Staying ahead of security risk by performing security risk assessments
Managing risk in the complex security landscape today means that organizations large and small can all benefit from risk assessments. Regulatory frameworks such as GDPR, SOX/EuroSOX, and HIPAA all require organizations to perform risk assessments but are not prescriptive in methods. Even organizations outside of regulatory oversight benefit from risk assessments in several ways:
It is important that leadership supports this initiative, and is prepared to drive results. Leadership has to start by defining two crucial terms for the organization
These two terms are used in conjunction to set expectations around managing risk, and they may be different based on different lines of business or control areas. The FAIR Institute, a non-profit committee for risk management, uses an analogy of traveling on the highway. The speed limit is the amount of speed that is accepted by the appetite, but many drivers will exceed that speed. The tolerance defines what variance is acceptable before intervention is required.
With these expectations established up front, leadership has to be prepared to provide accountability in driving expected results. Risk that falls within the appetite, and should be accepted as a cost of doing business, but based on the risk tolerance immediate action may be required to mitigate other risks.
As we cover in our next post on the topic, when performing an assessment you will generate an inherent risk calculation, as well as a residual risk calculation. It is easy to think of the inherent risk as the level of risk in the absence of direct controls, and residual risk as the risk level after the controls have been applied. When defining the risk appetite and tolerance, you should consider both types of risk and the scoring model you use for them in establishing your appetite
A common mistake when assessing the risk profile of an organization for the first time is to consider everything a catastrophic risk. It is very common when considering the risk taken on every day in quantifiable terms to go right to a worst case scenario. It is important to have two tools in your tool belt when assessing risk for the first time:
Be prepared to reassess - It is important to understand that risk assessment is an iterative process, especially when it is new to an organization. Reassessing risk is very important, but so is reassessing the processes used to assess risk. If you have previously established a value for financial loss to correlate to a potential impact score, but no risks in your entire portfolio fall within it, it could be worth reassessing the ranges used in the assessment process
If all of this seems like a LOT of information to take in, the good news is that you’re not alone and there are many organizations that have laid out established methods for risk management to help you on your journey.
The goal of a risk assessment is to communicate the risks facing your organization in meaningful terms to management, so that risk can be addressed accordingly. Risk assessments should always be objective and never punitive - the goal is to drive change forward. Some of the components to assessments are standard across all models, some may need to be fine tuned to fit your organization.
The artifact that holds the assessment of your risks can have many names and forms, but there are two very common models
If you use either model or both, reporting needs to be generated and retained for management and any regulatory oversight you may have. Live reporting and responsive metrics are very helpful in understanding changing risk posture, but don’t forget the importance of point-in-time reporting for artifacts as well.