Over the last several years, I've noticed the role of CIO transitioning increasingly to business experience rather than IT. Likewise, the CISO position is often given to those lacking any hard skills in security.
At Rendition Infosec we regularly meet with infosec leaders - some have a wealth of domain experience and others unfortunately do not. We're happy to help organizations of all shapes and sizes with directors from all backgrounds. However, we know that we have better outcomes when dealing with leaders who really understand the problem infosec space.
Armchair Experts
Is this really a problem?
I'm not trying to reignite the hard vs soft skills debate, but I do think it's worth discussing how important security understanding is to being a CISO. One organization I ultimately opted not to work with hired their "CISO" from within their app development ranks. You can't convince me you're serious about security if this is your plan. If you want to put someone on a career development track to eventually be CISO, fine. But an application development manager is no more qualified to be a CISO on day one than I am qualified to take over control of a 747 mid-flight.
At Rendition Infosec we regularly meet with infosec leaders - some have a wealth of domain experience and others unfortunately do not. We're happy to help organizations of all shapes and sizes with directors from all backgrounds. However, we know that we have better outcomes when dealing with leaders who really understand the problem infosec space.
Some will argue that a great leader can be a great CISO by surrounding themselves with good people. I think this is fundamentally wrong. Honestly, I doubt this works really well in any field where you lack general domain knowledge. You could surround yourself with great electricians, but you'd still be a bad chief electrician if you didn't understand panel load or ohms law. And sorry if I offend any electricians in saying this, but information security is way more complicated. In other words, more domain knowledge is needed.
Armchair Experts
But infosec lends itself to armchair experts. It's in our very nature to over estimate our capabilities, especially on topics we find partly familiar. For better or worse, we all use smart phones and computers these days. So perhaps we feel like we already have more domain knowledge here than say, pipe fitting. But this is deceptive since the problems of infosec are hugely complex and require massive amounts of domain knowledge. My ex-father in law was a doctor - a legitimately smart man. He had no problem paying a plumber to fix a leaky faucet or even a painter to paint a wall. But when faced with a computer problem, he couldn't get over the idea that he was paying someone to do something he could fix himself. He couldn't understand the value because he overestimated his domain knowledge for cyber security.
Is this really a problem?
You bet it is. A great example of this is Giuliani. Say what you will about the man, he has a lot of leadership experience. He's also reasonably adept at talking to the press. So I was a little shocked to read this Market Watch article where he totally confused about cause and effect on a topic as simple as Y2K. As far as Giuliani was concerned (as of January, 2016) we digitized systems to deal with Y2K.
Obviously this is wrong, and hideously so. But it highlights the type of messaging that can occur when leaders overestimate their domain knowledge in infosec. So what, we're never going to have another Y2K you say? True. But we will continue to face complex security challenges and others will assume you know what you're talking about. Think I'm wrong? Market Watch didn't question Giuliani's response at all and continued giving him airtime.
* The Giulaini reference isn't meant to be political in any way. It just happens to be the best high profile example I can muster of leaders thinking they know more than they actually do about infosec.
Just get the checklist done
I've regularly meet with infosec "leaders" (and I use that term lightly) who proudly present me with their list of things they will do to "finish securing our networks for good." Whoa - no professional believes they will simply check a few boxes and be done. That's insane. 100% delusional. Unfortunately, directors and executives eat this stuff up and are convinced that soon they will be "done solving the information security challenge."
Infosec is a domain that requires professionals at the helm. I don't want someone with a MBA doing hip surgery because he "understands business and has a hip he uses every day, so you know, he's qualified." We need to stress the importance of understanding the security domain to our leaders. If you already have a leader who doesn't understand the domain, you have two fundamental choices - either educate them or get a new job. Sadly, usually the latter works best.
* The Giulaini reference isn't meant to be political in any way. It just happens to be the best high profile example I can muster of leaders thinking they know more than they actually do about infosec.
Just get the checklist done
I've regularly meet with infosec "leaders" (and I use that term lightly) who proudly present me with their list of things they will do to "finish securing our networks for good." Whoa - no professional believes they will simply check a few boxes and be done. That's insane. 100% delusional. Unfortunately, directors and executives eat this stuff up and are convinced that soon they will be "done solving the information security challenge."
Infosec is a domain that requires professionals at the helm. I don't want someone with a MBA doing hip surgery because he "understands business and has a hip he uses every day, so you know, he's qualified." We need to stress the importance of understanding the security domain to our leaders. If you already have a leader who doesn't understand the domain, you have two fundamental choices - either educate them or get a new job. Sadly, usually the latter works best.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.