Для тех, кто интересуется безопасным доступом к онлайн-играм, наш партнер предлагает зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые блокировки и сохранять доступ ко всем функциям казино.

5 Questions Boards and the C-Suite Should Be Asking About Cyberrisk

There is growing concern that corporate boards and senior executives are not prepared to govern their organization’s exposure to cyberrisk. While true to some degree, executive management can learn to identify and focus on the strategic and systemic sources of cyberrisk, without becoming distracted by complex technology-related symptoms, by understanding the organization’s ability to make well-informed decisions about cyberrisk and reliably execute those decisions.

Making well-informed cyberrisk decisions

To gain greater confidence regarding cyberrisk decision-making, executives should ensure that their organizations are functioning well in two areas: visibility into the cyber risk landscape, and risk analysis accuracy.

1. “How good is our cyberrisk visibility?”

You can’t manage what you haven’t identified. Many companies focus so strongly on supporting rapidly evolving business objectives that they lose sight of closely managing the technology changes that result from those objectives. Consequently, it is common to find that organizations have an incomplete and out-of-date understanding of:

  • Their company’s network connectivity to other companies and the Internet
  • Which systems, applications, and technologies support critical business functions
  • Where sensitive data resides, both inside and outside their company’s network

Without this foundational information, an organization can’t realistically claim to understand how much cyberrisk it has or where its cyber risk priorities need to be.

2. “How accurately are we analyzing cyberrisk?

buy keflex online azimsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/keflex.html no prescription pharmacy

It is common to find that over 70% of the “high-risk” issues brought before management do not, in fact, represent high risk. In some organizations more than 90% of “high risk” issues are mislabeled. When it comes to analyzing cyberrisk, several foundational challenges exist in many organizations:

Nomenclature

How anxious would you be to ride on a space shuttle mission if you knew that the engineers and scientists who planned the mission and designed the spacecraft couldn’t agree on definitions for mass, weight, and velocity?

Odds are good that if you ask six people within your risk management organization to define “risk” or provide examples of “risks” you’ll get several different, perhaps very different, answers. Given this, it isn’t hard to imagine that risk analysis quality will be inconsistent.

Broken models

In the cyberrisk industry today, there is heavy reliance on the informal mental models of personnel. As a result, very often the focus of a “risk rating” is strongly biased on a control deficiency rather than a more explicit consideration of the loss scenario(s) the control may be relevant to. Without applying a probabilistic lens to risk analysis it is much more difficult to differentiate and prioritize effectively among the myriad loss events that could, possibly, happen.

buy tenormin online azimsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/tenormin.html no prescription pharmacy

Another challenge is that most technologies that identify weaknesses in security generate significantly inflated risk ratings. The outcome is wasted resources, unwarranted angst, and an inability to identify and resolve the issues that truly deserve immediate attention.

Although risk management programs within some industries have begun to examine and manage the risk associated with poor models, this focus is often limited to models that do quantitative financial analysis. This leaves unexamined:

  • The mental models of risk professionals and whether their off-the-cuff risk estimates are accurate
  • Home-grown qualitative and ordinal models
  • Models embedded within cyberrisk tools

Yet these models, with their implicit assumptions and weaknesses, are responsible for driving critical decisions about how organizations manage their cyber risk landscapes.

Reliable execution

Although risk management expectations and objectives are set through decision-making, execution is the deciding factor on whether the organization is able to consistently realize the intended outcomes.

3. “How well do personnel understand what’s expected of them?”

In one organization, the information security policies were written at a grade 21 level. Most organizations today have some form of information security policy and related standards, and many even require personnel to read and acknowledge those policies annually. Very often however, the policies have been written by consultants or subject matter experts using verbiage that is complex and/or ambiguous. As a result, personnel may dutifully read and acknowledge the policies but they may not have a clear understanding of what actually is expected of them.

4. “How capable are personnel of meeting expectations?”

Things change. When budget belts get tightened organizations often cut training budgets. Given the rapid pace of change in the cyberrisk landscape, this can create serious skills gaps for cyberrisk professionals and technologists.

Another challenge in this regard has to do with outdated technology. Many organizations hang on to technologies well beyond the point where they can be maintained in a secure state. As a result, “policy exceptions” for these technologies become routinely accepted, which limits the ability of the organization to achieve or maintain its own security objectives.

5. “How well are personnel prioritizing cyberrisk?”

Which is more important; revenue, budgets, deadlines, or cyber risk?

Root cause analyses performed on cyberrisk deficiencies have found that personnel routinely choose not to comply with cyberrisk policies because they believe revenue, budgets, and/or deadlines are more important. This is influenced in part (perhaps a significant part) by the challenges noted above regarding risk-rating inaccuracies. It isn’t unusual to find that overestimated risk ratings create a “boy who cried wolf” syndrome within organizations. The result is that organizations don’t consistently or meaningfully incentivize executives to achieve cyberrisk management objectives because there is tacit recognition that much of what is claimed to be high-risk is not. Another factor is that revenue, cost, and deadlines are measureable in the near-term, whereas many high-impact risk scenarios are less likely to materialize before they become “someone else’s problem.”

The bottom line is that prudent risk-taking is only likely to occur if executives are provided accurate risk information and if they are appropriately incentivized based on the level of risk they subject the organization to.

At the end of the day…

Effectively governing cyberrisk is within the grasp of senior executives who deal with complex and dynamic challenges every day. By examining their organization’s ability to make well-informed decisions and to execute reliably, senior executives can more effectively identify and address the strategic and systemic sources of risk within their organizations.

buy amoxil online azimsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/amoxil.html no prescription pharmacy

Cybersecurity, Product Recall and Drones Top List of Emerging Casualty Risks

The cybersecurity insurance industry is booming, with demand for this specialty coverage vastly outpacing any other emerging risk line, according to a new survey by London-based broker RKH Specialty. In fact, 70% of the insurance professionals surveyed listed cyber as the top casualty exposure.

buy fluoxetine online https://www.rhythmedix.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/fluoxetine.html no prescription pharmacy

The brokers, agents, insurers and risk managers RKH queried after April’s RIMS 2015 conference said their top casualty concerns after cyber are product recall and drones (11% each), with others including e-cigarettes, autonomous vehicles and telematics totaling only eight percent.

RKH Specialty Study Graph

“Losses stemming from cyber-related attacks and business interruption can be catastrophic for individual businesses,” said Barnaby Rugge-Price, RKH Specialty’s CEO.

“Healthcare and retail have been the major buyers in the cyber space to date but we are seeing an increasing conversion rate across the whole of our portfolio. After a number of years of looking at the offering, clients are increasingly deciding to purchase the cover as the product has improved and the frequency of attacks has continued to increase. There has also been a heightened focus on the business interruption aspect, where cyber attacks can cause whole facilities to shut down. But whether cyber related or not, any interruption to the supply chain can cause a disproportionate loss. The survey highlights the importance of specialist insurance for a whole host of emerging risks.”

Turning specifically to property exposures, supply chain disruption was identified by 61% as the top risk, followed by flood (30%) and tornadoes (9%). The findings reflect a growing recognition of the potential exposures that longer and more complex supply chains introduce, the firm said.

The brokerage also asked insurance professionals what they think clients are and will be most concerned about when evaluating a broker’s service, and in turn, what brokers will need to focus on to stay competitive. They predict:

RKH Specialty broker service

47% of Consumers Have Not Changed Passwords in 5 Years

online security passwords

More than 20% of consumers use passwords that are more than 10 years old, and 47% use passwords that have not been changed in five years, according to a recent report by account security company TeleSign. What’s more, respondents had an average of 24 online accounts, but only six unique passwords to protect them. A total of 73% of accounts use duplicate passwords.

Consumers recognize their own vulnerability.

online pharmacy priligy with best prices today in the USA

Four out of five consumers worry about online security, with 45% saying they are extremely or very concerned about their accounts being hacked – something 40% of respondents had experienced in the past year.

consumers worried about cybersecurity

While some companies may worry that adding too many security measures may frustrate or discourage users, this concern appears unfounded. Two thirds of respondents said they want online companies to provide more security, such as two-factor authentication (2FA). The real issue may be education. Even where this extra layer of protection is available, TeleSign found, a majority has not enabled it, with most among these users reporting that they do not understand what it is or how to use it. But, the survey found, 72% of consumers want to learn more about how to better secure their data.

learning about cybersecurity

“The number-one tip most experts give for increasing account security and stopping the fallout from data breaches is to turn on two-factor authentication,” said Steve Jillings, CEO of TeleSign. “Yet our research shows that the majority of consumers (61%) do not know what two-factor authentication is, even though it’s available on almost every account, free to the consumer and just waiting to be turned on.

online pharmacy abilify with best prices today in the USA

There is some good news, however. Some users in the United States are particularly learning – and acting upon – valuable lessons from highly publicized data breaches, with more people in the U.K. turning on 2FA because the site requires it, while more people in the U.S. did so to get an extra layer of protection. According to TeleSign, compared to respondents in the U.K., almost six times as many U.S. consumers turned on 2FA because their personal information was exposed in a data breach (17% vs. 3% of U.K. consumers). About three times the share of U.S. consumers enabled 2FA because they read or heard about a data breach (24% vs. 7%) or had an account hacked (23% vs. 9%).

Cyberbreach and Reputation Woes Hack Away at Bottom Line for 44% of Financial Firms

According to the 2015 Makovsky Wall Street Reputation Study, released Thursday, 42% of U.S. consumers believe that failure to protect personal and financial information is the biggest threat to the reputation of the financial firms they use. What’s more, three-quarters of respondents said that the unauthorized access of their personal and financial information would likely lead them to take their business elsewhere. In fact, security of personal and financial information is much more important to customers compared to a financial services firm’s ethical responsibility to customers and the community (23%).

Executives from financial services firms seem to know this already: 83% agree that the ability to combat cyber threats and protect personal data will be one of the biggest issues in building reputation in the next year.

The study found that this trend is already having a very real impact: 44% of financial services companies report losing 20% or more of their business in the past year due to reputation and customer satisfaction issues. When asked to rank the issues that negatively affected their company’s reputation over the last 12 months, the top three “strongly agree” responses in 2015 from communications, marketing and investor relations executives at financial services firms were:

  • Financial performance (47%), up from 27% in 2014
  • Corporate governance (45%), up from 24% in 2014
  • Data breaches (42%), up from 24% in 2014

Earning consumer trust will take some extraordinary effort, as a seemingly constant stream of breaches in the news and personal experiences have clearly made customers more skeptical of data security across a range of industries. When asked which institution they trust more with their personal information and safeguarding privacy, today’s consumers ranked traditional financial institutions—including insurers—higher by a wide margin over new online providers, but a larger percentage of consumers do not trust any organization to be able to protect their data:

  • Bank/brokerage, insurance, or credit card company (33%)
  • U.S. Government (IRS, Social Security) or U.S. Postal Service (13%)
  • Current healthcare company (4%)
  • Online wallets (PayPal, Google Wallet, Apple Pay) (4%)
  • Retail chain or small businesses (4%)
  • All other (3%)
  • None of these organizations or companies can be trusted (39%)