Alan Calder on IT Governance, information security & ISO 27001

Cloud computing has tremendous potential for organisations of all sizes; it also brings with it a specific set of risks, ranging from access management and business continuity through to data protection compliance. Cloud computing risk was very much on the agenda at this year’s RSA conference; we’ve also recently published a book which focuses very specifically on managing risk in the cloud. Titled ‘Above the Cloud: Managing RIsk in the World of Cloud Computing’, it seems to be hitting the spot in terms of providing specific guidance to security and IT professionals about this specific area of risk. It is also available from our US site.

The Data Protection Act (’DPA’) in the UK is a cornerstone of IT and information-related legislation. It applies to all organisations that collect or hold information about living individuals. Most organisations would claim that they comply with the DPA. The reality is that many don’t - over 800 organisations have reported data breaches in just the last two years - and as, reporting data breaches is not a legal requirement, it is likely that there have been many more breaches similar to those described here, but which have been ’swept under the carpet.’

The Information Commissioner (ICO) will, from 6 April 2010, have the power to levy fines of up to £500k for serious breaches of the DPA. Which organisations will suffer the first fines?

For all organisations, the choice is clear and straightforward: continue with shoddy data protection practices and face potentially significant financial penalties, plus the wide spread press coverage that will attend such a fine, or take steps to improve those practices. There is, in fact, a good business case to make for doing exactly that. The ICO has just published The Privacy Dividend, which describes how to make the business case for the necessary investment and even includes - for free - all the documentation that an organisation might use as part of that business case.

Penalty or dividend? 

It shouldn’t be a hard choice, should it?

The new Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, has recognised that current penalties for breaching the UK Data Protection Act are derisory and has called for the introduction of prison sentences for reckless breaches.

Excellent.

But not enough - the ICO is only responding to pathetic sentences given to private investigators and others who actively and deliberately breached the DPA. As I have said on previous occasions, we need to go much further. The only way that we will develop a real culture of compliance is if directors of companies that breach the DPA are personally liable for fines and prison sentences for failing to ensure that their companies took adequate steps to comply with the DPA.

After all, if larger organisations took appropriate steps to protect personal data, it would be that much harder for the unscrupulous smaller operators to breach their security to illegally obtain data, wouldn’t it?

Some UK acquiring banks have a determined campaign in place right now to get all level 2,3 and 4 merchants to PCI DSS compliance by October. Larger merchants should all not be compliant, which means that hackers and fraudsters will logically turn their attention to smaller companies that may still be vulnerable. So, while PCI Compliance for smaller businesses will certainly create a resources challenge for them, it one to which they are simply going to have to rise - or face fines and penalties from the payment brands.

In Nevada, PCI compliance for all merchants who accept a Nevadan citizens payment card has now been made law with effect from 2010 - this is a major step forward in terms of bringing this compliance regime onto a statutory footing, and we shoudl expect to see the process gather pace.

One of the key problems faced by organisations that want to comply with the Data Protection Act is that the DPA doesn’t contain any detailed guidance on compliance - in essence, it is just a set of 8 principles. And the worst principle from a compliance perspective is Principle 7, which requires organisations to make appropriate technical and administrative arrangements to protect personal information. What is appropriate? And how would you prove it? For some years, ISO/IEC 27001 certification has been the most effective way of demonstrating DPA compliance, but the read across between the two standards is not that precise.

BS10012 (Data Protection: Specification for a Personal Information Management System), on the other hand, is a standard that is specifically written to meet DPA compliance needs. It is written as a specification (in other words, audits can be conducted against the standard and there is talk of a certification scheme) and it deals specifically and completely with the requirements of the DPA. It has just been published and every organisation that has personal information to protect should

1. Buy a copy, and compare actual practices with those described in the standard and,
2. Consider improving actual practices so that they conform to those described in the standard.

Here’s a link where you can get your own copy: http://www.itgovernance.co.uk/products/2542

It is certainly true that most of those involved in the creation of IT standards are from large organisations. It is also true - as Steve Burrows says - that it can be challenging for an SME to implement a standard such as the ISMS standard, ISO/IEC 27001, for information security management.

However, all standards are explicitly designed for organisations of all sizes. ISO/IEC 27001, for instance, is clear that its requirements should be implemented in a way that is appropriate for the organisation; certainly the selection of controls will be driven by a risk assessment and, if the management of an SME has a high appetite for risk, it won’t find itself selecting many controls.

The reality is that all organisations are subject to similar types of risks; an impact (like the loss of a server for a week) that could severely disrupt an SME might not even bother a larger, multinational organisation. Organisations need to select and implement controls that will protect them from impacts they wish to avoid - and the management system they put in place will be very similar to that put in place by a much larger organisation to manage much larger impacts.

The issue isn’t really the IT standards; the real issue is the resources that SMEs have available to tackle them. Few SMEs will have the capability to plan and carry out an appropriate implementation of something like an ISMS - which, of course, is why we developed our FastTrack ISO27001 Implementation Service for organisations that have 19 employees or fewer, and why our classic consultancy service (with its 100% guarantee) is helping more and more SMEs implement appropriately scaled information security management systems that enable them to cost-effectively meet customer compliance requirements and to challenge larger competitors in their space.

While I’m probably more interested in governance than the average person, I do sometimes worry that contextualising information and compliance challenges as governance issues can delay organisations from taking the obvious, common-sense action.

This intelligent article on mobile security governance, for instance, identifies all the steps that organisations should take in considering risks to data posed by the mobile network. See how far you have to read through it before you find guidance to apply encryption to key mobile devices - all laptops and any USB sticks or PDAs that carry sensitive information. The sensible approach is to first apply encryption, which deals with the largest number of mobile device-related risks while keeping you within regulatory requirements, and then to stop and consider what other risks might need mitigation.

You don’t want to have to tell 1,000s or millions of customers or members of staff why someone leaving a laptop at the busstop has exposed all their personal details to fraud and identity theft. Explaining that you were considering the range of risks before deciding what action to take is likely to elicit the same sort of response as a UK MP explaining that their inappropriate expense claims were ‘within the rules’.

I’ve been of the view, for some time, that effective corporate information security will only come to pass when company directors are prosecuted, fined and jailed for failures to implement and maintain effective information security management systems.

Here are two stories that rather illustrate the point:

• Companies not evaluating security policies efficiently (if at all)
• Companies mostly unprepared to prevent data leaks over email

And it’s all actually quite straightforward - implement ISO27001, obey the Data Protection Act, and have happy customers, staff and regulators!

I think it’s a great pity - but clearly unavoidable - that the FSA has arrived at the view that it will have to fine individual board-level executives of retail banks if it is to get them to take adequate measures to protect customers’s information. I think this is excellent news - particularly the clear statement that ‘FSA wants to avoid executives palming off overall security responsibilities onto the IT department. Chief executives, compliance officers and board-level IT directors could all be held responsible.’

One would have thought that banks might have spotted that protecting customer information might be a fundamental part of customer care in this identity-theft age but, then again, I guess we might have expected banks to have spotted that it might not make sense to lend someone of limited income 130% of the already-inflated value of a house. 

A number of UK banks have been - or are about to be - taken into public ownership. The UK government doesn’t exactly have a great track record (eg HMRC, MOD, etc) when it comes to protecting personal data, either. So we have to hope that the FSA will have the courage to fine the government-appointed directors of nationalised banks where they fail to ensure their organisation takes adequate steps to protect personal data - or the protection of personal data in the UK will just become even more difficult.

When financial markets appear to be in free fall, many organisations might think that data protection is the least of their worries. Who cares, they might wonder, about protecting personal data if tomorrow we might not exist any more? (And, from what we’ve seen over the last few weeks, the ‘might not exist tomorrow’ possibility should be a very real planning scenario for all but the world’s best-capitalised banks).

Well, in the UK, the Information Commissioner is unlikely to cease caring - already identified as “setting the political and administrative agendas for the protection of personal data in this century in the UK” and for “firmly disciplining politicians, civil servants, the media and business folk into line”, he’s unlikely to allow data protection to take a back seat at exactly the moment that spammers are expected to take advantage of bank buyouts to launch new phishing scams.

However, we’re talking here about banks who were unable to identify or adequately manage some rather more obvious risks to their business (like, if you lend someone 130% of the value of his collateral, and if his current cashflow is insufficient to pay the interest let alone repay the principle, how do you expect to survive?) than those around personal data. So, if you’re a bank customer, it might not be wise to hope that, in the midst of all this turmoil, your personal data will be adequately protected. The facts speak for themselves: US organisations are on track to report at least 680 data breaches by the end of 2008, affecting more than 30 million records.

It is clearly the case that, with personal data, one can only rely on oneself to protect it!