Why do we need Information Management

    I am guessing most of the readers of this blog are in the University of Washington’s Masters of Science in Information Management (MSIM) program.  For those that aren’t, the MSIM program focuses on connecting Technology, People and Information.  I am sure you have heard the statistics about how much information is out there.  With the advancement of the internet, we have caused the amount of information in the world to explode.  All of this is well and good but the problem arises when you try to make sense of the information.  I was watching a TED talk recently that was basically an overview of what the MSIM program is without meaning to.  The talk is given by Thomas Goetz and it focuses on two things, first the use of fear to accomplish things and secondly the idea that more medical problems could be solved not by better medicine but by better information presentation. 

     As a security professional the  idea that fear wasn’t the best way to relay information was something that I hadn’t considered before.  If you have heard any sort of talk in regards to Computer Security you have heard that a hacker can steal you identity, your bank account and with a little effort your first-born.  Okay so I am exaggerating a little but every talk I have given or heard about Computer Security has been about the negative effects of not securing your network.  Then after giving presentations about how there is never a secure system they wonder why executives haven’t approved their expanded budgets.  I believe we, as security  professionals, are going about this all wrong.  Instead of focusing on how impossible security is, we need to start focusing on how we can make the network better overall with the enhancements that security brings.  In this realm I have found that UX people do a good job for the most part.  When they make a presentation about a new website design they don’t sit there and say how little traffic and how confusing the current User Interface (UI) is and then sit down. They quickly go over part of the problems the current UI and then go on to show how well their UI will work and what it can bring to the table.  Now this might just be an issue for Security professionals but I have a feeling it isn’t.  Overall, as professionals, we need to focus on the idea that has been thrown around this blog, and that is the Value Added principle.  Focus on what value you are going to add to the company and how much it will help in the short and long-term. 

     Now as a final statement, this doesn’t only apply to people working.  If you are looking for a job focus on what you can do for the company.  If you can get the other person even a little bit excited about what you could do for them or the potential you have to help their company you will stay in their mind.  And believe me the more good things you give the interviewer to remember you by the better. 

     Now I realize that this may not be new to most  of you but I found the talk incredibly interesting.  I have a link to it below in case anyone is interested.  What are you thoughts?  Is it better to go all positive?  Are there any drawbacks of only focusing on the Positive? Or is it better to talk about a combination of fear and potential?

Advertisements

The Crying (about digital identity) Game

Image of hand against scannerOh, digital identity aggregation sites – is there anything you can’t do?

Apparently not, from my point of view. Last week, a relative e-mailed me a website intended to aggregate, and share, publicly available digital information for individuals. The database was searchable by first and last name. When I entered a search for myself, I inadvertently solved a longtime personal mystery.

I’m a man, baby.

At least, I showed up on the site as both female and male.  This realization actually isn’t surprising. I have a traditionally male first name. Moreover, this finding resolves a source of occasional irritation: I get a lot of junk mail addressed to me as “Mr.”

I tried checking the about page on the aggregator website to figure out the digital sources so I could pinpoint the source of a record for my name – not a common one, I might add – listing me as male. Unfortunately, the details about sources are vague – “people-related public records,” it reads. And some mention of an ominously-named “deepnet,” which I picture as a sort of digital Mariana Trench. (In reality, the deep web suggests content not in HTML format, or behind login scripts, for example, and it constitutes a wealth of information many times larger than the surface ‘Net, or what a user can typically browse or search.)

All of this made me wonder: where did my digital identity go wrong?

A person’s “digital identity” – the accumulation of records tied to one’s personal, financial, or professional life – can be a difficult thing to manage.  At best, one only has control over portions of it. Traditionally, theories about digital identity (or personas) include proprietary and public spheres.

The accounts I have opened online are in effect proprietary, meaning I have established an account or acted voluntarily. With sites such as social media, I can add content myself, or let friends add content. Most crucially, I have entered into some sort of agreement with the online company. In trying to stay on top of the privacy setting changes in social media, I ostensibly have some measure of control in shielding my content from public searches.

Importantly, however, proprietary digital identity also includes data about me in other “closed” systems, such as Social Security or medical records. Documents maintained in closed systems – a municipality for property ownership records, or information related to political donations – may be found with online searches at specific sites, but can be excluded from search engine results. Which leads to a somewhat gray area: this is related to the “deepnet,” mentioned above, where the proprietary and public spheres converge.

public persona can include data from proprietary sources such as Facebook or MySpace – which is where all the really juicy stuff resides, according to a former tabloid reporter – if a user does not override default settings. Other public identities include any information item findable with a search engine, such as this blog, for example. Individuals who are savvy with search engine optimization (SEO) techniques can have some influence over the page rank of search results (for instance, if I were to strategically link my academic portfolio at several well-traveled sites to drive that result up the page to the top result for my name). The conservative rule of thumb, though, is that there is no truly private sphere for any content posted on the Internet.

Digital identity issues will continue to evolve as a greater number of transactions, and particularly government services, move online. All I know, related to my discovery, is that I have certainly never posed as a man online or otherwise. That leads me to believe my public persona contains bad data, although this fact has not caused me any real problems to date. I realize it could be worse; no acute damage has been done to me financially or legally. For now, finding out I’m a digital man is sort of funny.

Sort of.

Image used per Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution License. Photograph by DaveBleasdale.

Too many TLA’s

I had a teacher once say that IT is riddled with TLA’s (Three Letter Acronyms).  He thought it was hilarious.  It wasn’t until I started really looking into IT and security especially that I realized he was right.  In the realm of technology there are some acronyms that most people know HTTP, IP, and PC and so on, but when you add Security it turns into something you would expect in your alphabet soup.  PCI-DSS, SOX, FISMA, ISO, HIPAA, HITECH, UDP, TCP, CERT, IR, XSS, CSRF, PWN, IPSEC, SSCADA, and the list goes on.  I am sure that you could guess some of them but the first six are probably the most debated.  Payment Card Industry – Digital Security Standards (PCI-DSS), Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), International Organization for Standardization (ISO, don’t ask it doesn’t make sense to me either), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health are some of the security standards that businesses have to worry about.

Aside from these are any internal audits that companies have to pass.  Many times all this adds up to one thing, confusion.  Take a company that handles their employee’s healthcare records as well as having a federal contract while being a publicly traded company.  This company has to deal with parts of HIPAA and HITECH as well as FISMA and SOX.  You would think that these standards would correlate and go hand in hand but they were all developed independently so they have different requirements.  This is where Security Professionals are the most challenged.  Whether they are securing their network or auditing a network using these standards, there is a challenge.

Most often what happens is that a company that is trying to meet the requirements of these standards does one of two things, they either do the bare minimum to meet the requirements right before the deadline or they essential put everything behind Security and do things that will make the company more secure from their point of view but do so at the cost of usability.  Now I have written about how usability and security need to go hand in hand so that isn’t the angle I want to take right now.

My main focus is that when companies think they have to choose between security and usability it creates not only a hard time for users but it creates a situation where users do things in order to  get  around the security measures, thereby creating security holes that weren’t accounted for.  Such examples of this are writing down passwords and usernames, saving usernames and passwords on the browsers, saving documents on a USB drive, and trusting links that may not be legit.  While this can be solved with good user training there is no need to put that burden on the users, especially when if a company is compromised because of the workarounds the company still ends up paying the fine which can amount to millions of dollars.

Basically my suggestion is for all companies to stop looking at security servers and networks and start securing Information.  That way it leads to looking at the data they are securing and not what is holding it.  This might force them to walk through what users are going to do once their applications and network is set up and working.  Hopefully this will allow them to start truly incorporating both usability and security into their business.

As a side note, if you are interested in the true cost of a security breach there is a research project that I was a part of a few years ago that was presented at a conference.  The video is kind of poor quality but the information is valid.  I didn’t present it but did work on the external costs, those aside from any possible fine that is part of a security breach. http://vimeo.com/5384048


The good, the bad, and the censored?

Empty Library Shelves

I got in trouble at the library once.

This story is pretty old, since it starts with a card catalogue (and by that, I mean skinny drawers containing actual typewritten cards). I was 10 years old, and looking for Judy Blume novels I hadn’t already read in the “Author” card catalogue. I found a book titled Forever.

When I lugged my stack of books up to the circulation desk, the librarian on duty was the dour one with a tough-on-talking stance. She slapped through the books inserting due-date cards and held up the copy of Forever: “Does your mother know you’re reading this?” she asked.

“No,” I said. And then I thought: Do I need to hide this book under my bed?

It wouldn’t have mattered. The librarian called my mother on the phone later that day. When Mom asked me about the book, I thought I was in trouble, which seemed pretty lame; I had skimmed the novel earlier and found almost no good parts. You know what I mean.

Mom explained that I was not in trouble. “I told the librarian there was no problem,” she said. “If there’s a book available for checkout, and you remembered your library card, then it’s your privilege to read it.”

A lesson imparted to me when I was young (and not just in this instance), was the importance of having unlimited access to everything the library offered. It also gave me the notion that it is impossible, and probably a little dangerous, to judge books or resources or information objects as being inherently “good” or “bad.”

In the digital information age – where 10-year-olds no longer stand on tiptoe to search through card catalogues – we seem to have access to boundless information through simple Google searches. Because of the access we have online, there are situations in which modifying information searches based on people’s needs is reasonable or necessary. For example, Google users can adjust search “safety” settings. In addition, “lifestyle” search engines, such as ImHalal.com, fulfill a specialized user need.

But some information access issues have the potential to affect all users. Last week, a bill called the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced to the Senate (full text is here). The bill would enable both the courts and the Attorney General to blacklist Internet domain names; the vague wording of the legislation seems to threaten a slippery slope to government censorship. Just as the librarian made a value judgment about what information was good for me, COICA appears to expand the power of government to judge the utility of information for all users in the U.S.

This sort of legislation should inspire us to think about democratization of and access to information, and the role government should take in the information age. While I believe intellectual property should be protected, the scope of this Senate bill makes me uncomfortable. It is not clear to me why a government-mandated domain blacklist is necessary if we have a vibrant digital community capable of policing its own, as well as (mostly) responsible content hosts willing to comply with relevant laws.

I do not intend to make a political statement with this post, but developments like COICA remind me of a recent statement by Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt: “Washington is an incumbent protection machine,” Schmidt said. “Technology is fundamentally disruptive.”  As users in the digital age, we should be aware of the gains to information access privileges we have made, and work to preserve the benefits of better access to information.

Photo by Lasse C.  Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license.