Start Preparing For Your Next Role During Your Current Role

If there is one piece of advice I can pass on to anyone – it is don’t wait to start preparing for your next role. No matter where you are in your career, your job will constantly expose you to new things and those new things will change your perspective, give you experience and make you grow in ways you can’t anticipate. Embrace the growth, but also have the foresight to set yourself up for success no matter where your career takes you. This post offers several lessons learned about how to constantly position yourself for success and most importantly – don’t wait to prepare for your next role.

Start With The Interview

Preparing for your next role begins the second you start interviewing for your current role. The interview process is a time for both the company and the candidate to ask questions. The process will reveal areas of growth on both sides and candidates should embrace the areas they are less confident in or need to work on. This will set them on a path for mastering those skills and to be able to use their current role as a stepping stone to the next role. Candidates can also use the interview to ask how the company views the role evolving and what is the path for promotion (either title or job level)?

During the interview process or after landing the job, candidates should evaluate and learn the skills exhibited by their immediate manager or the senior member of their team. Have conversations with these individuals and make a list of skills you need to master if you were promoted to their role. The time to work on new skills is now, not when a role or promotion is offered. By that time it is too late! Whether you are aiming for a promotion, looking for a new job or if you get laid off and need to find a new position, don’t wait to prepare until you need a job because you will be behind the curve.

Get Certifications

If you are targeting a new role or promotion, look at the qualifications and certifications of individuals in those roles. LinkedIn is a great place to do research on what is needed for career progression. Evaluate the certifications, degrees and experience of people who have the job title you want. Also review job postings to see what companies are looking for. Certifications take time, money and effort so plan accordingly. If your company offers to pay for these certifications take full advantage and build it into your performance goals. Make a plan to obtain the necessary certifications and qualifications so you can position yourself and effectively compete for the role you want.

Demonstrate Expertise

In addition to certifications you also need to demonstrate expertise. When doing your research about your next job, don’t just look at the job title. Look at the skills they require, the company size and the industry. Learn the skills, learn about the company and learn about the industry they operate in. Demonstrate expertise in these areas by writing blog posts, submitting conference talks, participating in local chapter events or participating in a podcast. You can even use popular social media platforms to generate your own content. The point is to build up a body of work that demonstrates your knowledge and most importantly to create an independent profile, separate from your job that represents who you are and what you can do. Think of it as a living resume.

Network

Networking continues to be one of the most powerful ways to advance your career. Attending conferences, chapter meetups, get togethers, and other social events puts a face to a name and builds rapport. This can be invaluable when looking for your next job, but just like everything else it takes time and effort to network.

Outside of the meetups, there are a few other recommendations I have for networking. First, don’t target the people that have the job you want, target the people that hire for the job you want. For example, if you want to be the CISO at a publicly traded company, do research on who the current CISO reports to and then figure out a way to connect with that person so you are on their radar. Second, make a list of companies that you would like to work for and research people at those companies. Start connecting and networking with those people either virtually or physically. Ask for a quick intro call to introduce yourself and learn about their role. Lastly, connect with recruiters that hire for the position you are targeting. Set up an intro call to get their perspective on the market and how you can position yourself better. This will put you on their radar as a candidate when new positions come their way. This all takes time and effort, but if you set a small goal to meet one new person a month, this can quickly lead to a lot of new people in your network by the time you are ready to make a move.

Don’t target the people that have the job you want, target the people that hire for the job you want.

Challenge Yourself

My last piece of advice is to constantly challenge yourself. First, expand your experience by learning about different aspects of the business that will help you to be successful in your next role. Learning about other aspects of the business such as finance, HR, product, sales, engineering, etc. will make you more effective in your current role and give you valuable experience for your next role. It will also generate empathy on both sides, which can pay dividends towards making your next security project a success.

Second, don’t focus on team size. Instead, focus on scope and impact of your role. You may think it is better to have an extremely large team, and while this can be good experience, it doesn’t really tell people anything about what you accomplished. Instead, focus on developing and articulating the scope and impact of your role. For a CISO and the security organization, this means becoming a trusted advisor for the rest of the business and translating your successes into career highlights.

This brings us to the last piece of advice I have, which is to keep a running “brag sheet” of your accomplishments. As you progress in your current role, write down your accomplishments and the things you learn that can be useful in future roles. Continually update your resume and social media profiles to capture these achievements so you don’t have to try and remember them when a new opportunity presents itself. Keeping your resume continually updated means it will be fresh and ready to go when a recruiter reaches out or your dream role opens up.

Wrapping Up

The biggest thing you should take away from this post is to continually improve yourself by gaining experience and credentials that will be useful in your next position. Have the foresight to think about your current position and the moves it will take to get you to your dream role. Start planning for that role today because it takes time to build up the right skills, credentials and expertise for your next job.

What’s Better – Complete Coverage With Multiple Tools Or Partial Coverage With One Tool?

The debate between complete coverage with multiple tools versus imperfect coverage with one tool regularly pops up in discussions between security professionals. What we are really talking about is attempting to choose between maximum functionality and simplicity. Having pursued both extremes over the course of my security career I offer this post to share my perspective on how CISOs can think about navigating this classic tradeoff.

In Support Of All The Things

Let’s start with why you may want to pursue complete coverage by using multiple technologies and tools.

Heavily Regulated And High Risk Industries

First, heavily regulated and high risk businesses may be required to demonstrate complete coverage of security requirements. These are industries like the financial sector or government and defense. (I would normally say healthcare here, but despite regulations like HIPAA the entire industry has lobbied against stronger security regulations and this has proven disastrous via major incidents like the Change Healthcare Ransomware Attack). The intent behind any regulation is to establish a minimum set of required security controls businesses need to meet in order to operate in that sector. It may not be possible to meet all of these regulatory requirements with a single technology and therefore, CISOs may need to evaluate and select multiple technologies to meet the requirements.

Defense In Depth

Another reason for selecting multiple tools is to provide defense in depth. The thought process is: multiple tools will provide overlap and small variances in how they meet various security controls. These minor differences can offer defenders an advantage because if one piece of technology is vulnerable to an exploit, another piece of technology may not be vulnerable. By layering these technologies throughout your organization you reduce the chances an attacker will be successful.

An example of this would be if your business is protected from the internet by a firewall made by Palo Alto. Behind this PA firewall is a DMZ and the DMZ is separated from your internal network by a firewall from Cisco. This layered defense will make it more difficult for attackers to get through the external firewall, DMZ, internal firewall and into the LAN. (See image below for a very simplistic visual)

Downside Of All The Things

All the things may sound great, but unless you are required to meet that level of security there can be a lot of downsides.

First, multiple technologies introduce complexity into an environment. This can make it more difficult to troubleshoot or detect issues (including security events). It can also make it more difficult to operationally support these technologies because they may have different interfaces, APIs, protocols, configurations, etc. It may not be possible to centrally manage these technologies, or it may require the introduction of an additional technology to manage everything.

Second, all of these technologies can increase the number of people required to support them. People time can really add up as a hidden cost and shouldn’t be thrown away lightly. People time starts the second you begin discussing the requirements for a new technology and can include the following:

  • Proof of Concepts (PoCs)
  • Tradeoff & Gap Analysis
  • Requests for Information (RFI)
  • Requests for Proposal (RFP)
  • Requests for Quotes (RFQ)
  • Contract Negotiation
  • Installation
  • Integration
  • Operation & Support

Finally, multiple technologies can cause performance impacts, increased costs and waste. Performance impacts can happen due to differences in technologies, complexity, configuration errors or over consumption of resources (such as agent sprawl). Waste can happen due to overlap and duplicated functionality because not all of the functionality may not get used despite the fact you are paying for it.

Advantages and Disadvantages Of A Single Tool

A single tool that covers the majority, but not all, of your requirements offers one advantage – simplicity. This may not sound like much, but after years of chasing perfection, technology simplicity can have benefits that may not be immediately obvious.

First, seeking out a single tool that meets the majority of requirements will force your security team to optimize their approach for the one that best manages risk while supporting the objectives of the business. Second, a single tool is easier to install, integrate, operate and support. There is also less demand on the rest of the business in terms of procurement, contract negotiation and vendor management. Lastly, a single tool requires less people to manage it and therefore you can run a smaller and more efficient organization.

The biggest disadvantage of a single tool is it doesn’t provide defense in depth. One other disadvantage is it won’t meet all of your security requirements and so the requirements that aren’t met should fall within the risk tolerance of the business or somehow get satisfied with other compensating controls.

A single tool that covers the majority, but not all, of your requirements offers one advantage – simplicity.

Wrapping Up

There are a lot of advantages to meeting all of your requirements with multiple tools, but these advantages come with a tradeoff in terms of complexity, operational overhead, duplicated functionality and increased personnel requirements. If you operate a security program in a highly regulated or highly secure environment you may not have a choice so it is important to be aware of these hidden costs. A single tool reduces complexity, operational overhead and personnel demands, but can leave additional risk unmet and fails to provide defense in depth. Generally, I favor simplicity where possible, but you should always balance the security controls against the risk tolerance and needs of the business.

If Data Is Our Most Valuable Asset, Why Aren’t We Treating It That Way?

There have been several high profile data breaches and ransomware attacks in the news lately and the common theme between all of them has been the disclosure (or threat of disclosure) of customer data. The after effects of a data breach or ransomware attack are far reaching and typically include loss of customer trust, refunds or credits to customer accounts, class action lawsuits, increased cyber insurance premiums, loss of cyber insurance coverage, increased regulatory oversight and fines. The total cost of these after effects far outweigh the cost of implementing proactive security controls like proper business continuity planning, disaster recovery (BCP/DR) and data governance, which begs the question – if data is our most valuable asset, why aren’t we treating it that way?

The Landscape Has Shifted

Over two decades ago, the rise of free consumer cloud services, like the ones provided by Google and Microsoft, ushered in the era of mass data collection in exchange for free services. Fast forward to today, the volume of data growth and the value of that data has skyrocketed as companies have shifted to become digital first or mine that data for advertising purposes and other business insights. The proliferation of AI has also ushered in a new data gold rush as companies strive to train their LLMs on bigger and bigger data sets. While the value of data has increased for companies, it has also become a lucrative attack vector for threat actors in the form of data breaches or ransomware attacks.

The biggest problem with business models that monetize data is: security controls and data governance haven’t kept pace with the value of the data. If your company has been around for more than a few years chances are you have a lot of data, but data governance and data security has been an afterthought. The biggest problem with bolting on security controls and data governance after the fact is it is hard to reign in pandoras box. This is also compounded by the fact that it is hard to put a quantitative value on data, and re-architecting data flows is seen as a sunk cost to the business. The rest of the business may find it difficult to understand the need to rearchitect their entire business IT operations since there isn’t an immediate and tangible business benefit.

Finally, increased global regulation is changing how data can be collected and governed. Data collection is shifting from requiring consumers to opt-out to requiring them to explicitly opt-in. This means consumers and users (an their associated data) will no longer be the presumptive product of these free services without their explicit consent. Typically, increased regulation also comes with specific requirements for data security, data governance and even data sovereignty. Companies that don’t have robust data security and data governance are already behind the curve.

False Sense Of Security

In addition to increased regulation and a shifting business landscape, the technology for protecting data really hasn’t changed in the past three decades. However, few companies implement effective security controls on their data (as we continue to see in data breach notifications and ransomware attacks). A common technology used to protect data is encryption at rest and encryption in transit (TLS), but these technologies are insufficient to protect data from anything except physical theft and network snooping (MITM). Both provide a false sense of security related to data protection.

Furthermore, common regulatory compliance audits don’t sufficiently specify protection of data throughout the data lifecycle beyond encryption at rest, encryption in transit and access controls. Passing these compliance audits can give a company a false sense of security that they are sufficiently protecting their data, when the opposite is true.

Just because you passed your compliance audit, doesn’t mean you are good to go from a data security and governance perspective.

Embrace Best Practices

Businesses can get ahead of this problem to make data breaches and ransomware attacks a non-event by implementing effective data security controls and data governance, including BCP/DR. Here are some of my recommendations for protecting your most valuable asset:

Stop Storing and Working On Plain Text Data

Sounds simple, but this will require significant changes to business processes and technology. The premise is the second data hits your control it should be encrypted and never, ever, unencrypted. This means data will be protected even if an attacker accesses the data store, but it also will mean the business will need to figure out how to modify their operations to work on encrypted data. Recent technologies such as homomorphic encryption have been introduced to solve these challenges, but even simpler activities like tokenizing the data can be an effective solution. Businesses can go one step further and create a unique cryptographic key for every “unique” customer. This would allow for simpler data governance, such as deletion of data.

Be Ruthless With Data Governance

Storage is cheap and it is easy to collect data. As a result companies are becoming digital data hoarders. However, to truly protect your business you need to ruthlessly govern your data. Data governance policies need to be established and technically implemented before any production data touches the business. These policies need to be reviewed regularly and data should be purged the second it is no longer needed. A comprehensive data inventory should be a fundamental part of your security and privacy program so you know where the data is, who owns it and where the data is in the data lifecycle.

The biggest problem with business models that monetize data is: security controls and data governance haven’t kept pace with the value of the data.

Ruthlessly governing data can have a number of benefits to the business. First, it will help control data storage costs. Second, it will minimize the impact of a data breach or ransomware attack to the explicit time period you have kept data. Lastly, it can protect the business from liability and lawsuits by demonstrating the data is properly protected, governed and/or deleted. (You can’t disclose what doesn’t exist).

Implement An Effective BCP/DR and BIA Program

Conducting a proper Business Impact Analysis (BIA) of your data should be table stakes for every business. Your BIA should include what data you have, where it is and most importantly, what would happen if this data wasn’t available? Building on top of the BIA should be a comprehensive BCP/DR plan that appropriately tiers and backs up data to support your uptime objectives. However, it seems like companies are still relying on untested BCP/DR plans or worse solely relying on single cloud regions for data availability.

Every BCP/DR plan should include a write once, read many (WORM) backup of critical data that is encrypted at the object or data layer. Create WORM backups to support your RTO and RPO and manage the backups according to your data governance plan. Having a WORM backup will prevent ransomware attacks from being able to encrypt the data and if there is a data breach it will be meaningless because the data is encrypted. BCP / DR plans should be regularly tested (up to full business failover) and security teams need to be involved in the creation of BCP/DR plans to make sure the data will have the confidentiality, integrity and availability when needed.

Don’t Rely On Regulatory Compliance Activities As Your Sole Benchmark

My last recommendation for any business is – just because you passed your compliance audit, doesn’t mean you are good to go from a data security and governance perspective. Compliance audits exist as standards for specific industries to establish a minimum bar for security. Compliance standards can be watered down due to industry feedback, lobbying or legal challenges and a well designed security program should be more comprehensive than any compliance audit. Furthermore, compliance audits are typically tailored to specific products and services, have specific scopes and limited time frames. If you design your security program to properly manage the risks to the business, including data security and data governance, you should have no issues passing a compliance audit that assesses these aspects.

Wrapping Up

Every business needs to have proper data security and data governance as part of a comprehensive security program. Data should never be stored in plain text and it should be ruthlessly governed so it is deleted the second it is no longer needed. BCP/DR plans should be regularly tested to simulate data loss, ransomware attacks or other impacts to data and, while compliance audits are necessary, they should not be the sole benchmark for how you measure the effectiveness of your security program. Proper data protection and governance will make ransomware and data breaches a thing of the past, but this will only happen if businesses stop treating data as a commodity and start treating it as their most valuable asset.

Security Considerations For M&A and Divestitures

I’ve been speaking to security startups over the last few weeks and some of the discussions made me think about the non-technical aspects of security that CISOs need to worry about. Specifically, things like mergers, acquisitions and divestitures and the different risks you will run into when executing these activities. There are a number of security issues that can materialize when combining businesses or separating businesses and in this post I’ll share some of the things you need to think about from a security perspective that may not be obvious at first glance.

What’s Going On Here?

There are a number of reasons for mergers & acquisitions (M&A) or divestitures. For the past two decades, the tech industry has used M&A to acquire smaller startup companies as a way to collect intellectual property, acquire specific talent or gain a competitive advantage. Divestitures may be the result of changing business priorities, separating business functions for regulatory reasons, eliminating redundancies or a way to sell a part of the business to cover costs. Mergers, acquisitions and divestitures are similar because you will want to review the same things from a security perspective, but it is probably easiest to think of divestitures as the reverse of an M&A – you are separating a business instead of combining a business. Divestitures are definitely less common than M&A in the tech space, but they aren’t unheard of. There are also differences in terms of the security risks you need to think about depending on if you are acquiring a business or separating a business. My best advice is to work with the legal and finance teams performing the due diligence and have a set process (that you have contributed to) so you don’t forget anything. With that, let’s dive into a few different areas.

Physical Security

Physical security is something you will need to think about for both M&A and divestitures. For M&A you will want to perform a physical security assessment on the facilities you are acquiring to make sure they meet or exceed your standards. Reviewing physical security controls like badging systems, fencing, bollards, cameras, fire suppression, emergency lighting, tempest controls (if required), safes and door locks will all help make sure your new facilities are up to standard. If you aren’t sure how to perform this, hire a company that specializes in physical security assessments or physical red teaming.

While physical security for M&A may seems straight forward, there are a few gotchas when performing divestitures. The biggest gotcha is understanding and reviewing the existing access of the people that are part of the divestiture because you will now need to consider them outsiders. All of your standard off-boarding processes will apply here such as terminating accesses to make sure someone doesn’t retain access to a system they are no longer authorized to access (like HR, Finance, etc.).

Things can get complicated if parts of the business are divesting, but not fully. Some examples of this are when the business divests a smaller part, but allows the smaller part to co-locate in their existing facilities. This may complicate physical security requirements such as how to schedule or access common areas, how to schedule conference rooms, how to separate wifi and network access, etc. In the above example, the larger company may act like a service provider to the divested part of the business, but there still needs to be effective security controls in place between the two parts.

Personnel Security

I touched on this a bit already, but personnel security is something to consider when performing M&A or divestitures. With M&A the biggest issue will be how to smash the two IAM systems and HR systems together without punching huge holes in your network. Typically what happens is the two parts operate separately for a while and then consolidate to a single system and the employees of the acquired business get new accounts and access.

For divestitures, particularly if they don’t result in a clean split, you will need to focus heavily on access control and insider threats. Think about how you will separate access to things like source code, financial systems, HR systems, etc. If the smaller company has physical access to your space then you need to build in proper physical and logical controls to limit what each business can do, particularly for confidentiality and competitive reasons.

What’s an example of where this can go wrong? Let’s say business A is going to divest a small part of its business (business B). The complete divestiture is going to take a while to finalize so company A agrees to allow company B to continue to access their existing office space, including conference rooms. However, the legal team didn’t realize the conference rooms are tied to company A’s SSO and calendaring system so company B has no way to schedule the conference rooms without retaining access to company A’s IAM system creating a major security risk. Whoops!

The biggest gotcha is understanding and reviewing the existing access of the people that are part of the divestiture because you will now need to consider them outsiders.

Contracts

Contracts may not seem like a typical security issue, but they should be part of your review, particularly when performing M&A. Why? You are acquiring a business that is worth something and that business will have existing contracts with customers. The contractual terms with those customers may not match the contractual terms of the acquiring company, which can cause a risk if there is a significant difference in contract terms. Smaller companies are more agile, but they also usually have less negotiating power compared to large companies and as a result are more likely to agree to non-standard contract terms. What are some terms you need to think about?

  • Vulnerability Remediation Times – How quickly did the new company promise to fix vulnerabilities for their customers?
  • Incident & Breach Disclosure Time Frames – How quickly did the new company promise to notify customers of a breach or incident? I have seen very small time frames suggested in contracts, which are impossible to meet, so I definitely recommend reviewing these.
  • Disclosure of Security Postures – Does the new company have contractual terms promising to provide SBOMs or other security posture assessments to their customers on a regular basis?
  • Compliance Requirements – Has the new company agreed to be contractually obligated to maintain compliance certifications such as PCI-DSS, SOC 2, ISO27001, etc.
  • Penetration Testing & Audits – Has the new company contractually agreed to have their products or services penetration tested or have their security program audited? Have they agreed to provide these reports to their customers on a regular basis?
  • Privacy & Data Governance Terms – Is the new company required to comply with privacy regulations such as allowing customers have their data deleted, or mandating certain data governance requirements like DLP, encryption, data deletion, etc?
  • BCP/DR and SLAs – Are there contractual uptime SLAs or response times and does the existing BCP/DR plan support these SLAs?

My advice is to set a timeline post acquisition to review and standardize all of your contracts to a single set of standard clauses covering the above topics. This is usually part of a security addendum that the legal team can help you create. The biggest challenge with contracts will be to “re-paper” all of your customers to hopefully get them on the same standardized contract terms so your security program doesn’t have a bunch of different requirements they have to try to meet.

Accuracy Of M&A’s

One of the biggest risk of performing M&A’s is trying to get an accurate picture of the existing security posture of the company being acquired. Why is this so difficult? The company being acquired is trying to look as good as possible so they get top dollar. They can’t hide things, but they aren’t going to tell you where all the skeletons are buried either. The acquiring company usually doesn’t get a full picture of the existing security posture until after the deal is done and you start trying to integrate the two parts of the business. If you have a chance to interview the existing security team before the M&A closes definitely ask to see their latest audit reports, compliance certifications, penetration testing reports, etc. Consider working with legal to set conditions for how old these reports can be (e.g. no older than 6 months) to hopefully give you a more accurate picture or require the acquired company to update them before the deal closes. Interview key members of the staff to ask how processes work, what are their biggest pain points, etc. Consider hiring an outside company to perform an assessment, or you can even consider talking to one of their largest customers to get their external view point (if possible).

Wrapping Up

M&A and divestitures can be exiting and stressful at the same time. It is important for the security team to be integrated into both processes and to have documented steps to make sure risks are being assessed and addressed. I’ve listed a few key focus areas above, but most importantly standardizing your M&A security review can help avoid “buyers remorse” or creating unnecessary risk to the acquiring business. Finally, having a documented divestiture process and reviewing the divestiture with legal can help avoid security risks after the fact.

Should There Be A Professional CISO Certification and Organization?

I’ve been thinking a lot about the CISO role and how it is rapidly maturing from a technology and compliance role to a more generalized business executive role that specializes in security and risk. The primary catalyst for this evolution is the recent release of the SEC rules requiring companies to report material incidents on their 8K forms. It also requires companies to disclose their process for governing security issues (via committees or other processes) and their process for determining materiality (via their annual 10k filing). All of this is having a similar effect on the CISO role that Sarbanes-Oxley had on the CEO and CFO role after it was passed in 2002. The end result is public companies are now being expected to demonstrate investment and expertise in governing security issues, which is elevating the CISO role to become a true executive officer and is ushering the role into the board room.

Why Did The SEC Establish The New Requirements?

Security reporting and disclosures by public companies has been lacking. There has been zero incentive or accountability for companies to report these events other than via lawsuits, stock price corrections or brand and reputation impact These disclosures often happen as a result of a news report published months or years after the actual incident. The company then issues a generic statement downplaying the event and emphasizing how serious they take security. The SEC has determined this pattern of behavior is insufficient for investors to accurately make decisions about the health of the company.

Why Do Professional Certifications Exist?

Professional certifications exist for a number of reasons. Doctors, accountants. professional engineers and lawyers all must demonstrate a minimum level of knowledge to get licensed in their chosen profession. They must also agree to conduct themselves according to a specific code of conduct. This allows the practitioners to wield specific credentials demonstrating proficiency and credibility in that field. Displaying professional credentials attests these professionals bear the responsibility to protect life, prevent fraud or protect assets.

Additionally, professional credentials afford the practitioners a number of benefits such as knowledge sharing, continual career development, job placement and act as a back stop if someone’s conduct is called into question. Certifying organizations can testify on someone’s behalf if they believe they have upheld the requirements of the profession, or they can self regulate and strip someone of their credentials for fraud or gross negligence.

A short list of fields with professional certifications are as follows:

  • Lawyers – Bar
  • Doctors – Medical license, National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), State level licenses, American Board of Medical Specialities (ABMS)
  • Accountants – Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB), Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), Certified Public Accountant (CPA)
  • Engineers – Certified Professional Engineer (CPE)
  • Privacy Professionals – International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP)

Existing Security Certifications And Organization Are Lacking

There are already a number of certifications security professionals can choose from on their path to becoming a CISO. A short list of common certifications listed on CISO job postings or LinkedIn profiles is as follows:

  • C|CISO
  • CISSP
  • CISM
  • CISA
  • CRISC

Of these certifications, only the C|CISO certification comes close to offering a specific certification for CISOs. The rest serve either as generalized security certifications or specific offshoots of the security profession. These certifications are often bundled together by professionals to demonstrate breadth of knowledge in the security field.

While existing certifications are good, they are all lacking in what is needed for someone to serve as a CISO at a publicly traded company. They are more generalized about how to serve as a CISO at any company (small to large), but publicly traded companies have specific requirements and demands. Specifically, most of the certifications above are extremely heavy on a breadth of technical aspects and popular industry frameworks. Some of them do cover how to create and manage a security program. Some even cover basic board level conversations (although these are usually technical discussions, which are unrealistic). Where I find these certifications lacking is as follows:

  • Realistic board level conversations about risk and tradeoffs including building effective presentations
  • Board and legal conversations about materiality for security incidents
  • Common board committees and what to expect as a CISO serving on a board level committee for your company
  • Testifying or providing legal evidence post incident
  • Legal conversations about how to best notify customers of breaches including drafting communications
  • Legal conversations with security researchers and navigating vulnerability disclosures
  • How to establish and manage a bug bounty program
  • Navigating conversations with law enforcement or national security issues
  • How to effectively change or strengthen security culture
  • How to have conversations with other C-Suite executives about security
  • Navigating customer and industry requests for disclosure of security program information
  • Managing the budget / P&L for a security function including tooling, licenses, services, travel, expenses, equipment, certifications, etc.
  • Common security team structures and how to design a security org that add maximum value for the business
  • Personnel management, skillsets expected for different roles, matching training and certifications to job function, etc.
  • Negotiating with vendors and cyber insurance companies
  • Contract review and negotiation with customers (including common security and privacy clauses)
  • Creating RFPs, RFIs and RFQs
  • Talking to customers about security at your company or hot button security issues
  • Establishing requirements, conducting trade-off analyses and performing build vs buy analysis
  • How to effectively network with peers
  • Industry resources such as ISACs, Infraguard, etc.
  • Top recruiting agencies for placing CISOs at publicly traded companies
  • Career development post operational CISO (boards, consulting, etc.)
  • Properly documenting your security program
  • How to navigate achieving common compliance certifications such as SOC1, SOC2, FedRAMP, ISO27001, HIPAA, PCI-DSS. Typical costs, consulting companies that can help with these processes and what to expect during the process.
  • When to outsource your security program to an MSP
  • When to bring in an outside consulting or incident response firm
  • Successfully passing an external audit
  • Negotiating for a job including severance, D&O liability, assessing the role, etc.
  • Differences in the CISO role depending on who it reports to (General Counsel, CTO, CIO, CEO, CFO)
  • How to navigate common security related political and moral hazards at public companies

As you can see, there is a big difference between what certifications offer and the real demands of a public company CISO. Additionally, there are a number of professional security organizations such as the Information Systems Security Certification Consortium (ISC2), Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) and The Council of E-Commerce Consultants (EC-Council). Each has their own certification track, terminology and code of conduct. Each is good in their own right, but there is still a lack of a single certifying body for public company CISOs similar to a CPA. Arguably, ISACA comes closest to being an international organization that can back CISOs, but they lack a CISO specific certification covering the majority of the topics above.

While existing certifications are good, they are all lacking in what is needed to prepare someone to serve as a CISO at a publicly traded company.

Why There Should Be A Professional CISO Certification

The SEC requirements are forcing public companies to govern security to the same standard forced by Sarbanes-Oxley 20 years ago. The SEC considers security to be a material concern to investors and public companies need to treat the issue accordingly. As a result CISOs are getting elevated to the board room and CISOs need to be prepared to navigate the issues they will encounter while serving at a public company.

The advantages of a professional CISO certification and accompanying organization are as follows:

  • Standard of ethics and conduct – CISOs face a difficult job and often walk into roles that aren’t properly supported or properly funded. Yet, CISOs are asked to bear the responsibility and accountability for the security health of the organization. A standard of ethics and conduct, similar to a CPA, will backstop the authority of the CISO and serve as guidelines for how to navigate common issues at publicly traded companies.
  • Standard credential for publicly traded companies – Large companies face a difficult job sorting through the credentials and titles of job applicants. Most public companies hire executive recruiting firms to help navigate the sea of candidates to find ones that are truly qualified for the role. However, a single professional CISO certification would distinguish individuals who have met the standard to be a CISO at a publicly traded company and distinguish these credential holders from other individuals with discretionary CISO titles.
  • Shelter the role from (some) liability – One advantage of a professional certification like the ones for doctors, engineers, lawyers and public accountants is it provides a standard of conduct. These professionals can fall back on this standard of conduct if their professionalism is called into question and they can even have the certifying organization offer testimony on their behalf. As CISO take on more liability, a professional CISO organization can be useful to help support CISOs, testify on their behalf, offer recommendations for liability insurance policies or even provide low cost liability insurance through the organization. They can even help review employment contract terms to evaluate liability policies, severance, legal coverage, etc.
  • Board Level Expertise – One of the primary roles of public company CISOs is to present to the board and help the company navigate regulatory and compliance requirements such as SEC filings, breach notifications, etc. A professional CISO certification offer individuals this experience and it can give them the confidence to speak to the board on how to navigate topics of risk. By certifying individuals are qualified to operate in the board room the board will gain another voice to balance the other C-Suite executives who aren’t grounded in technology and security issues.
  • Consulting and auditing – One final advantage of a professional CISO certification is for the “big 4” consulting firms or other agencies who are contracted by investment companies to audit and certify the filings and reports of public companies. In this case, a certified CISO can represent shareholders and investors for the accuracy of security filings around governance processes, representation in board committees, recommendations for appropriate investment in security governance and generally offering advice on industry best practices for security governance at publicly traded companies.

Wrapping Up

I’m bullish on the CISO role long term because I think it is the ultimate C-Suite executive. Public company CISOs touch all aspects of the business, they need to have strong technical chops, need to understand business topics and need to have the political chops to build alliances and navigate big company politics. Existing security certifications are good, but none of them offer a comprehensive breadth of topics to prepare individuals to become a CISO at a publicly traded company. As CISOs establish their role and credibility in the board room, it will become critical for these individuals to have credentials that back their experience, offer support and can elevate the CISO role on par with other C-Level execs, similar to what Sarbanes-Oxley did for CFOs after 2002.

Are We Peak CISO?

Let’s be honest…the CISO role is weird right now. It is going through a transformative phase and the industry is at an inflection point similar to what other C-Level roles (like the CFO) have gone through in the past. What makes the role weird? The CISO community and any company that has a CISO is facing unprecedented regulatory pressure, the economy and interest rates have people on edge, layoffs in the tech sector have shaken employee confidence (to the applause of investors) and technology innovation via AI is causing additional disruption and risk across all sectors.

In additional to these external pressures the past few years have seen the proliferation of CISO title sprawl and confusion from companies about how to best employ and utilize a CISO (hint, we aren’t your scapegoats). Despite all of this turmoil, change is also a time for opportunity and there are a few things I think will help clarify and mature the CISO role.

CISO Title Sprawl

I’ve been tracking job titles and job postings on LinkedIn for the past year or so and I’ve noticed a phenomenon I’ll call title sprawl. A quick search for titles shows there are vCISOs, Advisory CISOs, Fractional CISOs, CISOs In Residence and Field CISOs. On top of this, add in Chief Security Officers, Chief Trust Officers and Heads of Security. Do we need all of these titles? Maybe, but I think this title sprawl is more indicative of three things 1) People with CISO titles are in high demand and people want to retain the title once they get it and 2) Companies are still uncertain about how to title and employ someone to lead their security function. 3) Title sprawl is a result of the political power struggle occurring between the CISO role and other C-Level roles (more on that below).

From the titles above there are really only four functions for a current or former CISO – board member (in some capacity), executive management (officer of the company), consultant and sales. There is similar title sprawl and variance with CTO titles, but not to the extent of the CISO title (yet). Time will tell if other C-Level roles start to follow suit, but for now, let’s break down the functional CISO role buckets.

Board Member – These are current or former CISOs who sit on a board either as a technical advisor, business advisor or some combination thereof.

Executive Management – Individuals employed by a company to lead the information security program. May also manage other parts of IT such as identity, privacy, data, etc. Titles may be CISO, CSO, CISO in Residence (for Venture Capital), Chief Trust Officer and Head of Security.

Consultant – These are individuals who are providing their expertise as a current or former CISO to other companies to help them establish, transition or manage a security program. Often the companies employing these individuals claim they can’t afford a full time CISO, but they seem to be able to afford other full time C-Suite titles (hmm…)? Titles may include Virtual CISO (vCISO), Fractional CISO, CISO in Residence and Consulting CISO. (CISO in Residence again because they can “consult” to their VC holding companies about the state of their security programs).

Sales – These are people who are experts in the field of security, may hold one or more certifications and may be past CISOs. Their job is to help the company they work for drive sales. Typically the title they use is Field CISO or Advisory CISO.

Standardize The Reporting Structure

Moving on from title sprawl, companies are also confused about where the CISO title should sit. Some companies advertise it as a Director level role reporting into the VP of some function. Other’s title it as a VP level role reporting into a Senior VP or some other executive. Still other companies have the CISO reporting to the CEO, CIO, CTO or General Counsel. It is even possible this person is an individual contributor. Companies are clearly confused about whether the CISO is a technologist, regulatory compliance specialist or true C-Suite executive. While reporting structure may be a direct reflection on company culture, it is also a public example of the battle for equivalency that is playing out between the CISO and other C-Level roles. Often, CISOs are hired by other C-Levels (not the CEO) and until it becomes more common for CISOs to report to the CEO as an accepted peer to other C-Levels, this confusion and variance will persist. That being said, if you are considering a CISO title and the company isn’t willing to add you to the D&O liability policy then you may be better off taking a lower level title to eliminate personal risk.

Bolster Security Management Certifications

Security certifications from popular organizations talk a lot about regulations, risk and different security concepts (technical or not), but few, if any, offer a comprehensive certification on what it truly takes to be a CISO. Any CISO level certification should include potential career paths that lead to the CISO role, career paths post CISO role, difference in the CISO role based on company size, exposure to business topics in addition to security topics, SEC reporting, interfacing with law enforcement and lastly discussion of how to maximize success based on where the role sits – e.g. reporting to the CEO, CTO or CIO and how that may change your lens as a CISO. This begs the question if there should be a true professional level CISO certification similar to a professional engineer, accountant or lawyer, but let’s save that discussion for a future blog post.

Embrace Increased Regulation

Given the recent increase in regulation, particularly from the SEC, bolstering CISO certifications to include more business acumen may soon be table stakes instead of a nice to have. Recent regulations forcing companies to disclose material cybersecurity events in their 8k filings are starting to accelerate the maturity of the CISO role at publicly traded companies. Companies can no longer fail to invest in security or report breaches (unless they want steep penalties). In particular, this is forcing the CISO role into the board room or at least on par with other C-Level roles because they have to help these companies navigate the decision to report material events in their filings. Existing and future CISOs can embrace this increase in regulation to backstop their authority at companies who are struggling to fully embrace the CISO role as a C-Level executive. While it may not elevate the current role with a promotion, it should at least open the door to the board room and provide a seat at the table for discussion.

While CISO reporting structure may be a direct reflection on company culture, it is also a public example of the battle for equivalency that is playing out between the CISO and other C-Level roles.

The last point I’ll make about regulation is – while the SEC watered down the requirements for cybersecurity expertise on boards, I predict this expertise will still be required and in demand as companies start to navigate the new SEC reporting requirements. In particular, companies may be penalized and eventually required to demonstrate cybersecurity board expertise (via experience or certifications) if they are found to have a material security breach and can’t demonstrate appropriate security governance at the board level.

What’s The End Result?

It is clear the security industry and the CISO role are in a state of confusion as a result of the tight job market, uncertain economy, increased regulation and pace of technology innovation. The net effect of title sprawl and the struggle for equivalency is – it confuses customers, investors, partners, recruiters and job candidates. Title sprawl artificially increases competition for jobs and causes a wide variance in how the CISO role is employed. However, I think this state of confusion is a good thing because it is forcing conversations and causing people to stop and think. The CISO role is the newest member of the C-Suite and it is growing up and trading in the hoodie for a collared shirt. We are starting to claim our seat at the board level and are able to hold our own or make other C-Level roles redundant. As the CISO role evolves from a “nice to have” to a “must have” in the C-Suite, we will see this confusion fade away and the CISO role will truly reach its peak.

Security Theater Is The Worst

We have all been there…we’ve had moments in our life where we have had to “comply” or “just do it” to meet a security requirement that doesn’t make sense. We see this throughout our lives when we travel, in our communities and in our every day jobs. While some people may think security theater has merit because it “checks a box” or provides a deterrent, in my opinion security theater does more harm than good and should be eradicated from security programs.

What Is Security Theater?

Security theater was first coined by Bruce Schneier and refers to the practice of implementing security measures in the form of people, processes or technologies that give the illusion of improved security. In practical terms, this means there is something happening, but what that something is and how it actually provides any protection is questionable at best.

Examples Of Security Theater

Real life examples of security theater can be seen all over the place, particularly when we travel. The biggest travel security theater is related to liquids. TSA has a requirement that you can’t bring liquids through security unless they are 3 ounces or smaller. However, you can bring a bottle of water through if it is fully frozen…what? Why does being frozen matter? What happens if I bring 100, 3 ounce shampoo bottles through security? I still end up with the same volume of liquid and security has done nothing to prevent me from bringing the liquid through. As for water, the only thing that makes sense for why they haven’t relaxed this requirements is to prop up the businesses in the terminal that want to sell overpriced bottles of water to passengers. Complete theater.

“Security theater is the practice of implementing security measures that give the illusion of improved security.”

Corporate security programs also have examples of security theater. This can come up if you have an auditor that is evaluating your security program against an audit requirement and they don’t understand the purpose of the requirement. For example, and auditor may insist you install antivirus on your systems to prevent viruses and malware, when your business model is to provide Software as a Service (SaaS). With SaaS your users are consuming software in a way that nothing is installed on their end user workstations and so there is little to no risk of malware spreading from your SaaS product to their workstations. Complete theater.

Another example of security theater is asking for attestation a team is meeting a security requirement instead of designing a process or security control that actually achieves the desired outcome. In this example, the attestation is nothing more than a facade designed to pass accountability from the security team, that should be designing and implementing effective controls, to the business team. It is masking ineffective process and technologies. Complete theater.

Lastly, a classic example of security theater is security by obscurity. Otherwise known as hiding in plain sight. If your security program is relying on the hope that attackers won’t find something in your environment then prepare to be disappointed. Reconnaissance tools are highly effective and with enough time threat actors will find anything you are trying to hide. Hope is not a strategy. Complete theater.

What Is The Impact Of Security Theater?

Tangible And Intangible Costs

Everything we do in life has a cost and this is certainly true with security theater. In the examples above there is a real cost in terms of time and money. People who travel are advised to get to the airport at least two hours early. This cost results in lost productivity, lost time with family and decreased self care.

In addition to tangible costs like those above, there are also intangible costs. If people don’t understand the “why” for your security control, they won’t be philosophically aligned to support it. The end result is security theater will erode confidence and trust in your organization, which will undermine your authority. This is never a place you want to be as a CISO.

Some people may argue that security theater is a deterrent because the show of doing “security things” will deter bad people from doing bad things. This sounds more like a hope than reality. People are smart. They understand when things make sense and if you are implementing controls that don’t make sense they will find ways around them or worse, ignore you when something important comes up.

With any effective security program the cost of a security control should never outweigh the cost of the risk, but security theater does exactly that.

Real Risks

The biggest problem with security theater is it can give a false sense of security to the organization that implements it. The mere act of doing “all the things” can make the security team think they are mitigating a risk when in reality they are creating the perfect scenario for a false negative.

How To Avoid Security Theater?

The easiest way to avoid security theater is to have security controls that are grounded in sound requirements and establish metrics to evaluate their effectiveness. Part of your evaluation should evaluate the cost of the control versus the cost of the risk. If your control costs more than the risk then it doesn’t make sense and you shouldn’t do it.

The other way to avoid security theater is to exercise integrity. Don’t just “check the box” and don’t ask the business you support to check the box either. Take the time to understand requirements from laws, regulations and auditors to determine what the real risk is. Figure out what an effective control will be to manage that risk and document your reasoning and decision.

The biggest way to avoid security theater is to explain the “why” behind a particular security control. If you can’t link it back to a risk or business objective and explain it in a way people will understand then it is security theater.

Can we stop with all the theater?

What’s The Relationship Between Security Governance and Organizational Maturity?

Organizational and security governance is touted as a key component of any successful security program. However, I’ve been thinking about governance lately and how it relates to the overall maturity of an organization. This has prompted some questions such as: what happens if you have too much governance? and What’s the relationship between security governance and organizational maturity?

What Is Governance?

First, let’s talk about what governance is.

Governance is the process by which an organization defines, implements and controls the business.

Let’s unpack what this means for a security organization. The process of defining security for the business is done through policies, standards and guidelines. Security policies are requirements the business must meet based on laws, regulations or best practices adopted by the business. These policies align to business objectives. Implementation is done through security controls that are put in place to meet a specific policy or to manage a risk. Lastly, controlling the business is done via audits and compliance checks. The security org follows up on how well the business is following policies, implementing controls and managing risk. Control can also include enforcement, which can involve gating processes, such as requiring approval for business critical and high risk activities, or recommending additional security requirements for the business to manage a risk.

Why Do We Need Governance At All?

In an ideal world we wouldn’t. Imagine a business that is created entirely of clones of yourself. There would be implicit and explicit trust between you and your other selves to do what is best for the business. Communication would be simple and you would already be aligned. In this case you don’t need a lot (or any) governance because you can trust yourself to do the things. However, unless you are Michael Keaton in Multiplicity, this just isn’t a reality.

Governance achieves a few things for a business. First, it communicates what is required of its employees and aligns those employees to common objectives. Second, it helps employees prioritize activities. None of this would be needed if human’s weren’t so complex with diverse backgrounds, experiences, perspectives, education, etc. In an ideal world we wouldn’t need any governance at all. The reality is, we do need governance, but it needs to be balanced so it doesn’t unnecessarily impede the business.

How Does This Relate To Organizational Maturity?

Organizational maturity refers to how your employees are able to execute their tasks to achieve the objectives of the business. This relates to things like the quality of code, how quickly teams resolve operational issues or how efficiently they perform a series of tasks. It can be loosely thought of as efficiency, but I actually think it combines efficiency with professionalism and integrity. Maturity is knowing what good is and being able to execute efficiently to get there. There is a fantastic book about this topic called Accelerate: The Science of Lean Software and DevOps: Building High Performing Technology Organizations by Nicole Forsgren PhD.

Which brings us to the relationship of governance and maturity…

There is an inverse relationship between organizational maturity and organizational governance. In simple terms:

The less mature an organization, the more governance is needed.

For example, if your organization struggles to apply patches in a timely manner, continually introduces new code vulnerabilities into production or repeatedly demonstrates behavior that places the business at risk, then your organizational maturity is low. When organizational maturity is low, the business needs to put processes and controls in place to align employees and direct behavior to achieve the desired outcomes. In the examples above, increased governance is an attempt to manage risk because your employees are behaving in a way that lacks maturity and is placing the business at risk.

What causes low organizational maturity?

Organizational maturity is a reflection of employee behavior, skillset, knowledge, education and alignment. In other words, organizational maturity is a reflection of your organizational culture. In practical terms your employees may simply not know how to do something. They may not have experience with working for your type of business or in the industry you operate in. Perhaps they had a really bad boss at a past job and learned bad behavior. Whatever the reason, low organizational maturity is linked to lots of sub-optimal outcomes in business.

How To Improve Organizational Maturity?

If governance and maturity are inversely linked, the question becomes how can we increase organizational maturity so we need less governance? There are a lot of ways to increase organizational maturity. One that is fairly obvious is to start with a mature organization and maintain it over time. However, this is easier said than done and is why some organizations are fanatical about culture. This relates to everything from hiring to talent management and requires strong leadership at all levels of the company.

“The less mature an organization,
the more governance is needed.”

Other ways to improve organizational maturity are through training and education. This is why security awareness and training programs are so critical to a successful security program. Security awareness and training programs are literally attempting to improve organizational maturity through education.

One last way to improve maturity is via process. The security organization can establish a new process that all teams must follow. As teams go through this process you can educate them and reward teams that exhibit the ideal behavior by relaxing the process for them. You can also help teams educate themselves by publishing the requirements and making the process transparent. The challenge with imposing a new process is having the discipline to modify or remove the process when needed, which comes back to governance.

What’s the right level of governance?

The optimal level of governance is going to be based on your organizational maturity and desired business outcomes. In order to determine if you have too much or too little governance you need to measure organizational maturity and the effectiveness of existing organizational governance. There are industry standard processes for measuring organizational maturity, like the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) and Six Sigma, or you can create your own metrics. Some ways to measure governance effectiveness are:

  • Ask For Feedback On Security Processes – Are the processes effective? Do teams view them as an impediment or are they viewed favorably? Are the processes easy to navigate and objective or are they opaque and subjective?
  • Measure Effectiveness Of Security Controls – Are your security controls effective? If you ask a team to do work to implement a security control you should have clear metrics that determine if that control is effective. If you implement a control, but that control hasn’t changed the outcome, then the control is ineffective. This can indicate your governance is ineffective or your organizational maturity needs to improve.
  • Assess and Update Policy – Security policies should be living documents. They shouldn’t be set in stone. Security policies need to map back to laws and regulations they support and the business requirements needed to be successful. Laws, regulations and business requirements all change over time and so should your security policies. By having up to date and relevant security policies you can ensure your organizational governance matches the maturity of the business.

What Are Typical Scenarios For Governance And Maturity?

There are four scenarios related to governance and maturity:

A mature organization with too much governance – your organization is mature, but you are overly controlling with process and requirements. The net effect will be to slow down and impede the business unnecessarily. You are effectively lowering the organizational maturity due to too much governance.

An immature organization with too little governance – this is a recipe for disaster. If your organization is immature and you fail to govern the organization you will open the business up to unnecessary risk. You will get out maneuvered by your competitors, you will miss opportunities, you will fail to comply with laws and regulations and generally will have a lot of activity without any result. Your employees will lack coordination and as a result your business will suffer.

A mature organization with too little governance – This isn’t a bad scenario to be in. A mature organization implies they are doing the right things and don’t need a lot of guidance. A laissez faire attitude may be the right thing to allow employees flexibility and freedom, but it does come with inherent risk of not being compliant with laws and regulations. It may also mean there is duplication of effort or multiple ways of doing things, which could be optimized.

Governance and maturity are balanced – obviously this is the ideal scenario where your organizational governance is balanced to the level of maturity of the organization. Easy to think about in practice, difficult to achieve in reality.

Wrapping Up

Organizational governance and maturity are inversely related and need to be balanced in order for the business to operate effectively. There are ways to measure organizational maturity and governance effectiveness and by having a continual feedback loop you can optimally align both for success.

Are Traditional IT Roles Still Relevant In Today’s Modern Security Org?

As more and more businesses shift to the cloud and micro-services, the scope of responsibility for security and operations gets pushed up the stack. As a result of this scope compression, teams no longer need to worry about maintaining physical infrastructure like deploying servers, provisioning storage systems or managing network devices. As this scope falls off, the question becomes – are traditional IT roles still relevant in today’s modern security org?

Cloud Service Models

First, let’s talk about cloud service models most companies will consume because this is going to determine what roles you will need within your security organization. This post is also assuming you are not working at a hyper-scale cloud organization like AWS, Azure, Google Cloud or Oracle because those companies still deploy hardware as part of the services they consume internally and provide to their customers.

Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)

Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) is what you typically think of when you consume resources from a Cloud Service Provider (CSP). In IaaS, the CSP provides and manages the underlying infrastructure of network, storage and compute. The customer is responsible for managing how they consume these resources and any application that are built on top of the underlying IaaS.

Platform as a Service (PaaS)

In Platform as a Service (PaaS), the cloud service provider manages the underlying infrastructure and provides a platform for customers to develop applications. All the customer needs to do is write and deploy an application onto the platform.

Software as a Service (SaaS)

With Software as a Service (SaaS) customers consume software provided by the cloud service provider. All the customer needs to worry about is bringing their own data or figuring out how to apply the SaaS to their business.

IaaS, PaaS & SaaS Cloud Service Provider Logical Model

As you can see from the above model, organizations that adopt cloud services will only have to manage security at certain layers in the stack (there is some nuance to this, but let’s keep it simple for now).

What Are Some Traditional IT Roles?

There are a variety of traditional information technology (IT) roles that will exist when an organization manages their own hardware, network connections and data centers. Some or all of these roles will no longer apply as companies shift to the cloud. Here is a short list of those roles:

  • Hardware Engineer – Server and hardware selection, provisioning, maintenance and management (racking and stacking)
  • Data Center Engineer – Experience designing and managing data centers and physical facilities (heating, cooling, cabling, power)
  • Virtualization Administrator – Experience with hypervisors and virtualization technologies*
  • Storage Engineer – Experience designing, deploying and provisioning physical storage
  • Network Engineer – Experience with a variety of network technologies at OSI layer 2 and layer 3 such as BGP, OSPF, routing and switching

*May still be needed if organizations choose to deploy virtualization technologies on top of IaaS

Who Performs Traditional IT Roles In The Cloud?

Why don’t organizations need these traditional IT roles anymore? This is because of the shared service model that exists in the cloud. As a customer of a cloud service provider you are paying that CSP to make it easy for you to consume these resources. As a result you don’t have to worry about the capital expenditure of purchasing hardware or the financial accounting jujitsu needed to amortize or depreciate those assets.

In a shared service model the CSP is responsible for maintaining everything in the stack for the model you are consuming. For example, in the IaaS model, the CSP will provide you with the network, storage and compute resources you have requested. Behind the scenes they will make sure all these things are up to date, patched, properly cooled, properly powered, accessible and reliable. As a CSP IaaS customer, you are responsible for maintaining anything you deploy into the cloud. This means you need to maintain and update the OS, platform, services and applications that you install or create on top of IaaS as part of your business model.

Everything Is Code

One advantage of moving to the cloud is everything becomes “code”. In an IaaS model this means requesting storage, networking, compute, deploying the OS and building your application are all code. The end result of everything is code means you no longer need dedicated roles to provision or configure the underlying IaaS. Now, single teams of developers can provision infrastructure and deploy applications on demand. This skillset shift resulted in an organizational shift that spawned the terms developer operations (DevOps) and continuous integration / continuous delivery (CI/CD). Now you have whole teams deploying and operating in a continuous model.

Shift From Dedicated Roles To Breadth Of Skills

Ok, but don’t we still need traditional IT skills in security? Yes, yes you do. You need the skills, but not a dedicated role.

Imagine a model where everyone at your company works remotely from home and your business model is cloud native, using PaaS to deploy your custom application. As the CISO of this organization, what roles do you need in your security team?

From a business standpoint, you still need to worry about data and how it flows, you need to worry about how your applications are used and can be abused, but your team will primarily be focused on making sure the code your business uses to deploy resources and applications in the cloud is secure. You also need to make sure your business is following appropriate laws and regulations. However, you will no longer need dedicated people managing firewalls, routers or hardening servers.

What you will need is people with an understanding of technologies like identity, networking, storage and operating systems. These skills will be necessary so your security team can validate resources are being consumed securely. You will also need a lot of people who understand application security and you will need compliance folks to make sure the services you are consuming are following best practices (like SOC 2 and SOC 3 reports).

What Do You Recommend For People Who Want To Get Into Security Or Are Deciding On A Career Path?

I want to wrap up this post by talking about skills I think people need to get into security. Security is a wonderful field because there are so many different specialization areas. Anyone with enough time and motivation can learn about the different areas of security. In fact, the U.S. Government is kind enough to publish a ton of frameworks and documents talking about all aspects of security if you have the time and motivation to read them. That being said, if I was just starting out in security I would advise people to first pick something that interests them.

  • Are you motivated by building things? Learn how to be a security engineer or application security engineer. Learn how to script, write code and be familiar with a variety of technologies.
  • Are you motivated by breaking things? Learn how to be a penetration tester, threat hunter or offensive security engineer.
  • Do you like legal topics, regulations and following the rules? Look into becoming an auditor or compliance specialist.
  • Do you like detective work, investigating problems and periodic excitement? Learn how to be an incident response or security operations analyst.

Ask Questions For Understanding

The above questions and recommendations are just the tip of the iceberg for security. My biggest piece of advice is once you find an area that interests you start asking a lot of questions. Don’t take it for granted that your CSP magically provides you with whatever resources you ask for. Figure out how that works. Don’t blindly accept a new regulation. Dissect it and understand the motivation behind it. Don’t blindly follow an incident response playbook. Understand why the steps exist and make suggestions to improve it. If a new vulnerability is released that impacts your product, understand how and why it is vulnerable. The point is, as a security professional the more understanding you have of why things exist, how they work and what options you have for managing them, the more skills you will add to your resume and the more successful you will be in your career, especially as your security org collapses roles as a result of moving to the cloud.

The Dichotomy Of Security

If you have ever read Extreme Ownership or The Dichotomy of Leadership by Jocko Willink, then you will be familiar with the concept of dichotomy and how opposing forces of a skill set can compliment each other. Mastering both sides can allow flexibility and increase the effectiveness of that skill set when dynamically applied to a given situation. This is true in the security space, where fundamental opposing forces need to be balanced in order to manage risk and achieve success. Let’s take a look at a few examples.

Security Extremes

The easiest example of the dichotomy of security is to look at the extremes. Security professionals jokingly say the most secure company is one that is not connected to the internet. While this may be true, it will also prevent the company from conducting business effectively and so the company will cease to exist and security will no longer be needed.

On the other end of the spectrum there is the extreme of a business that has zero security and so there are no impediments to conducting business. While this may sound great to some, the reality is the company will be unable to effectively conduct business because of the real threats that exist on the internet. In the situation the company will also cease to exist because they will be hacked into oblivion.

It is obvious there is a dichotomy between no security and no connectivity and these forces need to be appropriately balanced for a security program to be effective, while allowing the business to operate.

Manual vs Automated Security

Another example of dichotomy is between manual security tasks and automation. While every CISO I know is striving to increase automation of security tasks, the reality is humans are still going to be needed in any security program for the foreseeable future.

Manual tasks are ideal for situations where humans need to demonstrate creativity, intuition or make complex decisions based on subtle context. Security functions like penetration testing, threat hunting, red teaming and offensive security require high amounts of skill and experience that automation, like AI, hasn’t been able to replicate. Additionally, soft skills such as reporting to the board, shifting culture, building alliances and making prioritization decisions are all extremely complex and unlikely candidates for automation. However, while manual activities benefit activities that require a high degree of creativity, they are inherently slow and can impede the normal flow of business.

Recently, the advances in automation and artificial intelligence have exponentially increased their usefulness. Automation is extremely useful for offloading repeatable tasks that lend themselves to being programmatically defined. For example, attack simulation products have made huge strides in offloading repetitive tasks of reconnaissance, enumeration, vulnerability assessment and remedial exploitation. We are seeing additional advances in automation related to incident response where events can be correlated and specific activities in an IR playbook can be completed to offload analysts and help focus their attention. AI has also helped to offload lower level operational activities like call centers and help desk inquiries.

While automation may accelerate parts of the business and offload humans from repeatable tasks, it does introduce complexity, which can be difficult to troubleshoot or can cause outright failures. Automation is also rigid because it is only as good as the parameters of the process it is following. This means it can’t think outside of the box or demonstrate creativity. There is also the risk of introducing bias into your processes if your underlying model is flawed.

As you can see manual security processes and automated security processes are opposing forces that need to be balanced based on the skill of your security team and the needs of the business.

The Human Problem

The last dichotomy I want to discuss is the human problem in security. Humans are necessary because of their creativity, diversity and capacity for adapting to an infinite number of situations. However, the flexibility in human nature also presents one of the fundamental security problems – how to you protect against human nature?

The reality is humans are flawed, but in a good way. Threat actors can try to take advantage of these flaws, whether they are logical (like firewall rules) or physical (like human psychology). Humans are essential to every aspect of a business and so we have to figure out how to protect them. The most difficult balance in security is developing a program that is comprehensive enough to protect against human nature without stifling it.

The Security Ideal

The ideal security program will recognize the dichotomy of the security challenges it faces and balance them accordingly. The ideal security program balances security with flexibility. We are seeing this balance manifest in mature security programs via concepts like security guard rails and the paved path. The paved path and guard rails attempt to allow a certain amount of latitude for acceptable behavior, while being rigid enough to protect users and the business accordingly.

Application In Other Domains

The concept of dichotomy is universal across any domain. In fact, this is an area of extensive research in disciplines like mathematics, computer science, military strategy, and economics. Specifically, in the space of network and graph theory there is a concept call max flow, min cut. These are counter principles that are opposite, yet complimentary. If you think of any network (road, supply chain, computer network, etc.) the point of maximum flow across that network is also the point where maximum disruption (minimum cut) can occur. From a military or security stand point you will want to protect the max flow/min cut, but from an attacker stand point, the max flow / min cut, is the area that will require the least amount of effort for maximum damage. Pretty neat!

Wrapping Up

An effective security program will balance the needs of security with the needs business with the ultimate goal of effectively managing risk. A critical skill for any security practitioner is to be flexible and adaptive. Specifically, by recognizing that security issues have two sides to them, security practitioners can demonstrate empathy towards the business and find an appropriate balance that can protect without impeding the business.