“There is a certain uselessness in saying an organization does not want to accept high risk.”
My latest @ISACA article was published and as I was re-reading this line it resonated with me even more. You have to have more fidelity in how you define risk appetite for it to be useful. More tips on how to do that in the full article here.
I really enjoy reading Duncan Watts work and I was blown away by how he assailed the concept of common sense that we all rely upon so readily:
What we don’t realize, however, is that common sense often works just like mythology. By providing ready explanations for whatever particular circumstances the world throws at us, common sense explanations give us the confidence to navigate from day to day and relieve us of the burden of worrying about whether what we think we know is really true, or is just something we happen to believe.
Questioning our perception of reality is pretty heavy and you can spend a lot of time working through that. But in my article I use this idea to break out of the crutch of using common sense to manage risk.
You can read the full article on the @ISACA Newsletter site here.
I was inspired to write this article by a change in the speed limit that happened on a local Interstate. It was a good jumping off point to illustrate the parallels between speed limits and risk appetite and what it takes to change each.
You can read the article on the FAIR Institute website here.
I wrote a piece for RiskLens* recently that talks about how to utilize FAIR for building and justifying an information security budget and strategic initiatives. Its an interesting problem space as there is a need to have the appropriate level of abstraction (program level versus technology level) but its also a very solvable problem to add risk reduction justification to these annual budgetary exercises.
Fun story: one time I did this exercise years ago, I actually rated one initiative as *increasing* risk. It started an interesting discussion but the lesson is that not everything will result in less risk to your organization. Budgeting is a complicated amalgam of math, politics, and priorities; be sure to bolster your budgeting process with some risk arguments.
Click here for the RiskLens article: How CISOs Use FAIR to Set Strategic Priorities for Spending
*I am a professional advisor for RiskLens
I tackle the notion of risk appetite in this month’s column using some metaphors with which you might be familiar. You don’t get to pick your auto insurance coverage by expressing the number of accidents you are willing to accept, yet that’s how a lot of organizations think about cyber risk. Fortunately, the cyber insurance industry is going to force us all into thinking about risk in dollars, the same as everyone else, because that is the lowest common risk denominator.
You can read more here.
I was reading up on cyber deterrence today and ran across this little gem in relation to nuclear deterrence:
Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the US may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially “out of control” can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary’s decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be a part of the national persona we project to all adversaries.
–Essentials of Post Cold War Deterrence (1995)
My latest column for @ISACA was published today. In it I talk about the benefits of using verbal risk labels (things like high, medium, and low) and give some examples where this is helpful in the treatment of Type 1 Diabetes. This is an important concept for those like myself that are dedicated to quantitative risk. Its important to translate the quantitative values into buckets that allow for easy decision making.
You can read more here.