Are you measuring the value and effectiveness of your cybersecurity efforts? Most companies around the world are failing to do so, according to a recent security measurement index benchmark survey. Without establishing the proper metrics, you're flying blind.
And even when organizations' information security function does generate and deliver data about the business' security, it typically never gets read.
"Many companies, while they're making some effort in cybersecurity, they're not looking at the effectiveness in terms of how it helps the business," says Joseph Carson, chief security scientist at Thycotic, which created its Security Measurement Index (SMI) based on standards for security specified in ISO 27001 and best practices from industry experts and associations. "Many companies are not evaluating their risk versus their impact. They're not looking at this from a business impact evaluation or perspective. They're doing it to meet compliance and many of their security metrics were channeled toward that."
"There's a lack of collaboration between the two parties," adds Steve Durbin, managing director of the Information Security Forum (ISF), a nonprofit association that researches and analyzes security and risk management issues. "What is the common language that we should be speaking? How could we, from a security standpoint, be focused on the right things from a business perspective?"
Where you âre failing at measuring cybersecurity effectiveness
Thycotic, a provider of privileged account management (PAM) and endpoint privilege management solutions, surveyed more than 400 global business and security executives to create the SMI benchmark survey. It found that 58 percent of respondents scored a failing grade when evaluating their organization's efforts to measure their cybersecurity investments and performance against best practices.
The survey also found that while global companies spend more than $100 billion a year on cybersecurity defenses, 32 percent make business decisions and purchase cybersecurity technology blindly. Additionally, more than 80 percent of respondents failed to include business users in making cybersecurity purchase decisions. Nor have they established a steering committee to evaluate the business impact and risks associated with cybersecurity investments.
That jibes with what the ISF sees, according to Durbin. The ISF has found that many CISOs are reporting the wrong key performance indicators (KPIs) and key risk indicators (KRIs). Durbin attributes this to the fact that most CISOs have little or no interaction with the audiences to whom they report. As a result, they are guessing at what their audiences need and miss the mark when attempting to provide ongoing management reporting on topics like information security effectiveness, organizational risk and information security arrangements.
"If I don't know what you're doing, how can I help you? I'm going to make some assumptions about what you're doing and I could be completely wrong," Durbin says. "Security guys are always talking about cost. If we realign this, the security guys can now go to the business and say, 'Look, if this is what is important to you, this is the role I can play in helping you protect that, but I don't have the funding for a variety of reasons.' The business can then make the call as to whether to find the funding for that problem. It's no longer the security guy's problem, it's the business's problem."
Sign up for CIO Asia eNewsletters.