The Security Organization

Anecdote

To be a chief information security officer (CISO), you must demonstrate certain key qualities to an employer. At the interview for my last position, I sat down, miscalculating the touch-down so the arm of the chair slid neatly into my pants pocket with a ripping sound. My Top-Shelf consultancy suite was now complete with air-conditioning.

I immediately announced, “I’ve ripped my trousers”—so my interviewers would know the exact source of the sound that had so obviously come from my seat. Then I said, “Now you can see that I’m not talking out of the seat of my pants.

Now that’s the voice of experience!

Introduction

No two organizations are the same; they are always different culturally and in terms of size, industrial sector, and staff. Consequently, there is no right (but probably plenty of wrong) answer to the question, “Where should we position the head of security and the security team(s) in an organization?” Separation of the position of the operational security teams away from the head of security is often a purposeful and commercial decision.

This chapter reviews how organizations, both big and small, set up their security functions. It is based on my observations gained during 10 years experience in security consulting at both a strategic and a technical detailed level to many of the United Kingdom’s leading blue–chip companies.

I have never seen this subject covered in any textbook or manual.

Where to Put the Security Team

Figure 1.1 shows a typical firm with a number of potential positions for the security function. We will analyze the pros and cons of each position to answer the age-old question, where should information security sit?

Where Should Security Sit? Below the IT Director Report

The most common position for the CISO and the security function is reporting up through the IT director or the head of computer operations. Certainly the latter organizational structure is common in small firms where there is no regulatory requirement for security. If the company is regulated or even quoted on an exchange, the authorities may encourage a more elevated position. Strangely enough, it is also common in more visionary firms that have had a security team for 20 years—perhaps because the team evolved from a solid team of Resource Access Control Facility (RACF) administrators (RACF is security software for IBM mainframes)!

Visit any organization with this structure and you will, within a very short time, recognize these benefits and failings.

Pros

Advantages of positioning the security team below the IT director include:

■ The information security function will not receive much “outsider resistance” when it makes IT decisions, simply because it is part of the computer department. Therefore, it isn’t “external” interference.

■ Operational computer security tasks (firewall installs, router access lists, and the like) will tend to be carried out by the team rather than by producing a specification for another team to execute. As a result, the team will become acknowledged local experts.

■ Technical security staff can be allowed to specialize and work closely with other technical areas. Therefore, not only will there be skill transfer, but relationships should generally be better.

Cons

Disadvantages of positioning the security team below the IT director report include:

■ Security will not have a powerful voice.

■ Security will probably be under-funded.

■ Security will not be independent; it will always be seen as taking the easiest route for the IT department. Typically, because of the low-ranking positions and the fact that it is embedded in the IT department, the focus will tend to be on computer security rather than information security. Business risk techniques to assess loss and impact will tend not to play a key role.

Obviously, in some situations this positioning will not be a big disadvantage. One of the largest U.K. banks is organized exactly in this manner. But when you are a direct report to an IT director who is responsible for 5,000 people and you have over 100 security staff reporting to you, you probably won’t feel that your punch lacks power. Similarly, if the organization has nearly all its problems within the IT department and IT is the core business (such as with an Internet company), placement here could be a significant advantage.

Generally, however, good all-round risk management cannot prosper in this layout. The scope of the role will allow the security function to manage digital and computer security very effectively, but influence over information risk management for nondigital assets may be advisory at best. This fact will have significant drawbacks at times (such as in the security of paper files), but computing is ubiquitous these days, so the influence of the role may still be considerable. As discussed later in the chapter, sound partnering with other departments may reduce this drawback considerably.

Where Should Security Sit? Below the Head of Audit

Another far from ideal place to position a security team is to have it report to the head of the audit function. In my experience, this is where security teams are often dumped when they grow up and move from being a subdepartment of the computing department to having a wider scope.

But if you have any sort of life, you don’t want to spend it with auditors, I promise you.

Pros

Advantages of positioning the security team below the head of auditing include:

■ The team is independent from the computer department.

■ The team will benefit from “whole business” governance mandate of the audit department. If the accounts team members are sharing passwords and you catch them, they will no longer excuse it by saying, “Oh, it’s just IT.”

■ Your boss (the head of auditing) will insist that you take a holistic information security approach rather than just apply computer security.

■ The security team will have powerful friends such as regulators or the audit committee.

Cons

Disadvantages of positioning the security team below the head of auditing include:

■ Nobody is ever pleased to see an auditor. The team will tend to be perceived as judgmental and reactive, not proactive fixers or problem solvers.

■ Auditors are often jacks-of-all-trades, not uncommonly struggling technically to do the jobs they do. The team will never be recognized as subject matter experts.

Where Should Security Sit? Below the CEO, CTO, or CFO

Placing security below the CEO, CTO, or CFO is the best of all the basic positions. This reporting position ensures that other departments will take notice of your findings, yet it is independent from any operational department.

Pros

Advantages of positioning the security team below the CEO/CTO/CFO include:

■ The security team is endowed with power.

■ It is independent.

■ The position is high enough to have a “whole business” remit.

■ It shows everyone that your organization is taking security seriously.

Cons

Disadvantages of positioning the security team below the CEO/CTO/CFO include:

■ The security team will be accused of being in an ivory tower (but so what).

■ The security team will find it hard to look into the IT director’s business and organization.

Your Mission: If You Choose to Accept It

So what does a good security team do? What are the team’s objectives? The answers to these questions will change from organization to organization, dependent on the particular information security strategy. The factors that may influence the answers, detailed at length in the next chapter, include legal requirements, regulatory requirements, and supplier and customer information security requirements.

This section describes the common activities of an information security department.

Role of the Security Function:...