I wrote this latest bit for the @ISACA column after reading Richard Clarke’s book and trying to rationalize how it applies to cyber risk. It’s overly easy to predict failures and impending doom at a macro level, its much harder to do it at the micro level, which is infinitely more interesting and useful.
You can read more here
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 interviewed for, and quoted in, this ISACA publication around Smart Contracts.
Upon reflection, what we are really seeing is just a continuation of the concept of Code = Law as pointed out by Lawrence Lessig in his 1999 book, Code and Other Law of Cyberspace.
The Smart Contracts doc is a free download (after registration) and can be found here:
In my latest column I wanted to call out some of the dichotomy that exists in the cyber world today. There are so many exciting new technologies in the world, and so much more risk inherent in them. Working in risk means that you can’t avoid bad things entirely (any more than you can stop the future from becoming the present), but you also have to weigh the risk of NOT participating in the latest new technology. And that is what makes working in cybersecurity and risk so interesting!
You can read my thoughts on this here.
My latest @ISACA column was published today and in it, I talk about a concept called “pure risk.” It flies in the face of notions of “positive risk” that are in popular use. Understanding Pure Risk can help dispel any notion that Cyber Risk can be a good thing. You can read it here.
My latest @ISACA article was published today. In it, I focus on the notion of where our authority comes from in Information Security. Too often, in my opinion, we rely on regulation as a source of “why” when articulating control requirements. I think this is dangerous and counter to the very nature of what an effective risk practitioner is.
Take a read and let me know your thoughts!
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.