Security Benchmarking, Going Beyond Metrics: Continuous Improvement

So you have defined your peer groups and analysis and spent a bunch of time communicating what you found to your security program’s key stakeholders. Now it’s time to shift focus internally. One of the cool things about security metrics and benchmarks is the ability to analyze trends over time and use that data to track progress against your key goals. Imagine that – managing people and programs based on data, not just gut feel. Besides being able to communicate much more authoritatively how you are doing on security, you can also focus on continuously improving your activities. This is a good thing to do – particularly if you want to keep your job. We will harp on the importance of consistency in gathering data and benchmarks over a long period of time, and then getting sustained value from the benchmark by using it to mark progress toward a better and more secure environment. Programs and feedback loops We don’t want to put the cart ahead of the horse, so let’s start at a high level, with describing how to structure the security program so it’s focused on improvement rather than mere survival. Here are the key steps: Define success (and get buy-in up the management stack) Distill success characteristics into activities that will result in success Quantify those activities, determine appropriate metrics, and set goals for those metrics Set objectives for each activity and communicate those objectives Run your business; gather your metrics Analyze metrics; report against success criteria/objectives Identify gaps, address issues, and reset objectives accordingly Wash, rinse, repeat Digging deeply into security program design and operation would be out of scope, so we’ll just refer you to Mike’s methodology on building a security program: The Pragmatic CSO. Communicating to the troops In our last post, on Benchmarking Communication Strategies, we talked about communicating with key stakeholders in the security process, and a primary constituency is your security team. Let’s revisit that discussion and its importance. Your security team needs to understand the process, how benchmark data will be used to determine success, and what the expectations will be. Don’t be surprised to experience some push-back on this new world order, and it could be quite significant. Just put yourself in your team’s shoes for a moment. For most of these folks’ careers they have been evaluated on a squishy subjective assessment of effectiveness and effort. Now you want to move them to something more quantified, where they can neither run nor hide. Top performers should not be worried – at all. That’s a key point to get across. So exercise some patience in getting folks heads in the right spot, but remember that you aren’t negotiating here. Part of the justification for investing (rather significantly) in metrics and benchmarks is to leverage that data in operations. You can’t do that if the data isn’t used to evaluate performance – both good and bad. It’s not a tool, it’s a lifestyle Another point to keep in mind is that this initiative isn’t a one-time thing. It’s not something you do for an assessment, and then forget it in a drawer the moment the auditor leaves the building. Benchmarking, done well, becomes a key facet of managing your security program. This data becomes your North Star, providing a way to map out objectives and ensure you stay on course to reach them. We have seen organizations start with metrics as a means to an end, and later recognize that they can change everything about how operational efforts are managed, perceived, and supported within the organization. The lack of security data has hindered acceptance of benchmarking in the security field, but it’s time to revisit that. As per usual, there are some caveats to data-driven management. No one size fits all. We see plenty of cultural variation, which may require you to take a less direct path to the benchmark promised land. But there can be no question about the effectiveness of quantifying activity, compared to not quantifying it. If you have gotten this far, successfully implemented this kind of benchmark, and institutionalized it as a management tool, you are way ahead of the game. But what’s next? Digging into deeper and more granular metrics, such as the metrics we defined as part of our Project Quant research. So we will discuss that next. Share:

Read Post

Weekend Reading: Security Benchmarking Series

Just in case you had nothing to do over the weekend, I came up with some homework to catch you up on our Security Benchmarking series. We’re clicking right along and think the content is kickass. So check it out, comment, and let us know if we are smoking crack. Introduction Security Metrics (from 40,000 feet) Collecting Data Systematically Sharing Data Safely Defining Peer Groups and Analyzing Data Communications Strategies Continuous Improvement We’ll be wrapping the series up next week with 3 more posts. So please contribute while you have the chance. Share:

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.