“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 was humbled this week when I was awarded the FAIR Champion award from the FAIR Institute at their annual conference last week at Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh, PA.
Jack Jones has created this extraordinary thing in FAIR and it is and will continue to do nothing less than revolutionize our industry. That he decided to share even a little bit of that with me by coauthoring the FAIR book is so incredibly humbling. It’s a gift that I will treasure for the rest of my life.
That I have been good in any way in building risk programs is due entirely to his teachings and mentoring early in my life and I am so incredibly grateful.
One of the best things about the FAIR Institute is the culture of giving back and during my acceptance I offered to anyone that I’d be happy to help them through their journey to risk quantification. I’ll do that again here: if you need support, tips, or just a sympathetic ear while building your risk program, please do reach out. I’d be happy to help :-)
RSA posted my presentation from this year’s conference, Implementing a Quantitative Cyber-Risk Framework: A FinSrv Case Study. You can hear me explain the organizational environment and requirements and the automated risk assessment solutions I put in place to satisfy them.
The slides are still available here.
I had a great time writing this post for the FAIR Institute. I was inspired by post-doc David Levari of the Harvard Business School’s article in The Conversation called Why Your Brain Never Runs out of Problems to Find. In it he talks about how our brains have a sliding scale of what “badness” is over time and how something will always occupy the spot of “badness” even when its not that big of a deal. In my write-up, I apply that to cybersecurity and include some pointers for FAIR practitioners.
You can read my latest FAIR Institute post 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 recently accepted a position with RiskLens as a professional advisor. I’m looking forward to working with Jack Jones again as well the great team they have assembled there. My immediate project there will be advising on the product roadmap and assist them with taking their amazing quantitative risk platform to the next level.
Official announcement here.