A couple of weeks ago I went to the NIST Cloud Conference for the afternoon security sessions.  You can go grab the slides off the conference site.  Good stuff all around.

Come to think of it, I haven’t blogged about FedRAMP, maybe it’s time to.

FedRAMP is a way to do security authorization (formerly certification and accreditation, get with the times, man) on a cloud then let tenant projects use that authorization.  Hmmm, sounds like…. a General Support System with common controls and Major Applications that inherit those controls.  This isn’t really anything new, just the “bread and butter” security management concepts scoped to a cloud.  Basically what will happen with FedRAMP is that they have 3 standards: DoD, DHS, and GSA (most stringent first) and cloud providers get authorized against that standard.  Then when a project wants to build on that cloud, they can use that authorization for their own authorization package.

All things considered, FedRAMP is an awesome idea.  Now if we can get the holdout agencies to actually acknowledge their internal common controls, I’ll be happy–the background story being that some number of months ago I was told by my certifier that “we don’t recognize common controls so even though you’re just a simple web application you have to justify every control even if it’s provided to you as infrastructure.”  No, still not bitter at all here, but I digress….

And then there are the pieces that I haven’t seen worked out yet:

• Mechanism of Sharing: As a service provider, it’s hard enough to keep one agency happy.  Add in 5 of them and it gets nearly impossible.  This hasn’t really been figured out, but in Rybolov’s small, myopic world, a panel of agencies owning an authorization for a cloud provider means that the cloud never gets authorized.  The way this has been “happening in the wild” is that one agency owns the authorization and all the other agencies get the authorization package from that agency.
• Using FedRAMP is Optional: An agency or project can require their own risk assessment and authorization even though a FedRAMP one is available.  This means that if the agency’s auditors don’t understand the process or the “risk monkeys” (phrase courtesy of My Favorite Govie) decree it, you lose any kind of cost savings and time savings that you would get by participating in FEDRAMP.
• Cloud Providers Rule the Roost: Let’s face it, as much as the Government wants to pretend that the cloud providers are satisfying the Government’s security requirements, we all know that due to the nature of catalogs of controls and solution engineering, the vendor here has the advantage.  Nothing new, it’s been happening that way with outsourcing, only now it’s immediately evident.  Instead of trying to play ostrich and stick our heads in the sand, why don’t we look at the incentives for the cloud providers and see what makes sense for their role in all this.
• Inspector General Involvement: I don’t see this happening, and to be honest, this scares the hell out of me.  Let me just invoke Rybolov’s Law: “My solution is only as good as my auditor’s ability to understand it.”  IE, if the IGs and other auditors don’t understand FedRAMP, you don’t really have a viable solution.

The Big Ramp photo by George E. Norkus.  FedRAMP has much opportunity for cool photos.

• Reinventing FedRAMP
• Cloud Computing and the Government
• FedRAMP: It’s Here but Not Yet Here
• Clouds, FISMA, and the Lawyers
• How to Not Let FISMA Become a Paperwork Exercise

A few weeks back I read an article on an apparent shift in emphasis in government security… “OMB outlines shift on FISMA” take a moment to give it a read. I’ll wait….

That was followed by NASA’s “bold move” to change the way they manage risk…

Once again the over-emphasis and outright demagoguery on “compliance,” “FISMA reports,” “paper exercises,” and similar concepts that occupy our security geek thoughts have not given way to enlightenment. (At least “compliancy” wasn’t mentioned…) I was saddened by a return to the “FISMA BAD” school of thought so often espoused by the luminaries at SANS. Now NASA has leapt from the heights… At the risk of bashing Alan Paller yet again, I am often turned off by the approach of “being able to know the status of every machine at every minute, ” – as if machines by themselves cause bad security… It’s way too tactical (incorrect IMHO) and too easy to make that claim.

Hence the title of this rant – Machines don’t cause risk, people do!

The “people” I’m talking about are everyone from your agency director, down to the lowliest sysadmin… The problem? They may not be properly educated or lack the necessary skills for their position – another (excellent) point brought forth in the first article. Most importantly, even the most seasoned security veteran operating without a strategic vision within a comprehensive security program (trained people, budget, organizational will, technology and procedures) based upon the FISMA framework will be doomed to failure. Likewise, having all the “toys” in the world means nothing without a skilled labor force to operate them and analyze their output. (“He who dies with the most toys is still dead.”) Organizations and agency heads that do not develop and support a comprehensive security program that incorporates the NIST Risk Management Framework as well as the other facets listed above will FAIL. This is nothing new or revolutionary, except I don’t think we’ve really *done* FISMA yet. As I and others have said many times, it’s not about the paper, or the cost per page – it’s about the repeatable processes — and knowledgeable people — behind what the paper describes.

I also note the somewhat disingenuous mention of the risk management program at the State Department in the second article… As if that were all State was doing! What needs to be noted here is that State has approached security in the proper way, IMHO — from a Strategic, or Enterprise level. They have not thrown out the figurative baby with the bath water by dumping everything else in their security program in favor of the risk scoring system or some other bright, shiny object. I know first-hand from having worked with many elements in the diplomatic security hierarchy at State – these folks get it. They didn’t get to the current level of goodness in the program by decrying (dare I say whining about?) “paper.” They made the organizational commitment to providing contract vehicles for system owners to use to develop their security plans and document risk in Plans of Action and Milestones (POA&Ms). Then they provided the money to get it done. Is the State program a total “paragon of virtue?” Probably not, but the bottom line is that it’s an effective program.

Mammoth Strategy, Same as Last Year image by HikingArtist.com.

Desiring to know everything about everything may seem to some to be a worthy goal, but may be beyond many organization’s budgets. *Everything* is a point in time snapshot, no matter how many snapshots you take or how frequently you take them. Continuous, repeatable security processes followed by knowledgeable, responsible practitioners are what government needs. But you cannot develop these processes without starting from a larger, enterprise view. Successful organizations follow this–dare I say it–axiom whether discussing security governance, or system administration.

Government agencies need to concentrate on developing agency-wide security strategies that encompass, but do not concentrate on solely, what patch is on what machine, and what firewall has which policy. Likewise, system POA&Ms need to concentrate on higher-level strategic issues that affect agencies — things like changes to identity management schemes that will make working from home more practical and less risky for a larger percentage of the workforce. Or perhaps a dashboard system that provides the status of system authorization for the agency at-a-glance. “Burying your head in a foxhole” —becoming too tactical — is akin to burying it in the sand, or like getting lost in a bunch of trees that look like a forest. When organizations behave this way, everything becomes a threat, therefore they spray their resource firepower on the “threat of the day, or hour.”

An organization shouldn’t worry about patching servers if its perimeter security is non-existent. Developing the larger picture, while letting some bullets strike you, may allow you recognize threats, prioritize them, potentially allowing you to expend minimal resources to solve the largest problem. This approach is the one my organization is following today. It’s a crawl first, then walk, then run approach. It’s enabled management to identify, segregate, and protect critical information and resources while giving decision-makers solid information to make informed, risk-based decisions. We’ll get to the patches, but not until we’ve learned to crawl. Strangely, we don’t spend a lot of time or other organizational resources on “paper drills” — we’re actively performing security tasks, strategic and tactical that follow documented procedures, plans and workflows! Oh yes, there is the issue of scale. Sorry, I think over 250 sites in every country around the world, with over 62 different government customers tops most enterprises, government or otherwise, but then this isn’t about me or my organization’s accomplishments.

In my view, professional security education means providing at least two formal paths for security professionals – the one that SANS instantiates is excellent for administrators – i.e., folks operating on the tactical level. I believe we have these types of security practitioners in numbers. We currently lack sufficient seasoned professionals – inside government – who can approach security strategically, engaging agency management with plans that act both “globally” and “locally.” Folks like these exist in government but they are few. Many live in industry or the contractor space. Not even our intelligence community has a career path for security professionals! Government as a whole lacks a means to build competence in the security discipline. Somehow government agencies need to identify security up-and-comers within government and nurture them. What I’m calling for here is a government-sponsored internal mentorship program – having recognized winners in the security game mentor peers and subordinates.

Until we security practitioners can separate the hype from the facts, and can articulate these facts in terms management can understand and support, we will never get beyond the charlatans, headline grabbers and other “self-licking ice cream cones.” Some might even look upon this new, “bold initiative” by NASA as quitting at a game that’s seen by them as “too hard.” I doubt seriously that they tried to approach the problem using a non-academic, non-research approach. It needed to be said. Perhaps if the organization taking the “bold steps” were one that had succeeded at implementing the NIST guidance, there might be more followers, in greater numbers.

Perhaps it’s too hard because folks are merely staring at their organization’s navel and not looking at the larger picture?

Lastly, security needs to be approached strategically as well as tactically. As Sun Tzu said, “Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”

• A Funny Thing Happened Last Week on Capital Hill
• How to Not Let FISMA Become a Paperwork Exercise
• When the Feds Come Calling
• Ooh, “The Word” is out on S 3474
• Some Comments on SP 800-39

Go have a look at what Mike Murray and Lee Kushner have to say on what I endearingly refer to as “Stupid Contractor Tricks”.

Now I know Mike and Lee are supposed to be tactful, and they do a really good job at that.  This post is not about tact.  =)

You need to step back a bit and understand the business model for contractors.  Because their margins are low and fixed, it means a couple of things:

• You have large-volume contracts where you still have the same margin but more total net profit.
• You can’t keep a bench of people off-project because it rapidly eats into your margin.  For some companies, this means that anybody off-project for 2 weeks or more gets laid off.
• The name of the game is to win the proposal, get the work, then figure out how to staff it from rolling people onto the new project and bringing in new hires.  This is vastly inefficient.
• New hires can also be to backfill on contracts where you’ve moved key people off to work something new.

So on to my advice in this particular scenario that Mike and Lee discuss:  Run away as fast as you can from this offer.

There are a couple of other things that I’m thinking about here:

• A recruiter or HR person from Company A left for Company B and took their Rolodex of candidates.  Hence the surprise offer.  Either that, or Company A is now a sub for Company B or Company A is just the “staffing firm” getting paid $500/signed offer letter and doing business in bulk.
• The Government usually requires “Commitment Letters” from the people that have resumes submitted on a proposal.  The reason for this is that the Government realizes what kind of jackassery goes on involving staffing, and requiring a signed letter gives the candidate an opportunity to decide up front.
• If you sign an offer like this, you’re letting down the rest of the InfoSec community that are contractors by letting the recruiters commoditize what we do.  It’s bad for us and it’s bad for the Government.

Other stupid contractor tricks:

• Signing an exclusivity letter that they are the only people who can submit your resume on a contract.
• Making you sign an offer letter then letting the offer linger for 6+ months while you’re unemployed and could really use the ability to move on to a different job.
• Shopping resumes for people you have never met and/or do not intend to make an offer letter to.
• Changing the job completely after you have accepted the offer.
• …and you probably have more that you can put into the comments section below.  =)

• The CyberArmy You Have…
• When the News Breaks, We Fix it…
• NIST’S FISMA Pase II–Who Certifies Those who Certify the Certifiers?
• Engagement Economics and Security Assessments
• Analyzing Fortify’s Plan to “Fix” the Government’s Security Problem

OK, so I lied unintentionally all those months ago when I said I wouldn’t write any more PCI-DSS posts.

My impetus for this blog post is a PCI-DSS panel at ShmooCon that several of my friends (Jack Daniel, Anton Chuvakin, Mike Dahn, and Josh Corman, in no particular order) were on.  I know I’m probably the pot calling the kettle black, but the panel (as you would expect for any PCI-DSS discussion in the near future) rapidly disolved into chaos.  So as I’m sitting in the audience watching @Myrcurial’s head pop off, I came to the realization that this is really 4 different conversations disguised into one topic:

1. The Cost-Benefit Assessment of replacing credit card # and CVV2 with something else–maybe chip and pin, maybe something entirely different–and what responsibility does Visa and Mastercard have towards protecting their business.  This calls for something more like an ROI approach because it’s infrastructure projects.  Maybe this CBA has already been done but guess what–nobody has said anything about the result of that analysis.
2. Merchants’ responsibility to protect their customers, their business, and each other.  This is the usual PCI-DSS spiel.  The public policy equivalent here is overfishing: everybody knows that if they come back with full nets and by-catch, they’re going to ruin the fishery long-term for themselves and their peers, but they can’t stop the destruction of the fishery by themselves, they need everybody in the community to do their part.  In the same way, merchants not protecting card data mess over each other in this weird shared risk pool.
3. Processor and bank responsibility.  Typically this is the Tier-1 and Tier-2 guys.  The issue here is that these guys are most of the processing infrastructure.  What works in PCI-DSS for small merchants doesn’t scale up to match these guys, and that’s the story here: how do you make a framework that scales?  I think it’s there (IE, the tiers and assurance levels in PCI-DSS) but it’s not communicated effectively.
4. Since this is all a shared risk pool, at what places does it make sense to address particular risks?  IE, what is the division of roles and responsibilities inside the “community”?  Then how do you make a community standard that is at least reasonably fair to all the parties on this spectrum, Visa and MasterCard included?

PCI-DSS Tag Cloud photo by purpleslog.

There are a bunch of tangential questions, but they almost always circle
back to the 4 that I’ve mentioned above:

• Regulatory capture and service providers
• The pitfalls of designing a framework by committee
• Self-regulation v/s legislation and Government oversight
• Levels of hypocrisy in managing the “community”
• Effectiveness of specific controls

Now the problem as I see it is that each of these conversations points to a different conversation as a solution and in doing so, they become thought-terminating cliches.  What this means is that when you do a panel, you’re bound to bounce between these 4 different themes without coming to any real resolution.  Add to this the fact that it’s a completely irrational audience who only understand their 1 piece of the topic, and you have complete chaos when doing a panel or debate.

Folks, I know this is hard to hear, but as an industry, we need to get over being crybabies and pointing fingers when it comes PCI-DSS.  The standard (or a future version of it anyway) and self-regulation is here to stay because even if we fix the core problems of payment, we’ll still have security problems because payment schemes are where the money is.  The world as I see it is that the standards process needs to be more transparent and the people governed by the standard need a seat at the table with their rational, adult, and constructive arguments on what works and what doesn’t work to help them do their job to help themselves.

• Why We Need PCI-DSS to Survive
• Preliminary Findings on Cybersecurity Review Now Out
• Blow-By-Blow on S.773–The Cybersecurity Act of 2009–Part 5
• Where For Art Thou, 60-Day Review
• Blow-By-Blow on S.773–The Cybersecurity Act of 2009–Part 3

Part 1

Part 2

Takeaways from the 20 CSC and what they do right (hey, it’s not all bad):

You have to prioritize. On a system basis, there are maybe 50-60 800-53 controls (out of a number just shy of 200) that need to be built 100% correctly and working every single time.  The rest (I know, I’m putting on my heretic hat here) can lapse from time to time.  For example, if I don’t have good event monitoring, my incident response team doesn’t have much work because I don’t know if I’m pwned or not.  What 20 CSC does is try to reduce that set of stuff that I should be concerned about into a set of controls that are technical, tactical, and track to classes taught by SANS vulnerability-based .

Common controls are more important than ever. They help you scope the smaller systems.  In fact, roughly half of the 20 CSC apply to the modern Enterprise and should be absorbed there, meaning that for systems not owning infrastructure, we only have 10 or so controls that I have to worry a bunch about, and 10 that I just need to be aware of what’s provided by my CISO.

Give examples. I’ll even go as far as to say this:  it should be a capital offense to release a catalog of controls without a reference implementation for both an Enterprise/GSS and a smaller IT system/Major Application inside of it.  20 CSC stops maybe one step short of that, but it’s pretty close in some controls to what I want if they were structured differently.

Security Management v/s IT Management. IT asset inventory, configuration management, change control:  these are IT management activities that somehow get pushed onto the security team because we are more serious about them than the people who should care.  I think 20 CSC does an OK job of just picking out the pieces that apply to security people instead of the “full meal deal” that ITIL and its ilk bring.

Control Key photo by .faramarz.

Now for what they did wrong:

It’s Still Not a Consensus, Dammit! That is, it’s a couple of smart people making a standard in a vacuum and detached from the folks who will have to live by the work that they do.  Seriously, ask around inside the agencies:  who admits to helping develop 20 CSC aside from “yeah, we looked at it briefly”?  And I’m not talking about the list that SANS claims, that’s stripped from the bios of the handful of people who did work on 20 CSC.  Sadly, this is the quick path to fail, it’s like building an IT system without asking the users what they need to get their job done on a daily basis.  Guys, we should know better than this.

It’s Still Not a Standard. It’s still written as guidance–more anecdote than hard requirements.  This isn’t something I can put into a contract and have my contractors execute without modifying it heavily.  It’s also not official, something I’ve already touched on before, which means that it’s not mandatory.  If you want to make this a standard, you need to turn it into ~50 controls each written as a “contracting shall”.  More to come on this in the future.

It Has Horrible Metrics. And I’m talking really horrible…it’s like the goatse of security metrics (NSFW link, even though it’s wikipedia).  Why?  Because they’re time-based for controls that are not time-based.  Metrics need to be a way to evaluate that the control works, not the indirect effects of the control.  Of course, metrics are just a number, but at the end of whatever assessment, my auditor/IG/GAO/$foo has to come up with some way to rank the work that I’ve done as a security officer.  If 20 CSC is the vehicle for the audit and the metrics are hosed, it doesn’t matter what I can do to provide real security, the perception from my management is that I don’t know what I’m doing.

• 20 Critical Security Controls: Control-by-Control
• Opportunity Costs and the 20 Critical Security Controls
• The Guerilla CISO Rants: Don’t Write a System Security Plan
• Federated Vulnerability Management
• How to Not Let FISMA Become a Paperwork Exercise

OK, now for the control-by-control analysis of the 20 Critical Security Controls.  This is part 2.  Look here for the first installment.  Read part 3 here.

Critical Control 1: Inventory of Authorized and Unauthorized Devices. This is good: get an automated tool to do IT asset discovery.  Actually, you can combine this with Controls 2, 3, 4, 11, and 14 with some of the data center automation software–you know the usual suspects, just ask your ops folks how you get in on their tools.  This control suffers from scope problems because it doesn’t translate down to the smaller-system scale:  if I have a dozen servers in an application server farm inside of a datacenter, I’ll usually know if anybody adds something.  The metric here (detect all new devices in 24 hours) “blows goats” because you don’t know if you’re detecting everything.  A better test is for the auditor to do their own discovery scans and compare it to the list in the permanent discovery tool–that would be validation that the existing toolset does work–with a viable metric of “percentage of devices detected on the network”.  The 24 hour metric is more like a functional requirement for an asset discovery tool.  And as far as the isolation of unmanaged assets, I think it’s a great idea and the way things should be, except for the fact that you just gave us an audit requirement to implement NAC.

Critical Control 2: Inventory of Authorized and Unauthorized Software. Sounds like the precursor to whitelisting.  I think this is more apropos to the Enterprise unless your system is the end-user computing environment (laptops, desktops).  Yes, this control will help with stuff in a datacenter to detect when something’s been pwned but the real value is out at the endpoints.  So yes, not happy with the scope of this control.  The metric here is as bad as for Control 1 and I’m still not happy with it.  Besides, if you allow unauthorized software to be on an IT device for up to 24 hours, odds are you just got pwned.  The goal here should be to respond to detected unauthorized software within 24 hours.

Critical Control 3: Secure Configurations for Hardware and Software on Laptops, Workstations, and Servers. This is actually a good idea, provided that you give me a tool to apply the settings automagically because manual configuration sucks.  I think it’s about a dozen different controls all wrapped into one, it’s just trying to do too much in one little control.  The time-based metric for this control is really bad, it’s like watching a train wreck.  But hey, I’ll offer up my own: percentage of IT assets conforming to the designated configuration.  It’s hinted at in the implementation guide, make it officially the metric and this might be a control I can support.

Critical Control 4: Secure Configurations for Network Devices such as Firewalls, Routers, and Switches. This is basically Control 3 for network devices.  The comments there also apply here.

Critical Control 5: Boundary Defense. This control is too much stuff crammed into one space.  As a result, it’s not concise enough to be implemented–it’s all over the map.  In fact, I’ll go as far as to say that this isn’t really one control, it’s a control theme with a ton of controls inside of it.  The “audit requirements” here are going to utterly kill me as a security manager because there is so much of a disparity between the control and the actual controls therein.

Critical Control 6: Maintenance, Monitoring, and Analysis of Audit Logs. Some of this control should be part of Controls 3 and 4 because, let’s be honest here, you’re setting up logging on devices the way that the hardening guide says you should.  The part that’s needed in this control is aggregation of logs and review of logs–get them off all the endpoints and into a centralized log management solution.  This is mentioned as the last “advanced” implementation technique but if you’re operating a modern Enterprise, I don’t see how you can get the rest of the implementation done without some kind of SIEM piece.   I just don’t get the metric here, again with the 24 hours.  How about “percentage of devices reporting into the SIEM”?  Yeah, that’s the easy money here.  The testing of this control makes me do a facepalm:  “At a minimum the following devices must be tested: two routers, two firewalls, two switches, ten servers, and ten client systems.”  OK, we’ve got a LAN/WAN with 15000 endpoints and that’s all we’re going to test?

Critical Control 7: Application Software Security. You keep using those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.  Application security is a whole different world and 20 CSC doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of it.  Oh, but guess what?  It’s a tie-in to the 25 Most Dangerous Programming Errors which is about all this control is:  a pointer to a different project.  The metric here is very weak because it’s not tied back to the actual control.

Critical Control 8: Controlled Use of Administrative Privileges. This should be part of Controls 3 and 4, along with something about getting an Identity and Access Management system so that you have one ID repository.  I know this is a shocker to you, but the metric here sucks.

Critical Control 9: Controlled Access Based on Need to Know. This is a great idea, but as a control it’s too broad to achieve, which is why the 20 CSC were created in the first place.  What do we really want here?  Network share ACLs are mentioned, which is a control in itself, but the rest of this is hazy and leaves much room for interpretation.  Cue “audit requirements” and the part where Rybolov says “If it’s this hazy, it’s not really a standard, it’s a guideline that I shouldn’t be audited against.

Critical Control 10: Continuous Vulnerability Assessment and Remediation. All-in-all, not too bad.  I would suggest “Average time to resolve scan findings” here as a metric or even something as “hoakey” as the FoundScan metric just to gauge overall trends.

Arm Control photo by Crotchsplay.

Critical Control 11: Account Monitoring and Control. Haven’t we seen this before?  Yep, this should be incorporated into Controls 8, 3, and 4.  However, periodic account reviews are awesome if you have the patience to do it.

Critical Control 12: Malware Defenses. OK, this isn’t too bad.  Once again, the metric sucks, but I do like some of the testing steps.  The way I would test this is to compare our system inventory with my total list of devices.  A simple diff later, we have a list of unmanaged devices.

Critical Control 13: Limitation and Control of Network Ports, Protocols, and Services. Host firewalls was not what I thought of… I’m thinking more like firewalls and network segmentation where you have to get change control approval to add a firewall rule.  As far as the host setup, this should be part of Control 3.

Critical Control 14: Wireless Device Control. Not bad, but this should be dumped into a technical standard that you use like a hardening guide.  Metric here still sucks, but I don’t really need to say this again… oh wait, I just did.

Critical Control 15: Data Loss Prevention. Puh-lease.  I’ll be the first to admit, I’m a big believer in DLP done right, and that it’s an awesome tool to solve some of the unique .  But I don’t think that the market is mature enough to add it into your catalog of controls.  Also this will fall flat on its face if your system is just a web application cluster:  DLP addresses the endpoints (desktops, laptops, mobiles) and the outbound gateways (email, web, etc).  The problem with this control is that if you don’t buy and implement a full DLP solution (cue Rich Mogull and his DLP guide), there isn’t anything else that has a similar capability.  This is one of those controls where the 800-53 mapping gets really creative–Good Ship Lollipop Creative because we’re tapdancing around the issue that DLP-type solutions aren’t specifically required in 800-53.

These controls don’t have automated ways to implement and test them:

Critical Control 16: Secure Network Engineering. This control is a steaming crater.  It’s very much a guideline instead of an auditable standard.

Critical Control 17: Penetration Tests and Red Team Exercises. Not bad.  Still too easy to shop around for the bargain-basement penetration test team.  But yeah, pretty good overall.

Critical Control 18: Incident Response Capability. Good control.  Hard to test/audit except to look at after-incident reports.

Critical Control 19: Data Recovery Capability. Not bad here.  Not real COOP/DR/ITCP but about on par with typical controls frameworks.

Critical Control 20: Security Skills Assessment and Appropriate Training to Fill Gaps. Good idea.  Hard to implement without something like 8570.10 to give you a matrix by job position.  You want to change the world here, give your own mapping in the control.

• Opportunity Costs and the 20 Critical Security Controls
• 20 Critical Security Controls: What They Did Right and What They Did Wrong
• Security Assessments as Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
• Federated Vulnerability Management
• The Guerilla CISO Rants: Don’t Write a System Security Plan