I’m very pleased to announce that I have been awarded an ISACA Global Achievement Award, specifically the John W. Lainhart IV Common Body of Knowledge Award. Full citation below:
ISACA John W. Lainhart IV Common Body of Knowledge Award
Scope: Recognizes an individual for major contributions to the development and enhancement of the common body of knowledge used by the ISACA community.
Jack Freund, Ph.D., CISA, CISM, CRISC
“For contributions in developing the CRISC Certification and for ensuring the integrity and quality of the CRISC Certification exam content.”
I’ll be granted this award on 28 May at the ISACA EuroCACS conference in Edinburgh, Scotland.
The full list of this year’s award winners is here.
I’m very proud of the time I’ve spent working on the CRISC certification (almost 8 years now) and it’s astronomical growth since its launch. I truly do believe that it is a very high quality IT risk certification that employers can rely on to ensure that their staff has core IT risk knowledge. I’m very humbled to have my small contributions acknowledged in this way.
I wrote some more on Smart Contracts for the ISACA Now Blog. I tied the concept back to Code = Law as put forth by Lawrence Lessig and talked some more about the scenarios that you’d need to risk model.
You can read my thoughts on this 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.
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!