I come bearing no answers, only questions. This being the SecurityMonks website, I could not allow the article, “The High Priests of IT — And the Heretics” to pass without comment. No heretics or high priests here. Only a simple security monk. The author, Cory Doctorow, makes his argument well. While I may not agree with Cory on several points, I do find how he frames the discussion most interesting. Discussion of an issue is often influences by how one frames the problem.
What I hope people reading Cory’s post walk away with is the recognition that sects exist. We all have various fanatics at each of the organization where we work. Many are good people earnest and true in their desire to do their jobs well. Yet, they could not be more different in their solutions to the problems facing their organizations. They may fall into the high priests or heretics camps, or a dozen other camps.
Let us talk about some of the divisions within IT and security. Richard Bejtlich points out in his post, , “Steve Liesman on Inputs vs Outputs,” two camps. Richard is continuing an argument he previously made in “Controls Are Not the Solution to Our Problem.” He argues that too much time and resources are being spent on auditing controls that are far too input-centric. Instead, Richard feels controls should become more output-aware and recommends directing attention away from inputs and devoting more energy to outputs. Included are some real world examples that management could understand and relate to. Steve Liesman is quoted in relation to our current economic crisis, “It’s not what you’re doing that matters; it’s whether or not it works.” Consider the following questions. Within your security organization, who focuses on controls/inputs and who focuses on output? How much of a division exist between these groups? Where do the auditors fit in?
To point out other divisions within security, take a look at Jeremiah Grossman recent post, “Quick Wins and Web Application Security.” To quote Jeremiah paraphrasing a recent conversation with Joseph Feiman (Gartner):
During an event a panel of Gartner Analysts asked the audience what the best way is for organization to invest $1 million dollars in effort to reduce risk. The choices were Network, Host, or Application security to which the Gartner analysts made their cases for these three disciplines. The catch was the budget could not be shared between them and must be prioritized into a single initiative. The audience selected Application security. However, the Gartner CSO (who took the role of CIO in the play) overruled the audiences’ decision. They instead selected Network security, while at the same time curiously agreeing that Application security would have been the better path. His rational was that that it is easier for him to show results to his CEO if he invests in the Network.
Gary McGraw was recently interviewed by James McGovern for the SilverBullet podcast. They discuss the recent release of “Building Security In Maturity Model (BSIMM).” In the interview, Gary was asked about the leaders of the enterprises that “have a clue in making their security posture better.” While the leadership that helped develop the BSIMM had very diverse backgrounds, James asked, “It sounds like they are all from a technical background at some level. Are there IT executives out there that understand software security that are just business people?” Gary responded, “I don’t know the answer to that. I really don’t know any. I will say this about these people, they are the sort of hybrid people that can speak business and also have a very deep technical background. As you know those kind of creatures are rare on earth. Right now it appears that they might be necessary to cause software security initiatives to be a success. Hopefully, we will gain enough experience and write down enough empirical science that won’t be the case in the future.”
It is not a great surprise to learn that a major divide exists between the IT and the business camp. Recent frameworks often include governance components in an attempt to help bridge the gap between the two camps. As an example, the IT Governance Institute® (ITGI™) recently released v0.1 of risk based framework based on the principles of enterprise risk management standards/frameworks such as COSO ERM2 and AS/NZS 4360,3. The framework is called Risk IT. ITGI would argue that existing IT risk guidance documents tend to focus solely on IT security. Risk IT is meant to cover all aspects of IT risk. ITGI also develops the Control Objectives for Information and related Technology (COBIT), which is focused on “providing a comprehensive framework for the delivery of information technology-based services.” Risk IT and COBIT are meant to compliment each other. COBIT is a set of good practices which provide the means of risk management; while Risk IT is meant to set good practices for the ends by “providing a framework for enterprises to identify, govern and manage IT risk.” Recall Richard Bejtlich argument concerning the division between the controls/inputs and outputs.
All these different sects make effective security most difficult. A layered approach to security fails to work when the layers operate in isolation. Gary McGraw gets an “amen!” for describing leaders of the enterprises that understand security as a “sort of hybrid people that can speak business and also have a very deep technical background. As you know those kind of creatures are rare on earth.” On top of having an understanding that reaches into areas throughout the organization, they need to be leaders.
Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones wrote an article, “Leading Clever People.” Goffee and Jones will be publishing a book with the same title late in 2009. An audio interview is available from the London Business School. Goffee and Jones conducted over a 100 interviews with leaders at major organizations and report the relationships effective leaders have with their “clever people” can be shaped by seven shared characteristics:
- They know their worth—and they know you have to employ them if you want their tacit skills.
- They are organizationally savvy and will seek the company context in which their interests are most generously funded.
- They ignore corporate hierarchy; although intellectual status is important to them, you can’t lure them with promotions.
- They expect instant access to top management, and if they don’t get it, they may think the organization doesn’t take their work seriously.
- They are plugged into highly developed knowledge networks, which both increases their value and makes them more of a flight risk.
- They have a low boredom threshold, so you have to keep them challenged and committed.
- They won’t thank you—even when you’re leading them well.
Now you may be thinking, “I am security, not the CEO of the company. I am not even their project manager. Why are you talking about leadership? What should I care about business? If users just did what I told them, life would be good.” It is important to note that a characteristic not listed above is “empathy.” Folks in your organization are not going to try and see things from security’s point of view. They want to do their job and if security appear to be a road block, they will go around. We need to avoid having each sect doing their own thing. As what occurs in many religions, an “us verses them” attitude will develop. If you want people to follow, you must first lead. To lead “clever people” you must understand those people.
James Parker, Southwest Airlines ex-CEO, offers some advice. He has written a fascinating book titled “Do the Right Thing.” One story particularly interesting concerned a manager who didn’t succeed despite being very intelligent and ambitious. “When this person finally left, I asked one of his former employees why she thought everybody disliked her former boss so much. She summed it up: ‘Because he was the kind of person who kissed up and spit down.’ ” When problems arose at American, “the primary focus of communications was blaming and avoidance of blame – in contrast, when something went wrong at Southwest, the focus of communications was problem-solving,” Parker quotes from the book, “The Southwest Airlines Way“.
James Parker and Barbara Stocking, Chief Executive of Oxfam GB, discuss below “Leadership in an Age of Uncertainty” with moderator Deborah G. Ancona. The discussion focuses on the need for distributed leadership. A key point made is that companies need “employees doing things outside the narrow scope of their job responsibilities, to contribute to the success of overall operations.” This is the cornerstone of the concept of “relational competence.”
The world continues to get more complicated. In response, more specialization occurs, which leads to less understanding of other groups. The history of religions have shown us how difficult things can get when various sects develop. In the corporate world communication breaks down, the focus on the mission is lost, and the relational competence of a company dissolves. I started this post with the statement that I come bearing no answers, only questions. While that is true, I have pointed to some very intelligent people who discuss the various sects and offer possible ways to coexist. Security professionals cannot exist in their own camp, separate from the rest of the organization, dictating how people should do their jobs. In such an environment, it will not matter if every pronouncement is the embodiment of wisdom and truth. Failure is inevitable. Abraham Lincoln offered these wise words when he addressed the Washington Temperance Society on February 22, 1842:
If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what you will, is the great high-road to his reason, and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause. If indeed that cause really be a just one.
On the contrary, assume to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself, transformed to the heaviest lance, harder than steel, and sharper than steel can be made, and though you throw it with more than herculean force and precision, you shall be no more able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw.
Amen, brother Abraham.
