that regulators push for it because perhaps it’s better than nothing (I can’t get any of those I know to comment).  Another is that the people sponsoring these initiatives lack the fundamental comprehension to understand their options and chose what they perceive as the less complicated approach (again, I don’t know for sure it’s just a theory).  What I do know is that when done right a risk assessment is managements best friend, a fundamental belief behind the recent spike in ERM activity.

While recently having my car serviced the mechanic discovered a nest of some sort in the engine block, he thinks it was probably squirrels.  Because of this discovery he went searching for all the wired connections to make sure they weren’t chewed up and destroyed, quite a few were as it turns out (the car had been idle for several months).  The bill only added the cost of the replacement wires but nothing significant for the time it took to first find which were affected and then replace them.  Had I attempted the repair myself I might have noticed the nest and likely would’ve cleared it but know for certain I never would’ve thought to check the wires, where to look for them or what to look for.  I was smart enough to rely on a professional with a nose for that sort of thing and it saved me time, money and best of all the aggravation of having the car break down somewhere unexpectedly.  Good thing I didn’t go the self-repair route.

Now I’ve designed and supported more than my fair share of related content.  I understand that sometimes the best way to tell a story is to paint it in the form of a picture; I get that part.  But way too many times I’ve witnessed such initiatives spiral out of control to the point where it takes an army of people working ridiculous hours to pull together a deck of metrics that either fails to answer anyone’s questions or, even worse, generates requests for more metrics to provide clarity.  And once a metric becomes a standard part of any reporting package it often stays there until management changes, and sometimes even beyond.

But I think there’s a bigger issue with metrics that exceeds my simply not thinking they’re “all that and a bag of chips”.  Where are the controls around generating them?

Seriously, we have this vastly complex framework wrapped around financial reporting (SOX) to provide reasonable assurances that what management is reporting to its investors is accurate.  We have industry, federal and state legislation requiring all manner of controls around sensitive information.  There are auditors (internal and external) and regulators from all over the place that comb over everything with a fine tooth comb (or at least claim to) to make sure everything being done is done right – but in my nearly fifteen years in the audit/assurance industry I have never heard of a finding or issue regarding the veracity of metrics.  Which is only a problem if the people running an institution or company rely on them to make decisions.

The reason why it’s a problem is because so much of the metrics out in circulation is pulled together from disparate sources, cobbled together in spreadsheets or non-production databases and manually generated.  There’s no easy way to verify the source data, or know that it’s unaltered in any way or even know if it’s the right information.  And even if the data source used is from a secured production-like environment, still there’s no real auditing conducted to ensure the information is accurate or better yet, is even the right information.

I once took over a change management process and assumed responsibility for a series of reports that were generated for the Managing Director who in turn used that as part of his reporting package shared with the CIO.  One of the key metrics being reported on was scheduled releases and the IT departments on-time implementation percentage.  The numbers looked great showing that they were on-time more than ninety-five percent of the time over a two year period.  The only problem I could see with the metric was that it was misleading to the point where it was almost a lie.  The scheduled release date was being pulled from the system used to migrate changes into production and that date was only determined once the development team had completed all of their work.  So the scheduled implementation date was chosen once they knew they were ready to move into production.   Of course the on-time numbers looked great, they always knew they were ready before committing to it.  The Managing Director incorrectly assumed that there was a legitimate release schedule with forecasted dates and that the on-time numbers reflected on a well run process; wrong.   No one ever questioned the numbers or their source and had I not inserted myself into what was described as a well honed, efficient process the problem might have never been identified; and there a few more just like it.  My trust in metrics was permanently altered after that.

Metrics represents an excellent way for decision makers to quickly understand status and identify problems.  I’ve quoted here before about how someone I respect quite a bit was fond of asking her team “If you can’t measure it, how can you manage it” and she’s absolutely right.  Metrics is the ultimate management means of measuring key activities and issues within their world.  But how far do you go and how much effort do you expend pulling the related reports together?  And even if you’re able to automate the process and shorten the time necessary to generate the reports, how do you know that you’re either measuring the right things or that the underlying data is unaltered?  Ultimately I think that senior managers should be provided with something akin to a cost-benefit analysis for each metric they’re given.  Have them understand the degree of complexity and the amount of effort required to generate a number before deciding whether or not it’s worth it.  Perhaps I’m being naive but I’d like to think that most C-level executives would eliminate a significant amount of their reporting if they could see how much it was really costing them.

Here’s the part that should really concern you the most though: Metrics is a key component of Board reporting, they make all sorts of decisions based on what these reports tell them.  How can that be allowed unless the process used to generate them is locked down and audited?  Where are the regulators in all of this?

Of course the truth is much more complicated.  I don’t just focus on computers, my scope expands to include anything that involves sensitive information.  While that always includes a variety of devices it also includes paper-based and people processes as well.  I frequently share stories about the enormous amount of printed content that’s to be found throughout an institutions physical locations.  I occasionally tell stories about how careless people can be when on the phone or in conversation and sharing all manner of sensitive information.  It’s never just about computers, it is however always about information and how it needs to be protected.

Truthfully though what I really do is search for controls that protect information, identify those that I find and try and measure their effectiveness and more importantly identify where controls are missing and work with my clients to remedy that.  At the heart of the regulatory requirements I focus on it’s all about the risk introduced by the presence of information, from personally identifiable (PII) to non-public personally identifiable (NPPI).  Risk: It’s what drives every single project I work on, it’s what drives every product and process I help develop.  And really, if you take the time to read through the literature, it’s what’s behind just about every piece of regulation known to the banking world.  Risk, risk, risk and risk.

One of the reasons I’ve enjoyed spending so much time working with the community banking and credit union sector over the past few years is that it’s a simple enough argument to make with fewer people to convince; everything you do to comply with the regulations should be risk-based.  It doesn’t really make a difference if it’s complicated to do or time consuming, you prioritize based on where they are found and make decisions accordingly.  But that gets much more difficult to do as the institutions grow in size and complexity.  Over the fifteen years I’ve been building and supporting compliance initiatives I’ve worked with Fortune 50′s, 100′s and 500′s and a whole lot of financial institutions that merely read Fortune magazine.  But while their overall size varies widely risk is still risk and that never changes.

I wish more practitioners embraced this simple concept.  While some do, many still don’t.  There’s often a rush to come up with a standard set of decision criteria to drive the work based on factors not necessarily aligned with risk factors.   Those who have worked with or for me will tell you that when presented with questions about which vendors or applications to assess or what to look for when conducting any type of assessment my first line of logic is to try and figure out where the greatest possible exposures to be found.   Assessing a low risk application yields little value  no matter how complete it may be.  And reviewing a vendor where the dollar spend is high but the risk factors are low does little to protect the institution.

Beware the practitioner who wields a hammer for they only know to look for nails.

Your regulator doesn’t want you to blindly implement compliance programs, they want you to identify and manage risks, real risks.  They want to be able to understand the logic and approach being used and find credible evidence that you’re focusing your efforts on the right things.   Go back and read through the library of FFIEC documentation and pay close attention to the hooks inserted throughout where they talk about conducting assessments and talk about using approaches which are appropriate for the size and complexity of your institution.  Then scan through your related program inventory and figure out if you’ve designed things accordingly.  Are they actually protecting your institution from credible threats and risks or are they just filling binders on your compliance officers shelves?

For me, professionally I’d prefer to always only do meaningful work and in the audit and assurance world meaningful is code for risk-based.

That first experience has arguably tainted my opinion of the role played by internal audit for nearly twenty years.  Subsequent to that first encounter I’ve been audited a few more times, assisted clients in preparing for internal audits many times and have had hundreds of interactions either directly or indirectly with a variety of companies internal audit function.  And despite all of this experience and having eventually become an auditor myself I’m not sure I could present a credible argument as to where there’s real value being generated by the process beyond maintaining appearances.

The first problem is that for most companies there’s an unhealthy fear of auditors.  There’s often real concern that if any major issues are uncovered someone’s head will roll.  At the aforementioned Fortune 100 company, it was widely believed that if your group was found to have a material finding (or anything remotely resembling one) the highest ranking person in the group was doomed.  To their credit the company also had a mechanism in place so that if you figured out that you had a problem before anyone else and self-reported it you were allowed appropriate time to remediate.  But that wasn’t always effective enough because most application and business managers weren’t auditors and couldn’t always recognize when a control was either missing or failing and so there was still an enormous amount of work and panic leading up to a scheduled audit.  I remember thinking that the company should remove the threat of termination and encourage both auditor and auditee to work openly and honestly together so that in the end issues were surfaced, defined and repaired.  In the two decades since I’ve worked with and for a few companies who believed they had this healthier sort of dynamic in place between their internal audit department and its business and technology functions but really in the end it’s almost always the same problem.  Internal audit is viewed as an unforgiving and punishing agent and no one ever want them snooping around.

The second problem is that there’s a degree of incompetence found within many internal audit functions.  While conducting my first technical audit back in 1997 (my company was managing an outsourced audit plan) I identified a significant issue with the methodology used to make production changes in a certain database environment.  It resulted in there being virtually no clear or simple way for the DBA to back out a change if it didn’t work.  If a change failed it would require bringing down production for several hours in order to restore things to the previous state.  The first person who challenged my finding was the internal auditor who had audited the same platform for years and didn’t either understand or agree with the finding.  It took me nearly an hour to first educate him as to why the technical issue existed, prove that it did and finally to agree with the associated risks.  He had worked there for years, had never had the chance to see how other companies managed similar infrastructures and was way more concerned with his authority and capabilities being challenged than with the fact that his company had a significant risk to be repaired.  In the time since I’ve met many more people just like that one, auditors who stay at one company for years, fall into bad habits and fail to keep their skills relevant.  They wind up relying too much on the Internet to try and update their knowledge base, don’t have the perspective of understanding how other companies are managing similar challenges and are happy enough to bring out the same whipping stick and a feeling of empowerment to scare the daylights out of internal control owners while conducting their audits.  It results in poorly formed and often irrelevant findings that waste everyone’s time.  I wish I had a ten dollar bill for every instance I knew of where something was being fixed because it was easier to appease the auditor than it was to convince them their finding was flawed or even wrong.

Now I’m not saying all internal auditors are incompetent, they’re not.  I’ve met some brilliant and extremely effective internal auditors along the way.  And in those environments audits weren’t feared because there was a high degree of confidence that if an issue was identified it was something worth knowing about.  But in almost all of those cases the auditors involved had only been with their company for a few years, not decades.

The third problem is that audit needs to be seen as adding value, not creating unnecessary delays or work.  Practically speaking internal audit is playing for the same team as the control owners whose processes they assess.  Their primary goal shouldn’t be to notch as many findings as possible on the board but rather to identify weaknesses and deficiencies so that they can be remediated and help further harden the infrastructure and reduce risks.  I understand the need for the function to maintain independence and separation but only so they can remain objective not so they can operate as if though they’re the ultimate authority on right and wrong and beyond reproach.  If they’re invited to participate early in a project and find issues they should issue interim findings so that small problems don’t become bigger problems further on down the project road.  If you wait for the post-implementation audit to document early stage issues you’re not really helping anyone.  If they abuse being granted access to meetings and documentation long before the audit function is typically engaged the only predictable outcome is that access will be denied until someone forces the issue.  And one more major issue I routinely find with internal audit is that no matter how strong or weak a finding may be, no matter how poorly or strongly worded, no matter how relevant or irrelevant they all too often defend it as if though it’s gospel that’s beyond reproach.  Why is that?  Why can’t the control owner question the finding, demand clarity or try to frame it’s relevancy?  All auditors should feel an obligation to issue a final report which resonates with everyone involved as being accurate and hopefully fair.

Until internal audit is seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem it’s going to remain, well, a problem.  Until control owners gain a sense that by developing a healthy dialogue with their auditors it will only help things and not hurt them it will continue to be a problem.  And until all involved parties working for the company feel as if though they’re working towards a common goal it will remain a problem.

Doesn’t anyone remember the great Heartland breach of 2009?  Seriously, anyone?

I’ve never tried to quantify what percentage of the work we do within the regulatory compliance domain is focused on the safeguarding of customer data but off the top of my head I’m thinking it’s high.  And when you factor in that there’s an entire industry focused exclusively on protecting credit card information (PCI) you’d think that not only are breaches getting harder to pull off but that we’re becoming less tolerant as a society in accepting them.  But there’s a general lack of outrage exhibited when these incidents occur, the media doesn’t much care to cover it properly and really in the end they wind up being something of a non-issue.  And as I learned recently when my own bank card was compromised, the banking industry seems to simply accept that these things are going to happen.  Instead of getting better at preventing breaches they’ve instead managed to streamline the process where they shut down the accounts in question and reissue new ones.

You often hear that any security solution is only as good as its weakest link.  It seems to me that financial institutions are no closer to figuring how to truly lock everything down and with the constant evolution of technology where we’re always adjusting to new exposures, new threats and new challenges we’ll never actually get there.  There’s never a point where an infrastructure is truly hardened and where the weakest link is something so obscure as to not even present a credible threat.  Despite regulatory and industry requirements and sometimes intense scrutiny we’ve reached a point where the only thing that’s improved is in how quickly we repair the damage.  PCI hasn’t stopped things from happening (it hasn’t and don’t debate me on its merits because every time there’s an issue with a PCI-certified company there’s an excuse).  GLBA hasn’t stopped things from happening (too many moving parts and not enough pressure applied from the enforcement divisions).  It’s just not getting better and I can’t see that improving anytime soon.

I’ve long ago decided that vigilance on my part is my only true defense against identity theft.  I’ve written previously on how I check every physical detail of every ATM I ever use to make sure the equipment is legitimate, that there’s no hidden cameras recording my PIN and that I never use the privately leased machines you find all over the place.  I also double-check gas pumps to make sure a portable device isn’t scanning my credit card (I get strange looks all the time when I wiggle the card scanner to see if it’s loose).  And I’ve turned on every email alert possible to track activity on my checking account (much to my wife’s chagrin).  I almost never use a smartphone app or web-based solution to conduct my banking because I don’t completely trust the technologies (or rather the people who can exploit them).  And to be clear, none of my concerns stem from what I see while doing my day-to-day fieldwork.  It’s all based on what I know happens out in the real world.

Until breaches are treated as a true threat to our personal security and receives the scrutiny it so richly deserves none of this is going to get better.  When a breach of over one million credit card accounts is prefaced with the word “only” and that’s perfectly acceptable to all involved we’re still obviously a long way off from solving the problem.

Now we have GRC software solutions that oddly enough promise to automate GRC-related tasks.

The first problem with any such assertion is that GRC is too broad a spectrum of activities and disciplines – most solutions are focused on addressing subsets therein.  On one end you have the security-centric solutions, on the other end you have the risk-centric platforms and somewhere in the middle is a crowd of offerings that try and touch on everything but none particularly deeply.  So the first thing a stakeholder needs to understand is what they’re looking to accomplish before they set out to select a product.  You can select ten different GRC vendors and discover ten different interpretations of the discipline.  And within those ten solutions there are vastly different approaches.  Some are similar to ERP packages where their approach is somewhat hard-coded and you have to do things their way (or spend big bucks to customize).  Some are remarkably configurable and can be made to fit your processes like a glove (but that requires a steep learning curve and expanded time frames).

The second problem is that because most vendors selling to the GRC market tend to use common terms their internal definitions can be quite different.  Some solutions pitch risk assessments which are little more than questionnaires (e.g. very little to no risk-related elements such as inherent and residual risk) whereas others provide questionnaires that are absolutely risk assessments but only appear as such upon inspection.  If you’re looking for a true risk-oriented solution you might go with the former when it’s the latter you truly need.  But the terminology is so similar it’s hard to differentiate and the only way you’ll get to realizing that is after you take the software out for a test drive, not something every vendor is willing to provide (and I’m not talking about a two hour demo, I’m talking about a true trial period).  You think you’re comparing apples to apples and it may turn out that you were comparing apples to car batteries without knowing it.

The third problem is that after a while it’s easy to become snow-blind during the selection and evaluation process.  Because of the common language, because of apparently similar functionality you start looking for factors unrelated to what you really need to focus on as a way to separate out the solutions from one another.  You’ll consider solutions as prequalified because a competitor is using it thinking that their needs are similar to yours.  But they may be focused on information security activities where your institution is looking for automated risk assessment capabilities.  You’ll start shopping on price and contract terms thinking that competing solutions are so similar it really comes down to who offers the best deal.  But software vendors usually know their market and the correct price points based on what their solutions offer – if two or more products appear evenly matched on functionality but one is much cheaper there’s usually a reason.  The more expensive solution may come pre-loaded with all the related content you’ll need to effectively use it whereas the cheaper solution might require you to obtain your own licenses.  It’s not intentionally misleading but that’s a detail easy to overlook during the vetting process.

GRC is an awesome concept working towards one day becoming an awesome discipline but it’s not quite there just yet (a point I routinely beat to death, I know).  It’s spread out too far and wide and depending on who you’re talking to about it can get widely (if not wildly) varying definitions of what it is.  So it’s no wonder that trying to find an automated GRC solution is equally challenging, the vendors are trying hard to figure out what nail to hammer as well.   They all do some things remarkably well but at the expense of doing some things either partially or not at all.  Thus the reason that it’s not uncommon in larger companies to find multiple GRC solutions installed; different business functions have unique needs and they purchase whichever is closest to meeting those needs.  It’s an expensive approach but for the foreseeable future an necessary evil.

I think we’re getting closer to a point in time where a common dialogue will be accepted by the audit and compliance community.  The OCEG folks have poured the foundation and it just needs a little more time to harden in terms of broad acceptance.  When I see their content displayed prominently next to all the COBIT binders at my clients I’ll know that time has come.  I predicted in 2007 that once we’re in the midst of a full-blown economic recovery GRC will quickly rise in prominence due to increasing regulatory pressures, almost identical to the way COBIT soared into the forefront of the industry fueled by SOX.  I see no reason to alter that prediction, I’m just not sure when the recovery will officially begin.

In the meantime keep participating in the dialogue, keep trying to define what GRC means to you and to your organization and every now and again share those ideas with some of the decision makers who are shaping the discipline, they need to hear from everyone as they mature the thing.  As long as we in the audit and compliance domain keep moving things forward we’ll get GRC to where we need it to be, I’m certain of it.

Is it possible that this incredibly important and still developing concept known as GRC can be hijacked and used instead to almost marginalize the sum total of all it’s related parts?  Until this week I would never have even thought of something like this as possible but there it was, right in front of me and a bit of a shock.

There are likely two main drivers behind this disturbing trend: GRC software and the overwhelming volume of compliance-based activities.  So many of the GRC solutions currently on the market tend to be rather broad in their scope.  While most of them are oriented towards one particular point within the GRC spectrum they have all expanded to try and touch on as much as they can justify.  So whereas you have a product that may have been designed to manage policy content it now also offers risk assessment, audit and overarching governance features.  But still what it does best is manage policy content.  The license for the product isn’t cheap and senior management has been sold to some degree on the promise of automating much of the required work via this new and costly solution.  Thus we have the first driver behind the blurring of GRC lines: “We paid a lot for it so we better use the heck out of it”.  And so there’s a slow but steady march through the organization looking for things that can be brought into the fold.  However not everything belongs in every GRC solution because as noted previously, each offering no matter how effective tends to favor one specific location within the GRC spectrum.

But even when you have a solution that’s broad enough to accommodate most of what you need to accomplish there’s the other driver coming into play, massive compliance requirements.  I’ve had clients who don’t even care so much about if what they need to do to comply makes sense for them but will do anything to pass an exam.  And so there’s this mad, Lemming-like dash in a single direction to shoehorn everything and anything into this thing called GRC that might even be remotely related.  There’s little thought put into how best to get the work done with the primary concern being “we have to have something to show the examiner”.  The result is a hodgepodge of seemingly related activities being coordinated under a single function or initiative but with almost zero effort made to try and normalize the workload and gain the efficiency’s that GRC promises.  How thoroughly depressing for us practitioners.

And it’s fantasy to think that once things are setup to be done a certain way they’ll ever change.  Unless an examiner or auditor tells you something needs to change everything stays the same.  So a poorly designed GRC function remains poorly designed forever.  And an unnecessary GRC activity continues because no one typically cares if you’re doing too much, only too little.  It’s almost like people just want to stuff everything remotely related to the discipline into the GRC closet and then make sure guests never open that door.

I know we’re still early in the GRC life cycle (Michael Rasmussen recently noted in an article that it’s been ten years since he first conceived of the acronym and concept) but what if this trend isn’t derailed sometime soon?  What if because of the weak economy (I’m being polite, I should swap “weak” for “horrible”) companies continue to just sweep everything under the GRC rug and don’t exploit the benefits of the concept?

I’m reminded of the old joke about the immigrant who decides he’s going to use his lumberjack skills in the U.S.A. to make a living and invests his life savings in a chainsaw.  After repeatedly failing to achieve any appreciable gains in his productivity he finally returns to the store to find out what’s wrong with the machine.  Once they pull the ripcord and fire it up he jumps back in surprise asking “what’s that noise”.  I have this image in my head of some internal controls manager managing his/her company’s GRC program ten years from now stumbling across an OCEG document, reading it and jumping back in surprise and exclaiming “what a great idea, why aren’t we doing this sort of thing”.  Don’t laugh, I can all but guarantee it’s going to happen at this rate.