full-disclosure - Re: Could InfoSec be Worse than Death?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <FA3A051538F8D8DFBF1DE4DE@utd59514.utdallas.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:45:16 -0500
From: Paul Schmehl <pauls@...allas.edu>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Could InfoSec be Worse than Death?

--On Monday, September 25, 2006 11:30:36 -0400 "Kenneth F. Belva" 
<ken@...security.com> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
>> Unless you can demonstrate concrete revenue generationg directly
>> attributable to security, I don't think you can overcome that perception
>> (and loss avoidance through trust building does not generate revenue.)
>
> I believe the purpose of the paper is to move away from the loss avoidance
> model and describe information security in fashion that demonstrates how
> security mechanisms have a direct role to play in the creation of assets
> and business relationships.
>
I understand that, but I think your trust model is merely a euphemism for 
loss avoidance.  And I don't see how you can avoid being seen as loss 
avoidance - unless you can show the ability to generate revenue.

Ben Robson writes, 'Firstly, your statement, "After all, information 
security doesn?t make money?it only spends." in my experience is actually 
incorrect.  An effective information security outcome actually will save a 
company a significant amount of money.'

Saving money is a form of generating revenue indeed, but even in his 
description Ben is forced to use the words "reducing the risk" to describe 
his money saving techniques.  That's loss avoidance, plain and simple.

Mind you, I'm not saying there is no merit to couching your argument in the 
trust model terms.  I'm just saying that any PHB worth is salt will 
automatically translate the model into "loss avoidance".  They might make 
dumb decisions from time to time (or at least what appear to be dumb 
decisions to us), but most PHBs *are* pretty intelligent creatures, and 
they excel at cutting through the BS to the bottom line arguments.  (That's 
why, in part, they *are* PHBs.)

Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/

Content of type "application/pkcs7-signature" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/