Regulations not making data safer, says RSA chief

Comments

Related

Active Comments

Anonymous says: At least the regulations are forcing companies to focus on security, rather than just business. Recent history shows companies will...

Read the rest | Reply

Marco says: Regulation makes for an even playing ground for all companies, thus disencouraging companies to make shortcuts in security on behalf...

Read the rest | Reply

All Comments (3) | Post New

• RSA: Vendors showcase new security tools
• Privacy watch: Two passwords double your privacy
• EMC officials stress end-to-end security
• EMC aims package at business continuity
• EMC/Dell partnership to focus on lower costs, disaster recovery

Zone

The Security Zone With the mobility of employees and the ease with which external devices can be brought in and out of a network, continuing to build your security plan for network servers and clients is a must. Fortunately, there is much that organizations can do to protect themselves from attacks - internal and external. Having the right policies, procedures and server configurations is critical... Learn more in The Security Zone See All Zones

April 8, 2008 (Computerworld) An increasingly complex and cumbersome regulatory environment may be forcing many companies to focus their information security efforts purely on meeting compliance and audit goals rather than on understanding and addressing business requirements, warned Art Coviello, president of EMC Corp.'s RSA security group.

Delivering the inaugural keynote at the annual RSA Conference in San Francisco this week, Coviello called on regulators and policymakers to create regulations that focus on outcomes, rather than laying out a prescriptive list of controls.

Regulators need to make sure that any regulations they mandate do not end up "actually weakening a business by enforcement actions that drive companies to spend unnecessarily on perceived but not genuine security risks," Coviello said. Such "make-work projects" add little material value to a company's overall security stance. "Instead of passing regulation that creates a climate of 'what's the least I can do to get a check mark,' drive regulation that focuses on outcomes," Coviello said.

An example of a properly functioning regulation is California's SB 1386 bill, which focuses on requiring companies to notify consumers of data breaches involving their private data rather than on telling them how to protect that data, Coviello said.

One step that regulators can take to reduce the current complexity is to create a national baseline standard for protecting sensitive data — passing one federal data breach notification law that preempts the 40 separate state laws with which companies have to currently contend, he said. More effort also needs to be put on punishing cybercriminals, Coviello added, urging Congress to ratify a national cybercrime bill already passed by the U.S. Senate in late 2007.

At the same time, security practitioners themselves need to start thinking more about information-centric security strategies, as opposed to mere information security strategies, he said.

"We must look beyond tools that blindly lock down data [and] toward mechanisms that can understand information and safeguard it intelligently throughout its life cycle," Coviello said.

Instead of implementing products for dealing with specific security threats, the goal really should be on making security an indistinguishable part of the infrastructure, he said, Processes for monitoring and enforcing security need to be automated as far as possible, and companies need to get away from static controls that are focused simply on controlling access to data, he said.

"Many security products force people to think the way the tool wants, resulting in a sea of complex, static and inflexible mechanisms," Coviello said. Effort should instead be directed toward implementing tools that are capable of making dynamic decisions based on an understanding of how the network, users and content normally behave, he said.

The vendors that will enable these sorts of capabilities are not going to be today's vendors of stand-alone security products, Coviello predicted. Rather, the technologies will be developed and integrated by large IT infrastructure vendors. Independent vendors will continue to provide components of this infrastructure, Coviello said, but he predicted that there will eventually be no need for an independent security industry.