Compliance drives security investments |
 |
By Edward Hurley, News Writer
19 Dec 2003 | Security Wire Perspectives |
|
|
Few things besides regulations are making companies plunk down dollars for infosecurity. While
compliance will surely help a company's security posture, it may not make it secure enough.
Regulations such as the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
and California's SB
1386 all have requirements that touch upon security. Failure to comply will open companies up to fines,
civil lawsuits and, in extreme cases, criminal charges.
In many ways, regulatory compliance acts as an ad hoc security standard. Companies can use the
regulations as a roadmap for their security investments. "Without tools you are not going to know what good
security is," said Pete Lindstrom, research director at Spire Security.
No regulation, however, explicitly lays out that a company should use 128-bit encryption or update
antivirus signature files in a particular time frame. The laws are more focused on the planning and process
needed for protecting certain classes of data.
For example, Sarbanes-Oxley isn't specifically about security -- or technology for that matter. The law
was passed in the wake of corporate governance scandals in the United States. It requires CEOs and CFOs of
publicly traded companies to sign off on their company's books. Security comes into play because the law
requires the executives attest to company internal controls, which hits squarely upon security.
Now, few would argue regulations will create a security Shangri-La. For starters, the security
requirements of the laws aren't necessarily that high. "If you have a great security program, then you
should meet all the requirements," said Mark Doll, director of Ernst & Young's security and technology
solutions practice for the Americas.
The opposite, however, isn't true. A company that complies with regulations doesn't necessarily have a
great security program. "Regulations won't create the best security programs but none would fail greatly,"
Doll said.
Both Doll and Lindstrom warn companies need to look beyond the requirements for regulations if they want
a great security program. "There is plenty of room to fall flat on your face," Lindstrom said. For example,
HIPAA requires companies do risk assessments to justify their security measures. If a company decides to
not do something because of its risk assessment, there is nothing to stop the government from coming back
and saying, "That's wrong. You should have done it," he added.
"If companies only focus on regulations then they will be too caught up on the trees to see the forest,"
Doll said.
|
|
|
|
