US20080047018A1
2008-02-21
11/858,832
2007-09-20
In general, the invention relates to a method for assessing an information security policy and practice of an organization. The method includes collecting information about the information security policy and practice of the organization, generating a rating for each of a plurality of information security items using a security maturity assessment matrix and the collected information, and generating a graphical assessment of the ratings. The security maturity assessment matrix includes a first dimension and a second dimension, where the first dimension corresponds to the information security items and the second dimension corresponds to maturity levels. Further, each rating is derived using the first dimension and the second dimension.
Get notified when new applications in this technology area are published.
G06Q40/08 » CPC main
Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes Insurance, e.g. risk analysis or pensions
G06F12/14 IPC
Accessing, addressing or allocating within memory systems or architectures Protection against unauthorised use of memory or access to memory
This application is a continuation, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 120, of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/134,815 filed on Apr. 29, 2002.
BACKGROUND OF INVENTIONInformation Security encompasses the protection of information against unauthorized disclosure, transfer, modification, or destruction, whether accidental or intentional. Information security has become a prevalent concern of organizations as a result of the trends towards c-commerce, e-business, universal email and web access, and well-publicized security exploits. As a result, organizations are attempting to apply information security principles in a pragmatic framework.
To enable organizations to apply information security principles in a pragmatic framework, a number of information standards and tools have been developed. One widely recognized standard, BS7799/ISO17799, was developed by the British Standards Institution (BSI) and adopted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The BS7799/ISO17799 standard is a comprehensive set of controls that outline best mode practices in information security. The aim of BS7799/ISO17799 is to serve as a single reference point to determine the appropriate information security policy for a variety of systems and organizations. The BS7799/ISO17799 standard includes 10 sections, each addressing a specific area of information security. See, “ISO17799 Security Standard: ISO 17799 Compliance & Positioning.”
The process of managing compliance with the BS7799/ISO17799 is a non-trivial task. As a result, a number of risk analysis and risk management products have been developed to help organizations comply with the BS7799/ISO17799 standard. One such product is COBRA, which was developed by C & A Systems, Inc. COBRA is used to semi-automate the assessment process. COBRA utilizes a series of online questionnaires to obtain information about the current security policy. Using the answers from the questionnaires, COBRA creates reports that provide information about the organization's current compliance position, on a pass/fail basis, with respect to each section of the BS7799/ISO17799 standard.
Another tool that has been developed to enable organizations to apply information security principles in a pragmatic framework is the Systems Security Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SSE-CMM). The SSE-CMM is derived from concepts of the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model initially created for software development. The SSE-CMM describes the essential characteristics of an organization's security engineering process that must exist to ensure good security engineering. The SSE-CMM does not prescribe a process or standard such as BS7799/ISO17799, but rather uses a model that captures practices generally observed in the industry. Additionally, the SSE-CMM is based on a maturity model that defines specific goals and practices for the entire life cycle of an organization. Further, the SSE-CMM defines an overall assessment process and roles for security engineering within an organization. See, “System Security Engineering Capability Maturity Model-Model & Appraisal Method Summary April 1999.” The resulting assessment obtained from applying the SSE-CCM is typically not associated with a reporting tool to report the maturity level.
SUMMARY OF INVENTIONIn general, in one aspect, the invention relates to a method for assessing an information security policy and practice of an organization, comprising determining a risk associated with the information security policy and practice, collecting information about the information security policy and practice, generating a rating using a security maturity assessment matrix, the collected information, and the risk associated with the information security policy and practice, generating a list of corrective actions using the rating, executing the list of corrective actions to create a new security information policy and practice, and monitoring the new security information policy and practice.
In general, in one aspect, the invention relates to an apparatus for assessing an information security policy and practice of an organization, comprising means for determining a risk associated with the information security policy and practice, means for collecting information about the information security policy and practice, means for generating a rating using a security maturity assessment matrix, the collected information, and the risk associated with the information security policy and practice, means for generating a list of corrective actions using the rating, means for executing the list of corrective actions to create a new security information policy, and means for monitoring the new security information policy.
In general, in one aspect, the invention relates to a computer system for assessing an information security policy and practice of an organization, comprising a processor, a memory, an input means, and software instructions stored in the memory for enabling the computer system under control of the processor, to perform determining a risk associated with the information security policy and practice, collecting information about the information security policy and practice using the input means, generating a rating using a security maturity assessment matrix, the collected information, and the risk associated with the information security policy and practice, generating a list of corrective actions using the rating, executing the list of corrective actions to create a new security information policy and practice, and monitoring the new security information policy and practice.
Other aspects and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the following description and the appended claims.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGSFIG. 1 illustrates a typical computer system.
FIG. 2 illustrates a flowchart detailing the Security Maturity Assessment method in accordance with one embodiment of the invention.
FIG. 3 illustrates a portion of a Security Maturity Assessment Reporting Tool report in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention.
FIG. 4 illustrates a flowchart detailing the Security Maturity Assessment method in accordance with another embodiment of the invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTIONExemplary embodiments of the invention will be described with reference to the accompanying drawings. Like items are denoted by like reference numerals throughout the drawings for consistency.
In the following detailed description of the invention, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a more thorough understanding of the invention. However, it will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the invention may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known features have not been described in detail to avoid obscuring the invention.
The invention relates to a method for assessing a security maturity of an organization. Further, the invention relates to assessing the security maturity of an organization using a security assessment matrix. Further, the invention relates to basing the security assessment matrix on the BS7799/ISO17799 standard and the Capability Maturity Model (CMM). Further, the invention relates to a method for providing quantitative, action-oriented results using the security assessment matrix. Further, the invention relates to a method to compare the security maturity of an organization to a pre-determined goal, or to the security maturity of the same organization at another point in time, or to the security maturity level mandated by another organization or authority.
The invention may be implemented on virtually any type computer regardless of the platform being used. For example, as shown in FIG. 1, a typical computer (28) includes a processor (30), associated memory (32), a storage device (34), and numerous other elements and functionalities typical of today's computers (not shown). The computer (28) may also include input means, such as a keyboard (36) and a mouse (38), and output means, such as a monitor (40). Those skilled in the art will appreciate that these input and output means may take other forms in an accessible environment.
The Security Maturity Assessment (SMA) method involves five distinct stages: (1) management awareness and commitment, (2) security maturity assessment, (3) corrective action plan (CAP), (4) corrective action plan execution (CAPE), and (5) ongoing monitoring. Each of the aforementioned stages is explained below in greater detail. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the names used to denote the stages may vary without detracting from the invention.
FIG. 2 illustrates a flowchart detailing the SMA method in accordance with one embodiment of the invention. The SMA method is initiated by ensuring that an organization's management is aware and committed to improving the organization's information security practices and policies (Step 100). An assessment entity (e.g., individual/company conducting assessment) then assesses the organization's information security practices and policies (Step 102). Using the information gained in Step 102, the assessment entity develops a corrective action plan (Step 104). The corrective action plan is subsequently executed (Step 106). If the organization desires continuous monitoring after the execution of the corrective action plan (Step 108), then the assessment entity may continuously monitor revised information security policies and practices of the organization (Step 110). Following the continuous monitoring, the method may return to Step 100 to ensure that the organization's management is still aware and committed, or potentially proceed directly to Step 102 if the organization's management continues to be aware and committed. If the organization desires not to have continuous monitoring after the execution of the corrective action plan (Step 108), then the method ends.
The management awareness and commitment stage is the first stage of the SMA method and is used to raise awareness within the management of the organization being assessed and to initiate gathering of information. Specifically, in the management awareness and commitment stage, an assessment entity gathers information to understand the organization's business goals. Further, the assessment entity gathers information to understand the associated risks in terms of information security. For example, if the organization is using a wireless Local Area Network (LAN), there are different information security risks to consider than if the organization is using a conventional LAN where all computers are connected via Ethernet cable. Additionally, the assessment entity creates awareness in the organization by presenting the security maturity assessment methodology and method. In one or more embodiments of the invention, the assessment entity may also provide additional information about the underlying standards, e.g., the ISO standard. In one or more embodiments of the invention, the assessment entity may also provide an explanation of the concept of a maturity model as it applies to the security assessment.
The security maturity assessment stage is initiated by the assessment entity identifying participants required to perform the SMA. Additionally, the assessment entity, in conjunction with the organization, determines the effect and cost to be used to perform the SMA. A time line is also set to allow the assessment entity and the organization to have a means to track the progress of the SMA. At this point, in one or more embodiments of the invention, the assessment entity may request that the organization sign an assessment contract to ensure commitment by the organization to follow through with the SMA. Once the aforementioned steps have been completed, the assessment entity proceeds to perform the SMA.
The assessment entity initiates the SMA by collecting documents detailing the organization's existing information security policies and practices. After review of the collected documents, additional information is typically obtained via interviews with participants identified at the beginning of this stage. Using the information obtained from the collected documents and the interviews, a preliminary rating is generated. The preliminary rating details the maturity of individual sections and the overall maturity level of the organization's information security practices and policies.
In one or more embodiments of the invention, the preliminary rating is generated using a security assessment matrix (SAM). The SAM defines each level of maturity for each information security item, The SAM includes 61 rows corresponding to the groups of the BS7799/ISO17799 standard information security items, and 5 columns defining the maturity level. The five maturity levels, arranged from least mature to most mature, are Initial (Level 1), Repeatable (Level 2), Defined (Level 3), Managed (Level 4), and Optimizing (Level 5). For each intersection of row and column, there is a paragraph that defines a specific “capability maturity” level. The paragraphs contained in a given row of the SAM represent successive capability maturity levels for the same information security item. Further, some rows of the SAM represent successive capability maturity levels associated with a single information security item, as described in one paragraph of the BS7799/ISO17799 standard. Other rows of the SAM may represent successive capability maturity levels of information security items that the BS7799/ISO17799 standard describes in separate paragraphs or sections.
In one or more embodiments of the invention, an item definition for each information security item is included in the SAM. The item definition acts as a legend for the level definitions for a particular information security item. Further, in one or more embodiments of the invention, the SAM includes level definitions as follows: Level 1—Initial; Level 2—Not written down, but communicated via coaching; Level 3—Written down; Level 4—Responsibility is defined; Level 5—Process exists for catching deviations and improving the information security to prevent them. Further, in one or more embodiments of the invention, the SAM includes scope requirements. The scope requirements indicate to which various aspect of an organization's operations the criteria set forth in a particular row of the SAM must be applied.
The combination of a certain level definition (e.g., Level 1) with one information security item (i.e., a specific row of the SAM) yields a specific criterion that one skilled in the art can apply to establish if the organization being assessed meets, fails or exceeds this level of maturity for this information security item. Furthermore, those skilled in the art can apply the general definition of the maturity level (Level 1 through 5) to a specific information security item in such a way that they can readily determine whether the organization being assessed meets, fails or exceeds this level of maturity for this security item, even if the specific criterion set forth at the intersection of this row and column of the SAM is, for any reason, not directly applicable in the case of this organization.
Table 1 illustrates the SAM in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention:
| TABLE 1 |
| Security Assessment Matrix |
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | Level 5 | Scope | |
| (Initial) | (Repeatable) | (Defined) | (Managed) | (Optimizing) | Requirements |
| Level Definitions |
| Process exists | |||||||
| for catching | |||||||
| Not written | deviations and | ||||||
| down, but | making | ||||||
| ISO 17799 | Item | communicated | Responsibility is | constant | |||
| Categories | Definitions | via coaching | Written down | defined | improvements | ||
| III.1 | Information Security Policy | Coverage of | No security | Security policy | Specific | Security policy | Clear | Goal and |
| Security Policy | policy in | exists, but as a | policy exists, | covers all areas of | responsibilities | principle of | ||
| Review of effective | place | general | clearly stating | business. Security | and | every | ||
| implementation of | statement. | in detail what | policy is owned by | mechanisms in | information | |||
| information security | Inferring what | is mandated | appropriate functions | place to | security | |||
| policy | is specifically | or prohibited. | including IT but also | upgrade policy | Information | |||
| Review of | mandated or | A “normal” | Finance, HR, Legal, | if required | sharing | |||
| Information | prohibited | person can | etc. Organization | after every | management | |||
| Security Policy | requires | easily | policies define the | breach of | and | |||
| consulting | understand it. | roles and | policy, also if | responsibilities | ||||
| specialized | Reviews | responsibilities in | business | |||||
| personnel. No | carried out at | following | changes | |||||
| regular reviews. | intervals, but | procedures. Reviews | (acquisition, | |||||
| no clear | carried out - intervals | divestiture, or | ||||||
| management | and responsibility for | major changes | ||||||
| responsibility | the reviews are | in process such | ||||||
| to trigger | defined explicitly in | as | ||||||
| reviews or | the policy. | outsourcing) | ||||||
| exploit results | occur. | |||||||
| Availability of | No security | Security policy | There is a | Security policy | Each security | Staff | ||
| Security Policy to | policy | is discussed | Security | communication is | incident is | awareness and | ||
| Employees | communication | with employees | Policy | part of written IT and | subject to a | education | ||
| Security Education | to | and contract or | manual, | Personnel | post mortem | Responsibilities | ||
| and Technical | employees | temporary | mentioned on | procedures. Training | procedure that | and | ||
| Training | (non- | personnel upon | public notice | and/or | includes a | emergency | ||
| existent, or | hiring. | board and/or | communication on | review of | arrangements | |||
| limited to | on web page. | security policy occur | whether | Well defined | ||||
| IT | at least once a year. | applicable | policy | |||||
| personnel). | policies were | Security | ||||||
| correctly | training | |||||||
| communicated. | integrated into | |||||||
| Users are | personnel | |||||||
| taught the | development | |||||||
| incident | program | |||||||
| reporting | Management | |||||||
| procedures. | responsibility | |||||||
| to provide | ||||||||
| security | ||||||||
| training, | ||||||||
| including the | ||||||||
| specification | ||||||||
| of a clear desk | ||||||||
| and clear | ||||||||
| screen policy | ||||||||
| for all | ||||||||
| employees. | ||||||||
| Review of Security | Issued once, | Occasionally | Reviewed at | A clearly | There is a defined | General | ||
| Process | never | reviewed if | intervals, but | designated person | mechanism to | management | ||
| reviewed | senior | no clear | or body has | review and | responsibility | |||
| management, | management | responsibility for | upgrade the | |||||
| auditors, etc., | responsibility | the process, and | policy after every | |||||
| ask | to trigger | reviews it | security incident | |||||
| reviews of | regularly. | (is anything | ||||||
| exploit results | missing from the | |||||||
| policy that could | ||||||||
| have prevented | ||||||||
| the problem?) | ||||||||
| IV.1 | Information | Responsibility for | No | Specific | A matrix for | A specific party is | Security | Individual |
| Security | the protection of | responsibility | individuals are | the | responsible for | responsibility is a | assets refer to | |
| Infrastructure | individual assets | is assigned. | aware of their | responsibility | defining and | required field in | the | |
| responsibility | of protection | maintaining the | the asset | organization's | ||||
| to protect some | of assets | responsibility | management | physical | ||||
| assets. The list | exists and is | matrix for the | process, so rows | assets (e.g., | ||||
| of assigned | published. | protection of | in the matrix are | computers, | ||||
| responsibilities | individual assets. | created when new | printers, | |||||
| is not | Successive | assets are | media, etc.) | |||||
| documented. | versions of the | acquired. Assets | ||||||
| matrix are | without a | |||||||
| archived to help in | responsible party | |||||||
| future | is immediately | |||||||
| investigations. | flagged for | |||||||
| corrective action. | ||||||||
| Security in job | No formally | Specific | Responsibility | A specific party is | Job descriptions | Interpretation | ||
| definition and | defined | individuals are | for security | responsible for | and personnel | is based on | ||
| resourcing | process. | aware of their | decision | developing job | screening | SSO/IRT | ||
| responsibility. | making has | responsibilities, | arrangements are | type position. | ||||
| been assigned | personnel | periodically | ||||||
| and | screening and | reviewed to | ||||||
| documented. | confidentiality | conform to the | ||||||
| agreements. | changing security | |||||||
| needs of the | ||||||||
| business. Also | ||||||||
| personnel are | ||||||||
| required to sign | ||||||||
| and agree to | ||||||||
| confidentiality | ||||||||
| agreements. | ||||||||
| Information security | No formally | Key members | Training for | A specific party is | Security | |||
| education and | defined | of personnel | personnel is | responsible for | curriculum is | |||
| training | training plan | are trained on | defined and | defining the | periodically | |||
| an ad-hoc | performed | training plan | reviewed to | |||||
| basis. | periodically. | developing | conform to the | |||||
| training schedules | changing needs | |||||||
| for all personnel | of the business. | |||||||
| Training records | ||||||||
| are reviewed | ||||||||
| against policy | ||||||||
| and exceptions | ||||||||
| lead to training | ||||||||
| program updates. | ||||||||
| Approval process | No approval | Informal, | A clear | A specific party is | The approval | |||
| for the acquisition | process | undocumented | approval | responsible for | process is | |||
| and installation of | exists. | knowledge of | process is | defining and | periodically | |||
| IT facilities. | steps to be | defined for | maintaining the | reviewed to | ||||
| followed when | the | approval process | conform to the | |||||
| acquiring or | acquisition | for IT facility | changing needs | |||||
| installing IT | and | acquisition and | of the business. | |||||
| facilities exists. | installation of | installation. | The approval | |||||
| IT facilities | process for each | |||||||
| and published | acquisition and | |||||||
| across the | installation of IT | |||||||
| enterprise. | facilities is | |||||||
| reviewed for | ||||||||
| accuracy and | ||||||||
| corrective action | ||||||||
| is taken where | ||||||||
| appropriate. | ||||||||
| IV.2 | Security of | Security Control of | No control | Physical access | The access | Third-party access | The access logs | |
| Third Party | Third Party Access | mechanism | control allows | control rules | is linked to the rest | and the list of | ||
| Access | to Information | ad hoc | are | of the | authorized third | |||
| Processing Facilities | decisions by IT | documented. | organization's | parties is | ||||
| staff, who have | There is a | security system | regularly audited | |||||
| been told | formal | through the | and changes to | |||||
| informally | contract with | issuance of access | procedures is | |||||
| what to do. | each party | tokens, and | made when the | |||||
| that requires | accesses are | need arises. | ||||||
| access. | logged. | |||||||
| IV.3 | Outsourcing | Security Controls | None; | IT, Security, | The | There is a registry | Procedures are | Critical |
| for External | contractors | Legal, or | procedures for | of contractors. | reviewed on at | applications | ||
| Contractors | are handled | Purchasing | contractor | They sign the | least an annual | stay in house | ||
| by task | apply some | security are | security policy, | basis for possible | Approval of | |||
| owner | regular steps | documented | NODE and IP | improvements. | business | |||
| without | when a | in writing and | agreements. | owners. | ||||
| specific | contract is | personnel and | Audits are run at | Implications | ||||
| policies or | issued. These | managers | least quarterly to | for business | ||||
| procedures. | steps are not | have access to | make sure the list | continuity | ||||
| specifically | them and are | of contractors is | plans. | |||||
| documented. | aware of their | current. The | Security | |||||
| contents. | owner of the | standards and | ||||||
| process is defined. | compliance | |||||||
| Security | ||||||||
| incident | ||||||||
| procedures. | ||||||||
| V.1 | Accountability | Coverage of Asset | No inventory | Manual | Inventory | Schedule, triggers, | There is a process | Information |
| for Assets | Inventory | inventory, | performed | roles and | to review what | Asset | ||
| Maintenance | occasional, on | according to | responsibly, are | happened after | Inventory | |||
| demand. | written | defined. | each inventory. | Software | ||||
| procedures, | Ownership is clear | Inventories are | Asset | |||||
| but schedule | and known | incremental, not | Inventory | |||||
| and triggering | throughout the IT | from scratch | Physical | |||||
| events are not | organization and | every time. Asset | Asset | |||||
| well defined. | management. | inventories are | Inventory | |||||
| Typically not | automated. | Services | ||||||
| automated. | Inventory | |||||||
| Ease of Alteration | Information | There is | There is a | There are control | There is a | Printed | ||
| of Information | assets can be | informal | documented | mechanisms (e.g., | mechanism in | Reports | ||
| Assets | altered | knowledge that | change | access controls) to | place to review | Screen | ||
| without | classified | procedure that | prevent alteration | the effectiveness | Displays | |||
| control | documents | applies to all | without proper | of the change | Magnetic | |||
| cannot be | classified | authorization. | control process | Media | ||||
| altered at will, | information | and detect the | Electronic | |||||
| but no | assets. No | need for | Messages | |||||
| systematic | systematic | improvements. | File Transfers | |||||
| procedures. | control | |||||||
| mechanisms | ||||||||
| in place. | ||||||||
| Coverage of | No | Covers some | There is an | Information | Information | Information | ||
| Information | procedures in | information | Information | handling | handling training | Asset | ||
| Handling | place for | assets. Little | Handling | procedures are | is part of written | Inventory | ||
| Procedures | handling | formality. No | manual, | owned by | IT and Personnel | Software | ||
| information. | regular | mentioned on | appropriate | procedures. | Asset | |||
| reviews. | the public | functions including | Processes in | Inventory | ||||
| Applied by few | web page, and | IT but also | place to report | Physical | ||||
| business units. | covering | Finance, HR, | and learn from | Asset | ||||
| essentially all | Legal, etc. | cases when | Inventory | |||||
| types of assets | Organization | information has | Services | |||||
| and all | policies define the | been handled | Inventory | |||||
| business | roles and | incorrectly. | Printed | |||||
| units. | responsibilities in | Reports | ||||||
| following | Screen | |||||||
| procedures. | Displays | |||||||
| Magnetic | ||||||||
| Media | ||||||||
| Electronic | ||||||||
| Messages | ||||||||
| File Transfers | ||||||||
| (“Handling” = copying, | ||||||||
| storage, | ||||||||
| electronic | ||||||||
| transmission, | ||||||||
| spoken | ||||||||
| transmission, | ||||||||
| destruction) | ||||||||
| V.2 | Information | Classification of | No | Ad hoc | Information | Ownership of the | Security | Printed |
| Classification | Information Assets | classification | classification, | asset | classification is | classification is | Reports | |
| Labeling of | at document | classification | clearly defined as | reviewed | Engineering | |||
| Information Assets | owner's | is published | part of company | periodically. List | files (photos, | |||
| initiative. | and “pushed” | procedures and is | of documents | microfiche, | ||||
| Most | to all potential | known of | with highest | etc.) | ||||
| documents not | document | management. | classification is | Screen | ||||
| marked. If | owners. It | reviewed | Displays | |||||
| marked, labels | covers | periodically. | Magnetic | |||||
| are | security. | Declassification | Media | |||||
| inconsistent. | Classified | procedures exist. | Electronic | |||||
| No systematic | information is | Messages | ||||||
| awareness | labeled, | File Transfers | ||||||
| campaign. | consistently. | |||||||
| VI.1 | Security in Job | Screening of | Incomplete | Screening of | Documented and | A specific party is | Procedures are | Applicant |
| Definition and | new | or a lack of | applicants is | published | responsible for | reviewed regularly | refers to all | |
| Resourcing | applicants. | screening of | performed | procedures for | defining and | for improvements | employees | |
| Complete | applicants. | informally, is | applicant | maintaining the | and compliance. | (contractor, | ||
| checking of | Contractor | not documented, | screening exist | screening procedure. | Security issues found | permanent, | ||
| the new | hiring are | and is not | and are used by | Results of the | to be related to | or part time) | ||
| applicant's | not vetted | performed | the organization. | screening are | failings in the | |||
| CV. | through HR. | consistently. | captured in the | screening procedure | ||||
| Screening of | applicant's HR file. | mandate immediate | ||||||
| contractor | review and update of | |||||||
| and | the procedure. | |||||||
| temporary | ||||||||
| staff | ||||||||
| VI.2 | User Training | Security | Little | Discussed with | Documented in | Roles and | Audits of the security | |
| awareness of | awareness of | employees and | writing and made | responsibilities to | acknowledgments are | |||
| personnel | corporate | contract or | available to all | maintain and | performed. A system | |||
| security. | temporary | staff. Employees | communicate the | of re- | ||||
| personnel upon | receive a copy of | security policy are | acknowledgment | |||||
| hiring. | security policy on | defined. | occurs periodically | |||||
| hiring and are | Acknowledgement | and upon changes to | ||||||
| required to | of the policy is | the security policy. | ||||||
| acknowledge | tracked and stored | Incidents are | ||||||
| receipt. | as part of the HR | analyzed for | ||||||
| policy of the | performance | |||||||
| employee. | improvement to the | |||||||
| security awareness | ||||||||
| procedures. | ||||||||
| Security | No education | Security | Security | A specific party is | Training plans are | |||
| education | or training is | education and | education is | responsible for | periodically reviewed | |||
| and technical | provided. | technical | documented and | defining and | to conform to the | |||
| training | training are not | included as part | maintaining the | changing needs of the | ||||
| provided | of the hiring | security education | business. Training | |||||
| consistently and | process. | and technical | records are reviewed | |||||
| the | Technical | training program. | against policy and | |||||
| responsibility is | training roadmaps | Training records are | exceptions lead to | |||||
| at the discretion | exist for each | captured in the | corrective actions. | |||||
| of management. | employee. | employee's file. | ||||||
| Review and | ||||||||
| planning for future | ||||||||
| training is part of | ||||||||
| the appraisal | ||||||||
| process. | ||||||||
| VI.3 | Responding to | Disciplinary | None | Managers have | The definition of | The documented | After each incident | |
| Security | Process for | documented. | intuitive | violations, | process includes | that causes the | ||
| Incidents and | Company | Reaction is | awareness of | investigation | roles and | procedure to be | ||
| Malfunctions | Security | ad hoc. | need, can quote | process, and list | responsibilities for | invoked, the process | ||
| Violation | multiple levels | of applicable | each step, and a | is reviewed and, | ||||
| of penalty, | penalties is | clear workflow. | when applicable, the | |||||
| including but not | documented, | process is revised | ||||||
| limited to firing. | distributed, | (including the | ||||||
| Managers and | signed by the | training or the | ||||||
| HR | appropriate | penalty clauses). | ||||||
| independently | parties, and | |||||||
| agree on how to | personnel has | |||||||
| initiate and | been educated as | |||||||
| conduct | to the content. | |||||||
| disciplinary | ||||||||
| actions. | ||||||||
| VII.1 | Secure Areas | Protection | The IT | Access control is | List of secure | All access to secure | Auditing of access | |
| from | equipment is | provided on an | perimeters and | IT areas is | control system logs is | |||
| unauthorized | left | ad hoc basis | access rights to | performed by a | done periodically. | |||
| access. | unattended | typically by IT | those areas are | mechanism (e.g., | Changes in facilities | |||
| Physical | with no | manager. No | documented and | badge access control | and management | |||
| entry control | controls | defined list of | published. | system) that allows | trigger a review and | |||
| to office, | beyond | access rights is | for personal | revision of the access | ||||
| room. | physical | published or | identification and | procedures. | ||||
| Physical | building | managed. | auditing. Access | |||||
| security for | access. | control is managed | ||||||
| IT facilities. | centrally for | |||||||
| granting and | ||||||||
| revoking rights and | ||||||||
| is linked to hiring | ||||||||
| and termination | ||||||||
| policies. | ||||||||
| VII.2 | Equipment | Fire alarm | The fire | Procedures for | The fire alarm | Reaction to actual | ||
| Security | system in not | alarm system | the fire alarm | system is tested. | alarms is reviewed | |||
| present. | exists and | system are | Procedures exist | and improvements | ||||
| people have | visible and | for evaluation of | implemented into | |||||
| been | posted, | the fire alarm | the current system | |||||
| informally | including | system including | and alternative | |||||
| made aware | evacuation path, | damage | systems reviewed | |||||
| of the | behavioral | assessment and | where necessary. | |||||
| system. | actions, Halon | recovery, | ||||||
| warnings, etc. | evacuation | |||||||
| headcount, etc. | ||||||||
| Personal | No policies | Policies for | There is a | A specific party is | The personal | |||
| workstation | for personal | personal | documented | responsible for | workstation policy is | |||
| policy | workstations | workstations | policy for | defining and | regularly reviewed to | |||
| exist. | exist but are not | personal | maintaining the | ensure it conforms to | ||||
| published or | workstations and | personal | the changing needs of | |||||
| adopted fully | steps are taken to | workstation | the business. Personal | |||||
| across the | spread its | policy. | workstation needs are | |||||
| organization. | awareness among | Sensitive | reviewed and changes | |||||
| employees. | information is | are made where | ||||||
| protected by | necessary. Audits are | |||||||
| means of | carried out to ensure | |||||||
| encryption. | that the organization | |||||||
| maintains a recognized | ||||||||
| workstation policy to | ||||||||
| ensure efficient | ||||||||
| management. | ||||||||
| Protection | There are no | There is an | There is a formal | A specific party is | The safety threat policy | |||
| from | procedures | informal safety | documented | responsible for | is regularly reviewed to | |||
| environmental | in place to | threat protection | policy in place. It | defining and | ensure it conforms with | |||
| threats and | protect from | policy in place. | details all the | maintaining the | the changing needs of | |||
| hazards. | safety threats | This is not | steps that need to | safety threat | the business. The | |||
| Protection | or hazards. | enforced | be followed to | control guidelines. | policy is regularly | |||
| from human | throughout the | protect from | reviewed and changes | |||||
| carelessness | organization and | potential hazards. | are made where | |||||
| (eating, | the details of the | necessary to ensure | ||||||
| smoking, | policy are not | continued compliance. | ||||||
| drinking). | documented. | |||||||
| Protection | ||||||||
| from power | ||||||||
| and | ||||||||
| communication | ||||||||
| cabling | ||||||||
| from | ||||||||
| interception | ||||||||
| or damage. | ||||||||
| VII.3 | General Controls | Inspection of | Incoming | There is no | There is a | A responsible | The key goods | |
| incoming | goods are | formal process | documented | party is identified | screening process is | |||
| goods for | not | to inspect | process whereby | to manage the | regularly reviewed to | |||
| hazards | inspected. | incoming goods. | all incoming | processes and | ensure they conform to | |||
| It is carried out | goods are | procedures for | the changing needs of | |||||
| in an ad | inspected per a | inspecting | the business. Goods | |||||
| hoc manner. | defined plan. | incoming goods | screening needs are | |||||
| for safety | reviewed and changes | |||||||
| compliance. | are made where | |||||||
| necessary. The | ||||||||
| organization maintains | ||||||||
| historical files of | ||||||||
| incoming goods; these | ||||||||
| are regularly reviewed | ||||||||
| to ensure that there are | ||||||||
| no discrepancies. | ||||||||
| Process of | There is no | An informal | A formal process | An inventory of | Audits of the | |||
| removal of | standardized | process exists | is documented | organizational | organization's property | |||
| organization's | procedure | for property | and published the | property is | are carried out | |||
| property | for removal | removal. | to organization | maintained and | periodically and | |||
| of property. | for property | updated regularly. | changes to the removal | |||||
| removal. | A group or | process are made | ||||||
| individual is | where necessary. | |||||||
| identified to verify | ||||||||
| that the process is | ||||||||
| followed. | ||||||||
| Equipment | There are no | Equipment | Equipment is | A responsible | Record of equipment | |||
| maintenance | equipment | maintenance is | covered by | party is identified | maintenance is | |||
| maintenance | carried out on an | insurance and the | to oversee | examined to determine | ||||
| policies and | ad hoc basis | equipment | equipment | fault patterns or abuses. | ||||
| the | based on | maintenance | maintenance | Appropriate changes | ||||
| equipment | manufacturer | controls the | policies are | are incorporated into | ||||
| maintenance | recommended | determination of | followed. | the maintenance | ||||
| is done only | service intervals | risk. | policies. | |||||
| on failure. | ||||||||
| Sensitive | Data | Data disposal | Data disposal | A responsible | The disposal procedure | |||
| data disposal | disposal | procedure is | procedure is | party is identified | is audited regularly and | |||
| procedure | procedure is | informally | formally defined | to oversee that the | appropriate steps | |||
| not defined. | defined. | and published to | disposal procedure | incorporated into the | ||||
| the organization. | is followed. | procedure. | ||||||
| VIII.1 | Operational | Management | None - each | Common | Documented in | Roles and | Procedures include a | Reporting |
| Procedures and | Responsibilities | incident is | awareness of | writing and made | responsibilities are | mechanism to evolve | procedures | |
| Responsibilities | and | handled ad | procedures | available to all IT | defined. | them. Incidents are | cover: | |
| Procedures | hoc on a best | Effort for | staff (and other | Escalation and | analyzed to suggest | All types of | ||
| Incident | effort basis. | repeatability | department staff | reporting chains | improvements. There | security | ||
| Reporting | includes staff | with IT roles) | exist. Issues and | is a quality | incident | |||
| Procedures | meetings, | requests are | improvement process, | Contingency | ||||
| training | recorded as | documented and | plans | |||||
| sessions, | trouble tickets. | applied. | Audit trails | |||||
| coaching | and similar | |||||||
| Recover | ||||||||
| actions and | ||||||||
| authority | ||||||||
| VIII.2 | System Planning | Testing of | None; new | Testing is | A formal | The responsibility | Policy is | Includes issues |
| and Acceptance | new | systems are | informal and is | document | to define, review, | periodically | of capacity | |
| information | placed in | performed based | defining the | and ensure | reviewed and | planning and | ||
| systems | operation | on individuals' | testing and | compliance with | revised upon any | Systems | ||
| requirements | without any | knowledge, not | deployment of | the testing policy | change in the | Acceptance. | ||
| and upgrades | formal test | on a formal | new and | is defined. There | production systems | Issues to be | ||
| prior to | procedure. | process. | upgraded systems | are system level | or organizational | considered | ||
| deployment | is defined. | tools that prevent | structure. Testing | include: | ||||
| unauthorized | methodology and | Performance | ||||||
| changes to | tools are | and Computer | ||||||
| production | continuously | Capacity | ||||||
| systems. | examined to | Requirements | ||||||
| Documents exist | determine | Error Recovery | ||||||
| detailing | applicability to the | and Restart | ||||||
| interfaces into the | organization and | Procedures | ||||||
| change | then introduced. | Security | ||||||
| management | Controls/Issues | |||||||
| process. | Manual | |||||||
| Processes | ||||||||
| Business | ||||||||
| Continuity | ||||||||
| Arrangements | ||||||||
| Additional | ||||||||
| Load on | ||||||||
| existing | ||||||||
| machines | ||||||||
| Training in the | ||||||||
| operation of the | ||||||||
| new equipment | ||||||||
| VIII.3 | Protection | Detection and | No | IT staff has | A formal, | A specific party is | The procedure | Procedures |
| Against | protection | detection, | informally | documented | responsible for | includes a | cover: | |
| Malicious | against | protection | defined | procedure for | defining and | mechanism for | All types of | |
| Software | malicious | measures, | procedures for | detecting and | maintaining the | evolution. Incidents | virus and | |
| software. | reporting, | detecting and | handling | detection and | are analyzed to | malicious | ||
| User | or recovery | handling | malicious | protection | suggest | software | ||
| awareness of | procedures | malicious | software and | procedures, | improvements. The | incident | ||
| procedures to | exist, and | software and | virus attacks | informing and | toolset is | Contingency | ||
| deal with | dealing | virus attacks. | exists and is | training the users, | continuously | plans | ||
| malicious | with | There are no | communicated to | managing the | examined and | Audit trails and | ||
| software | malicious | common tools, | all employees as | detection and | updated to provide | similar | ||
| Procedures | software | formal | part of the | recovery efforts, | maximum protection | Recover actions | ||
| for reporting | and virus | documentation, | corporate security | and selecting and | against changing | and authority | ||
| and recovery | attacks is | or training | policy. A | maintaining the | treats. | |||
| from virus | entirely | programs for all | standard set of | protective tools. | ||||
| attacks | reactive | employees. | protective tools is | |||||
| and | defined and | |||||||
| handled in | deployed. | |||||||
| an ad hoc | Training is given | |||||||
| manner. | to all employees. | |||||||
| Policy | No policy | Software | A software | A specific party is | List of authorized | |||
| relating to | or | monitoring | licensing policy | responsible for | software is | |||
| licensed | monitoring | policies are | is documented | monitoring and | periodically | |||
| software and | exists | informal and | and published to | maintaining | reviewed to conform | |||
| prohibition of | regarding | performed on an | all employees. | authorized | to the changing | |||
| unauthorized | software | ad hoc basis. The | software licenses | needs of the | ||||
| software | installation. | IT organization, | for the enterprise. | business. Software | ||||
| when involved in | A software | audits are reviewed | ||||||
| software | inventory | and exceptions lead | ||||||
| procurement, | licensing tool is | to corrective actions. | ||||||
| applies controls | used to monitor | |||||||
| informally. | and ensure | |||||||
| compliance. | ||||||||
| VIII.4 | Housekeeping | Monitoring of | No | Informal | Capacity plan and | Ownership of the | New technology, | |
| processing | monitoring | monitoring as | capacity | capacity plan and | contractual | |||
| power and | exists. | part of system | management | capacity | agreements, and | |||
| storage to | Capacity | management | process covering | management | supplier selection | |||
| ensure | adjustments | procedures | processing | process is defined. | are continuously | |||
| availability | are | performed on an | power, memory, | Formal | researched and | |||
| performed | as needed basis. | disc space, | mechanism for | introduced into the | ||||
| in reaction | No management | LAN/WAN | business managers | environment in | ||||
| to | capacity plan or | capacity, backup | to place | order to provide the | ||||
| problems. | model is | capacity, number | requirements into | necessary resources | ||||
| specifically | of user | the plan and a link | while optimizing the | |||||
| defined. | workstations, | exists between the | costs. | |||||
| physical space | capacity planning | |||||||
| and power. | process and the | |||||||
| budgeting process. | ||||||||
| VIII.5 | Network | Covered by other | ||||||
| Management | questions in this section | |||||||
| VIII.6 | Media Handling | Procedures | No | IT staff has | Formal, | A specific party is | Procedures are | Media includes: |
| and Security | and controls | procedures | informally | documented | responsible for | periodically | IT computer | |
| to protect | or controls | defined | procedures for | defining and | reviewed to address | room media | ||
| computer | are in place | procedures and | protecting | maintaining the | changes in the type | (e.g., backup | ||
| media | to protect | controls for | computer media | procedures for the | or volume of | tapes, | ||
| computer | protecting | exist and are | access control | computer media to | removable hard | |||
| media. | computer media. | communicated to | systems and | be handled. Audit | drives, CD- | |||
| There is no | all employees as | auditing of access | logs are reviewed | ROMs, etc.) | ||||
| formal | part of the | to computer | and exceptions lead | User media | ||||
| documentation, | corporate security | media. | to corrective action. | (e.g., CD- | ||||
| access logs, or | policy. Controls | ROMs, floppy | ||||||
| training programs | are in place to | discs, etc.) | ||||||
| for all employees. | limit and track | |||||||
| access to media. | ||||||||
| Training is given | ||||||||
| to all employees. | ||||||||
| VIII.7 | Exchanges of | Security of | No defined | No corporate | A corporate | A specific party is | The standards are | Standards for |
| Information and | exchange of | procedures | standard or policy | standard for the | responsible for | periodically | secure | |
| Software | data and | to secure | exists addressing | security exchange | defining and | reviewed to address | exchange of | |
| software with | the | securing the | of data and | maintaining the | changes to the data | data and | ||
| other | exchange | exchange of data | software with | standards for the | being exchanged or | software with | ||
| organizations. | of data or | and software with | other | secure exchange | the means of | 3rd parties and | ||
| software. | other | organizations is | of data and | exchanging. The | outsourcing | |||
| organizations. | documented and | software. An | information | vendors. | ||||
| published to all | information | classification policy | Information | |||||
| employees. | classification | continually evolves. | classification | |||||
| policy determines | policy | |||||||
| what can be and | ||||||||
| how it is | ||||||||
| transmitted. | ||||||||
| IX.1 | Business | Documentation | No | An informal, | An access policy | A specific party is | The access policy | Access rights |
| Requirements | of business | awareness | undocumented | statement | responsible for | statement is | encompasses | |
| for Access | requirements | or practice | access control | defining access | defining and | periodically | accounts for | |
| Control | for access | of access | practice is | rights of each | maintaining the | reviewed to conform | network, | |
| control. | control. | applied on an ad | user or group of | access policy | to the changing | operating | ||
| Access policy | hoc basis. | users exists and is | statement and | needs of the | system, and | |||
| statement | published. | ensuring it is in | business. Security | application | ||||
| defining the | alignment with | incidents are | access. | |||||
| access right of | business | reviewed and | ACLs, user and | |||||
| each user or | requirements. | modifications to the | system | |||||
| group of users. | access policy | accounts, etc. | ||||||
| Protection of | statement are made | Automatic | ||||||
| connected | where appropriate. | identification of | ||||||
| services from | terminals and | |||||||
| unauthorized | portable | |||||||
| use. | devices. | |||||||
| Review of user | Timeout of | |||||||
| access right | remote systems | |||||||
| and | left unattended | |||||||
| capabilities | for extended | |||||||
| Policy | periods of time | |||||||
| concerning the | ||||||||
| use of network | ||||||||
| and network | ||||||||
| services. | ||||||||
| Network | ||||||||
| controls in | ||||||||
| place | ||||||||
| IX.2 | User Access | System of | No | An informal, | A user account | A specific party is | The user account | Deletion vs. |
| Management | formal | control | undocumented | policy defining | responsible for | policy is | disabling | |
| registration/de- | over | user account | access rights, | defining and | periodically | accounts. | ||
| registration for | access to | practice is | privilege levels, | maintaining the | reviewed to conform | Unique id for | ||
| access to IT | IT | applied on an ad | and | user account | to the changing | all users. | ||
| services. | services. | hoc basis. | creation/deletion | policy. User | needs of the | |||
| Immediate | rules exists and is | account | business. Audit | |||||
| account | published. | creation/deletion | requirements are | |||||
| removal for | records are | reviewed and | ||||||
| users who | archived. | modifications to the | ||||||
| change duties | user account policy | |||||||
| or leave the | are made where | |||||||
| company. | appropriate. | |||||||
| User's | Multiple accounts | |||||||
| privilege in | per individual are | |||||||
| overriding | created or deleted | |||||||
| system/application | through a single | |||||||
| restriction. | point of control. | |||||||
| Record kept of | ||||||||
| all privileges | ||||||||
| allocated. | ||||||||
| System routine | ||||||||
| to grant | ||||||||
| privilege to | ||||||||
| users. | ||||||||
| Access control | ||||||||
| to program | ||||||||
| source library | ||||||||
| IX.3 | User | Security of user | Passwords | An informal, | A published | A specific party | The password policy is | Limit the number |
| Responsibilities | password. User | are not | undocumented | password | is responsible | periodically reviewed | of password | |
| password | used. | password | policy defines | for defining and | to conform to the | attempt before | ||
| confidentiality | practice is | password | maintaining the | changing needs of the | the system locks | |||
| level | applied on an | strength (e.g., | password policy. | business. Periodic | out the user. | |||
| ad hoc basis. | length, | Record of | audits (cracking) of | Record and make | ||||
| inclusion of | password | passwords are | user aware of | |||||
| special | histories is | performed to ensure | unsuccessful | |||||
| characters), | archived. | compliance and | logon attempts | |||||
| aging, and | exceptions are noted, | Enforcement of | ||||||
| usage. | documented, and | password rules | ||||||
| corrective action is | ||||||||
| taken. | ||||||||
| Good-practice | No | An informal, | A good-practice | A specific party | A process exists to | No display of | ||
| guidelines to | guidelines | undocumented | guidelines | is responsible | solicit suggestions for | system identifiers | ||
| users in | exist. | guidelines is | statement is | for defining and | best-practice guidelines | until logon has | ||
| ensuring good | provided to | defined and | maintaining the | from internal and | been successful | |||
| security. | users on an ad | incorporated | good-practice | external sources and to | General notice | |||
| hoc basis. | into user | guidelines. | incorporate them into | warning that the | ||||
| training | the organization's user | system should | ||||||
| programs. | security guidelines. | only be used by | ||||||
| authorized users | ||||||||
| If error occurs at | ||||||||
| logon do not | ||||||||
| indicate what the | ||||||||
| error was | ||||||||
| Cryptographic | No | An informal, | A good-practice | A specific party | A process exists to | |||
| Controls | guidelines | undocumented | guidelines | is responsible | solicit suggestions for | |||
| exist. | guidelines is | statement is | for defining and | best-practice guidelines | ||||
| provided to | defined and | maintaining the | from internal and | |||||
| users on an ad | incorporated | good-practice | external sources and to | |||||
| hoc basis. | into user | guidelines. | incorporate them into | |||||
| training | the organization's user | |||||||
| programs. The | security guidelines. | |||||||
| guidelines | ||||||||
| cover: | ||||||||
| encryption, | ||||||||
| digital | ||||||||
| signatures, key | ||||||||
| management, | ||||||||
| non-repudiation | ||||||||
| services | ||||||||
| IX.4 | Network | Covered in other area in this | ||||||
| Access Control | section | |||||||
| IX.5 | Operating | Covered in other area in this | ||||||
| System Access | section | |||||||
| Control | ||||||||
| IX.6 | Application | Covered in other area in this | ||||||
| Access Control | section | |||||||
| IX.7 | Monitoring | Covered in other area in this | ||||||
| System Access | section | |||||||
| and Use | ||||||||
| IX.8 | Mobile | Mobile | No | An informal, | A good-practice | A specific party | A process exists to | Laptop, Mobile, |
| Computing and | Computing and | guidelines | undocumented | guidelines | is responsible | solicit suggestions for | and Palmtop | |
| Teleworking | Teleworking | exist. | guidelines is | statement is | for defining and | best-practice guidelines | security to ensure | |
| provided to | defined and | maintaining the | from internal and | company | ||||
| users on an ad | incorporated | good-practice | external sources and to | information is not | ||||
| hoc basis. | into user | guidelines. | incorporate them into | compromised. | ||||
| training | the organisation's user | |||||||
| programs. | security guidelines. | |||||||
| X.1 | Security | Risk | There is no | An informal | A published | A specific party | The risk assessment | |
| Requirements | assessment and | framework | undocumented | risk assessment | is responsible | and risk management | ||
| of Systems | risk | or risk | risk | and risk | for defining and | policies are | ||
| management | assessment. | assessment | management | maintaining the | periodically reviewed | |||
| used for | and risk | procedure | risk assessment | to conform to the | ||||
| analyzing | management | exists. | and risk | changing needs of the | ||||
| security | practice is | management | business. Changes are | |||||
| requirement | applied on an | guidelines. | made to the policy | |||||
| ad-hoc basis. | An archive is | where required. | ||||||
| kept of the risks | ||||||||
| identified and | ||||||||
| the action taken | ||||||||
| to manage the | ||||||||
| risk. | ||||||||
| Safety check | No safety | An informal | There is a | A specific party | The safety checks are | |||
| while procuring | checks are | procedure | documented | is responsible | regularly reviewed to | |||
| new program | carried out | exists whereby | procedure that | for defining and | ensure that they | |||
| and software | when | new programs | is followed | maintaining the | conform to the | |||
| procuring | and software | before any | software safety | changing needs of the | ||||
| new | are assessed | software is | check | business. There is a | ||||
| software. | before being | purchased. | guidelines. | regular risk analysis is | ||||
| put in to the | This ensures | Modifications to | carried out to ensure | |||||
| operational | that all software | vendor supplied | safety of existing | |||||
| environment. | purchased | packages are | systems and | |||||
| This task in | conforms to | made to comply | compromise to their | |||||
| performed on | company | with system | security is controlled. | |||||
| an ad-hoc | security | requirements | Emphasis is given on | |||||
| basis. | guidelines. | and vendor | quality certification of | |||||
| consent is | new products. | |||||||
| obtained before | ||||||||
| doing so. | ||||||||
| X.2 | Security in | Validation | There is no | An informal | There is a | A specific party | The validation control | |
| Application | control while | validation | process exists | published | is responsible | procedure is regularly | ||
| Systems | data input to | of | where data is | standard which | for defining and | reviewed to ensure that | ||
| application | information | both verified | describes the | maintaining the | they conform to the | |||
| system | on | before it is | validation tests | validation | changing needs of the | |||
| Data validation | application | entered in to | that are | control | business. Periodic | |||
| of stored | systems. | applications | performed. | guidelines. | audits are performed of | |||
| information | and existing | There is a | data on application | |||||
| Output Data | data is | documented | systems to ensure | |||||
| Validation | verified. Basic | process which | compliance. | |||||
| tests like | is followed. | Exceptions are noted, | ||||||
| missing or | documented and | |||||||
| incomplete | corrective action is | |||||||
| data, invalid | taken. | |||||||
| characters in | ||||||||
| fields are | ||||||||
| performed on | ||||||||
| an ad-hoc | ||||||||
| basis. | ||||||||
| X.3 | Cryptographic | Cryptographic | There are | There is an | There is a | A specific party | The cryptographic | |
| Controls | control | no | informal | documented | is responsible | controls are regularly | ||
| cryptographic | practice | procedure | for defining and | reviewed to ensure that | ||||
| controls | employed | which defines | maintaining the | they conform to the | ||||
| or existing | whereby some | the steps which | cryptography | changing needs of the | ||||
| system | files are | outlines which | control | business. Audits are | ||||
| architecture | encrypted. | document | guidelines. | carried regularly to | ||||
| does not | This is done at | classifications | Separate key | ensure that information | ||||
| support | the user | need to be | management | that should be | ||||
| cryptography. | discretion and | encrypted and | procedures are | encrypted is kept | ||||
| on an ad-hoc | the process to | used for digital | encrypted and that the | |||||
| basis. | be followed to | signatures and | encryption method | |||||
| achieve this. | encryption. | used is adequate. | ||||||
| Vulnerabilities | There are | There is a | There is a | A specific party | The key management | |||
| of | no key | process in | documented | is responsible | system is regularly | |||
| cryptographic | management | place where by | key | for defining and | reviewed to ensure | |||
| keys. | procedures. | suitable key | management | maintaining the | they conform to the | |||
| Key | management | system which | key management | changing needs of the | ||||
| management | exists, based | defines the | system. | business. Key | ||||
| system. | upon an | steps to be | Separate key | management needs are | ||||
| Documentation | informal set of | followed. This | management | reviewed and changes | ||||
| of key | standards, | ensures that the | procedures are | are made where | ||||
| management | procedures and | type of | used for digital | necessary. Audits are | ||||
| system | secure | algorithm and | signatures and | carried out to ensure | ||||
| (activation & | methods. | length of keys | encryption. | that the organization | ||||
| de-activation | are considered | Cryptographic | maintains a recognized | |||||
| date, certificate | to identify level | keys have | certification authority | |||||
| information) | of | defined | to ensure key | |||||
| cryptographic | activation and | protection and efficient | ||||||
| protection | deactivation | key management. | ||||||
| dates. All keys | ||||||||
| are protected | ||||||||
| against | ||||||||
| modification and | ||||||||
| destruction in | ||||||||
| case of private | ||||||||
| key | ||||||||
| compromise. | ||||||||
| X.4 | Security of | Protection and | No change | An informal | There is a | A specific party | The change control | |
| System Files | control of | control | procedure | documented | is responsible | policy is regularly | ||
| system test | procedure | exists for | standard | for defining and | reviewed to ensure | |||
| data. | in place and | change | available to | maintaining the | that it conforms to | |||
| Change control | no | control. This | employs | change control | the changing needs | |||
| procedure | provisions | task is | describing the | guidelines. | of the business. | |||
| Control of | for the | performed on | procedures to | Version control | Version control | |||
| operational | protection | an ad-hoc | follow to ensure | for software | logs are audited and | |||
| software | of system | basis. | that the change | update is | any exceptions are | |||
| test data. | control | maintained and | documented, noted | |||||
| procedures are | archives are kept | and corrective | ||||||
| followed | of all versions. | action is taken if | ||||||
| correctly | necessary. | |||||||
| X.5 | Security in | Awareness of | There is no | An informal | There is a | A specific party | The software | The new software is |
| Development | software | process in | procedure | documented | is responsible | update policy is | put in a test | |
| and Support | upgrade to | place to | exists to | standard | for defining and | regularly reviewed | environment to check | |
| Processes | enhance the | monitor | monitor | available to | maintaining the | to ensure that it | for anomalies with | |
| security level | security risk | vendor web | employees | software update | conforms to the | security policies | ||
| posed by | sites to obtain | describing the | guidelines. An | changing needs of | before | |||
| software | software | procedures to | archive is kept | the business. | implementation | |||
| installed on | updates. This | follow to ensure | of all software | Periodic audits are | ||||
| machines. | task is | that all software | upgrades. | performed of | ||||
| Software | performed on | installed on | Change control | software upgrades | ||||
| upgrade | an ad-hoc | their machines | procedures and | to ensure | ||||
| does not | basis. | is of the latest | contractual | compliance. | ||||
| take into | Security issues | version. | agreements exist | Exceptions are | ||||
| account the | defined by the | All security | to escalate | noted, documented | ||||
| security of | vendors are | issues with the | security issues to | and corrective | ||||
| the new | only | new release | appropriate | action is taken if | ||||
| releases | considered. | specific to | levels and | necessary. | ||||
| organizational | remedy them. | |||||||
| system platform | ||||||||
| are identified | ||||||||
| and confirmed | ||||||||
| with the | ||||||||
| vendor. | ||||||||
| XI.1 | Aspects of | Contents of | No plan. | There is some | There is a | Employees are | Includes process | Risk analysis of critical |
| Business | Business | knowledge of | written and | trained, and | for improvement | business processes. | ||
| Continuity | Continuity | what to do in | properly | training is | after each | Identifies events that | ||
| Management | Process | case of disaster | distributed plan. | periodically | invocation. | can cause interruptions | ||
| Procedures and | (e.g., based on | Process | refreshed. | to business processes, | ||||
| Schedules | training or on | includes: | Plan includes | and includes assessment | ||||
| Included in the | prior | Fallback | alternate | of the impact of those | ||||
| Process | experience) | procedures | communication | interruptions. | ||||
| but no | Resumption | methods if | ||||||
| documented | procedures | communication | ||||||
| process. | Maintenance | is severely | ||||||
| schedules | affected. | |||||||
| Process also | ||||||||
| includes: | ||||||||
| Assignment of | ||||||||
| responsibilities | ||||||||
| Conditions for | ||||||||
| activation | ||||||||
| Development of | Plan does | A set of | There is a | The | The process is | Business continuity | ||
| Business | not exist. | measures can | written business | management | reviewed in case | process covers events | ||
| Continuity | Some | be applied in | continuity | chain | of change in | that are specific to the | ||
| Process | awareness | case of a | process that | responsible for | system, staff, | local environment (i.e., | ||
| Testing of | of measures | business | includes risks, | executing the | disaster recovery | flood, power outage, | ||
| Business | that can be | interruption. | events, roles | business | contractor or | political unrest, fire, | ||
| Continuity | taken in | They do not | and | continuity | contract, | hurricane, earthquakes, | ||
| Process | case of a | constitute | responsibilities, | process is | business, | etc.) and business needs | ||
| Review and | business | formal, | technical | define, and all | application, | (i.e., credit card center | ||
| Update of | interruption. | defined, | measures, | managers and | locations, or | cannot be down more | ||
| Continuity | Actions | published, or | reporting, and | staff know what | legislation. | than a few minutes) | ||
| Process | would occur | managed plan. | communication. | the chain is. | Post-mortem | |||
| Reasons that | in an ad hoc | The plan has | Testing occurs at | reviews after | ||||
| Cause Review | manner. | been tested at | least annually | execution with | ||||
| of the Plan | least once. | and maintains | documented | |||||
| the business | improvement | |||||||
| continuity | actions. | |||||||
| process. | ||||||||
| XII.1 | Compliance | Restrictions in | No | Ad hoc | Systematic | Clear | Periodic review | Copyright policy |
| with Legal | Place on the | restrictions | restriction on | restrictions, | responsibility to | of the policy for | Acquisition procedures | |
| Requirements | Use of | in place. | some | documented, | enforce the | continuing | Copyright awareness | |
| Materials for | documents | based on the | restrictions. | improvement. | information | |||
| Which There | only. | information | Training is | Periodic review | Maintenance of licenses | |||
| May Be | classification | provided. | of the | Check on software | ||||
| Intellectual | Employees are | restrictions to | held/used | |||||
| Property Rights | aware. | make sure | Policy on software | |||||
| they're | disposal | |||||||
| appropriate. | Compliance with | |||||||
| licenses | ||||||||
| Safeguards | No | Some | Clear | Safeguards in | Periodic review | Personnel information | ||
| against loss, | safeguards | organizational | responsibilities | place covering | of systems in | Copyright information | ||
| destruction or | employed. | data backed up | to ensure that | all | place and | Company confidential | ||
| falsification of | No defined | and secured. | organization | organizational | security of | information | ||
| organizational | hierarchy as | Backups may | records are not | records. | systems that deal | Public web sites | ||
| records | to whom | be kept onsite. | compromised. | Training | with | |||
| has access | No logs kept | Some user | provided to | organizational | ||||
| to what | of user | activity is | educate users. | records. Each | ||||
| information. | activity. | logged. | Management | incident is | ||||
| Organizational | responsibly to | subject to a post | ||||||
| data is kept | ensure that | mortem | ||||||
| securely. | records are kept | procedure that | ||||||
| Documents are | accurate and | includes a | ||||||
| publicly | secure. Access | review of | ||||||
| available that | rights and | whether | ||||||
| describe the | privileges in | applicable | ||||||
| policy and | place to restrict | policies were | ||||||
| procedures that | access to certain | correctly | ||||||
| employees | organizational | communicated. | ||||||
| should follow | records. Web | Users are taught | ||||||
| to maintain | sites protected | the incident | ||||||
| integrity and | from | reporting | ||||||
| safety of | defacement. | procedures. Full | ||||||
| organizational | Critical files | audit logs | ||||||
| records. | identified and | maintained with | ||||||
| protected against | system | |||||||
| falsification by | start/finish | |||||||
| CRC checks, | times, system | |||||||
| etc. | errors and | |||||||
| corrective action | ||||||||
| and name of | ||||||||
| person making | ||||||||
| alterations to the | ||||||||
| information. | ||||||||
| Compliance | Knowledge | Data | Legislation is | Processes and | There is a | |||
| with data | of | protection | applied and | procedures are | regular process | |||
| protection | legislation | legislation is | Data protection | put in to place | in place to | |||
| legislation | is limited to | discussed with | legislation is | for monitoring | review changes | |||
| specific | employees and | made available | to ensure that the | in legislation, or | ||||
| people or | contract or | to employees in | company is | new needs of the | ||||
| departments | temporary | a centralized | continually | business. | ||||
| (HR, Legal, | personnel | location. | compliant. The | Training is | ||||
| etc.) and is | upon hiring | Impact of | responsibility to | provided to | ||||
| not | into specific | legislation and | do so is clearly | users to ensure | ||||
| documented. | departments. | concerned data | assigned. | the continued | ||||
| has been | compliance with | |||||||
| written up and | legislation. The | |||||||
| made available | process and | |||||||
| to employees. | responsibility to | |||||||
| All affected | receive, | |||||||
| processes | investigate and | |||||||
| include | correct any | |||||||
| appropriate | reported | |||||||
| protection | exception is | |||||||
| steps. | defined. | |||||||
| Compliance of | No | Standards and | Standards and | A clearly | There is a regular | Intellectual Property | ||
| information | published | codes of | codes of | designated | process in place to | Rights | ||
| systems with | codes of | practice are | practice are | person or body | review changes in | Copyright | ||
| published | practice and | generally | defined and | has | published standards | Data Protection Act | ||
| standards or | no | understood but | published | responsibility for | or codes of | |||
| codes of | awareness | are applied | internally and | the reviewing, | practice. Findings | |||
| practice | inconsistently | are made | maintaining, and | of non-compliance | ||||
| through the | available to | training users on | result in corrective | |||||
| organization. | employees in a | the published | action. | |||||
| centralized | standards or | |||||||
| location. | codes of | |||||||
| practice. | ||||||||
| XII.2 | Reviews of | Documentation | No | Some | Documents are | Responsibilities | Documents are | Laws on protection |
| Security Policy | of regulatory | documentation | documentation | made publicly | are assigned to | created as soon as | and/or correction of | |
| and Technical | and contractual | exists. | exists although | available on the | individuals to | there is a change in | personal information | |
| Compliance | requirements | it does not | corporate web | produce | the contractual or | (employees and/or | ||
| for each | cover all | site or on a | documents as | regulatory | clients, suppliers, | |||
| information | details of | public notice | soon as a new | requirements of the | etc.) | |||
| system | regulatory/contractual | board. Full | system is | project. | Procedures for | |||
| requirements | documentation | sourced. | Documentation is | disclosure to proper | ||||
| for each IS. | exists for | Templates exist | available to | authorities. | ||||
| There is no | contractual and | for the creation | personnel with | ISO 9000 | ||||
| standard | regulatory | of documents | correct clearance. | requirements | ||||
| document | requirements | and there is a | Periodic inventory | Regulatory agencies | ||||
| template used, | for all | central | of information | (e.g., FDA or FCC in | ||||
| documents are | information | repository where | systems includes | the United States) | ||||
| created as and | systems in the | they are stored. | checks that | |||||
| when required | organization. | The templates | compliance | |||||
| by individual | have designated | requirements exist. | ||||||
| employees. | owners. | Exceptions trigger | ||||||
| There is no | a well-defined | |||||||
| central data | process to review | |||||||
| store for the | procedures in order | |||||||
| documents | to eliminate this | |||||||
| (need to ask | risk. | |||||||
| people who | ||||||||
| know). | ||||||||
| XII.3 | System Audit | Control Against | No controls | Terms of use | Terms of use of | The | Periodic reviews of | |
| Considerations | Computer | or | of computer | organizations | responsibility of | who is authorized | ||
| Misuse | safeguards | equipment are | computer | managers is | to do what. | |||
| Safeguard of | in place | discussed with | equipment are | defined. Tools | Information | |||
| Audit Tools to | employees and | available from a | employed to | gathered from | ||||
| Prevent Misuse | contract or | centralized | monitor usage of | monitoring tools is | ||||
| temporary | location | computer | used to make | |||||
| personnel | (Intranet site, | equipment. | decisions for future | |||||
| upon hiring. | office notice | Staff has well | policy. | |||||
| boards, etc) | defined roles | There is an incident | ||||||
| and access rights | review procedure. | |||||||
| to computer file | Periodic “white | |||||||
| systems. | hat” intrusion | |||||||
| Personnel are | attempts are made | |||||||
| made aware that | and followed by | |||||||
| their computer | corrective actions. | |||||||
| related activities | ||||||||
| are being | ||||||||
| monitored, and | ||||||||
| to what extent. | ||||||||
| Review/Audit | No process | Occasionally | Reviewed at | A clearly | There is a defined | |||
| of information | is in place | reviewed or | intervals, but no | designated | mechanism to | |||
| systems to | audited if | clear | person or body | review and upgrade | ||||
| ensure they are | senior | management | has | the policy after | ||||
| in compliance | management, | responsibility to | responsibility for | every security | ||||
| with security | auditors, etc., | trigger reviews | the process, and | incident (Is | ||||
| policies and | ask | of exploit | reviews it | anything missing | ||||
| standards | results | regularly. | from the policy that | |||||
| could have | ||||||||
| prevented the | ||||||||
| problem?) | ||||||||
| Coverage of | No | Few | Clear | Audit tools are | Safeguards in place | |||
| System Regime | coverage | safeguards in | responsibilities | only available | covering all audit | |||
| (event logging) | exists. | place. Audit | to ensure that | for use by key | tools. Periodic | |||
| tools are not | audit tools are | personnel. | review of systems | |||||
| managed | not misused. | Access rights | in place and | |||||
| securely and | Training | and privileges | security of systems | |||||
| user access is | provided to | are enforced to | that audit systems. | |||||
| not monitored. | educate users. | maintain | Users are educated | |||||
| security. | on the importance | |||||||
| of safeguarding | ||||||||
| their audit tools. | ||||||||
| Compliance of | No | Standards and | Standards and | A clearly | There is a regular | Intellectual Property | ||
| information | published | codes of | codes of | designated | process in place to | Rights | ||
| systems with | codes of | practice are | practice are | person or body | review changes in | Copyright | ||
| published | practice and | generally | defined and | has | published standards | Data Protection Act | ||
| standards or | no | understood but | published | responsibility for | or codes of | |||
| codes of | awareness | are applied | internally and | the reviewing, | practice. Findings | |||
| practice | inconsistently | are made | maintaining, and | of non-compliance | ||||
| through the | available to | training users on | result in corrective | |||||
| organization. | employees in a | the published | action. | |||||
| centralized | standards or | |||||||
| location. | codes of | |||||||
| practice. | ||||||||
Referring to the Security Assessment Matrix shown in Table 1, to perform the assessment for a given item, the assessment entity need only perform the following steps: (i) find the item in question, first by category then by sub-category; (ii) read the descriptions under each maturity level and determine if requirements of that maturity level are met; and (iii) record the highest maturity level for that item that is met by the organization's current information security policies and practices.
Once the preliminary rating has been completed, it may be displayed in a graphical manner. In one embodiment of the invention, the preliminary rating is displayed using a Security Maturity Assessment Reporting Tool (SMART). SMART allows the preliminary rating to be shown at a detailed level, i.e., all 61 elements are shown, or at a summary level, i.e., only 10 broad categories are shown. Further, SMART allows the organization to compare the preliminary rating to a predefined goal, an industry average, or to a prior assessment. Additionally, the layout of the SMART report allows an organization to readily identify areas that require improvement.
FIG. 3 illustrates a portion of a SMART report in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention. A first column (10) lists the broad categories. A second column (12) lists the items within each of the categories. A third column (14) graphically represents the “assessed capability maturity” (ACM) (16). The third column is sub-divided into five levels (L1, L2, L3, L4, and L5) corresponding to the maturity levels listed above. For each item, the ACM is represented by shading the corresponding row up to the appropriate level. If the ACM is not at a goal (18), i.e., the level at which the organization wishes to be for the particular item, then an additional shading representing a gap (20) between the goal (18) and the ACM (16) is present.
For example, in FIG. 3, Category 2 contains four items: Item D (2), Item E (4), Item F (6), and Item G (8). Specifically, looking at Item G (8), the ACM (16) is at level 2 (22), while the goal (18) is at level 3 (24). Thus, a gap (20) is present between level 2 (22) and level 3 (24) on the row containing Item G (8). Thus, the organization can readily see that Item & (8) is below the goal (18). By contrast, the organization can also readily see that capability maturity level for Item F (6) is at the goal (26) set for this item, so there is no gap relative to Item F (6).
Returning back to the SMA phase, once the preliminary rating has been completed, the assessment entity reviews the preliminary rating with the organization. During the review, the preliminary rating may be revised, if necessary. Once this has been completed, a final rating is generated.
During the corrective action plan (CAP) phase, the CAP is generated using the final rating and the Security Assessment Matrix. The proposed actions are aimed at improving the items that have gaps and bringing the items up to the goal. Additionally, items in the CAP may also be prioritized according to the needs and resources of the organization. During the corrective action plan execution phase, the CAP is executed. For example, if the SAM states that for a certain item to be at Level 3, “the policy is written down,” and to be at Level 4, “there is an assigned manager in charge of applying this policy,” then it follows that if an organization is assessed at Level 3 for this item, and its goal is to be at Level 4, then the CAP should include the following action: “Put a manager in charge of this policy.”
The monitoring phase of the SMA includes periodic SMART reports to ensure that goals are met and maintained. Further, during this phase, the assessment entity may detect change in the environment that might require additions or changes to the security practices and/or policies. Additionally, during the monitoring phase, the assessment entity may provide assistance for debriefing the organization in the event of an information security incident. In one or more embodiments of the invention, the monitoring phase is optional.
FIG. 4 illustrates a flowchart detailing the SMA method in accordance with another embodiment of the invention. Initially, the organization's business goals are determined (Step 112), as well as the associated risk in terms of information security (Step 114). Written documentation is then collected about the organization's existing information security policies and practices (Step 116). Additional information is then collected via interviews (Step 118). Using the information gathered in Steps 112 through 118, the SAM rating is generated (Step 120). If additional information is obtained (Step 122), then step 120 may be repeated. If no additional information is obtained (Step 122), then a list of corrective actions is proposed (Step 124). The corrective actions are subsequently prioritized (Step 126) and executed (Step 128) to generate modified information security policies and procedures. The modified information security policies and procedures are then monitored (Step 130). If there is a change in the information security environment, e.g.) a first organization merges with a second organization resulting in the first organization's network being integrated into the second organization's network, or if the time for a periodic review arrives (Step 132), then the process proceeds back to Step 116.
The invention, in one or more embodiments, may have one or more of the following advantages. The SMA method is a systematic approach that includes a process, a detailed method for assessment (i.e., SAM), and a reporting tool (i.e., SMART). Further, the SMA method covers all aspects of information security and explicitly defines what each level means for each item. Further, the SMA method is action oriented. Further, each item is assessed as a capability maturity rather than pass/fail, allowing an organization to readily gauge where the organization is with respect to a particular information security item and to measure progress over time or against a goal, even if that progress is gradual. Additionally, the security assessment matrix may be used as a list of recommendations to detail how the organization may attain its information security goals.
Further, the SMA method is easy to apply, as each item and corresponding set of criteria for each maturity level associated with the item are clearly defined. Further, the SMA method is flexible, as it may be used for multiple purposes. For example, the SMA may be used for the purpose of establishing to a customer or regulatory authority that an organization has the required capability to perform a certain task. The SMA may also be used for the purpose of internally monitoring, over time, improvements decided by the organization's management. The SMA may also be used for the purpose of meeting a certain industry standard or reaching a goal established through analysis of the competition's security capabilities.
Further, the invention produces an objective rating of an organization's information security practices and policies removing the subjective element of the assessment process.
While the invention has been described with respect to a limited number of embodiments, those skilled in the art, having benefit of this disclosure, will appreciate that other embodiments can be devised which do not depart from the scope of the invention as disclosed herein. Accordingly, the scope of the invention should be limited only by the attached claims.
1.-19. (canceled)
20. A method for assessing an information security policy and practice of an organization, comprising:
collecting information about the information security policy and practice of the organization;
generating a rating for each of a plurality of information security items using a security maturity assessment matrix and the collected information,
wherein the security maturity assessment matrix comprises a first dimension and a second dimension,
wherein the first dimension corresponds to the plurality of information security items,
wherein the second dimension corresponds to a plurality of maturity levels, and
wherein each rating is derived using the first dimension and the second dimension;
generating a graphical assessment of the ratings; and
displaying the graphical assessment of the ratings.
21. The method of claim 20, further comprising:
generating a new rating for each of a plurality of information security items using the security maturity assessment matrix when there is a change in an information security environment of the organization.
22. The method of claim 20, wherein the graphical assessment of the ratings is generated by a security maturity assessment reporting tool.
23. The method of claim 22, wherein the security maturity assessment reporting tool comprises functionality to track the ratings of each of the plurality of information security items over time.
24. The method of claim 22, wherein the security maturity assessment reporting tool comprises functionality to graphically compare the ratings associated with each of the plurality of information security items with a corresponding rating goal associated with each of the plurality of information security items.
25. The method of claim 20, further comprising:
determining how to modify the information security policy and practice of the organization using the rating for the at least one of the plurality of security items.
26. The method of claim 25, wherein determining how to modify the information security policy and practice of the organization, comprises:
generating a corrective action using the rating for at least one of the plurality of information security items and the security maturity assessment matrix.
27. The method of claim 26, wherein generating the corrective action comprises:
obtaining a first description from the security maturity assessment matrix corresponding to the rating of the at least one of the plurality of information security items;
obtaining a second description from the security maturity assessment matrix corresponding to a goal rating of the at least one of the plurality of information security items; and
comparing the first description with the second description to obtain the corrective action for the at least one of the plurality of information security items.
28. The method of claim 27, further comprising:
executing the corrective action to create a new security information policy and practice.
29. The method of claim 28, further comprising:
monitoring the new security information policy and practice.
30. The method of claim 20, wherein at least one of the plurality of security items corresponds to an information security item associated with at least one selected from the group consisting of BS7799 and ISO17799.
31. The method of claim 20, wherein at least one of the plurality of maturity levels corresponds to a maturity level associated with a Capability Maturity Model
32. The method of claim 31, wherein the maturity level is at least one selected from the group consisting of: initial, repeatable, defined, managed, and optimized.
33. The method of claim 20, wherein at least one of the plurality of information security items in the first dimension is associated with a scope requirement.
34. The method of claim 33, wherein the scope requirement defines what portions of the organization to which the at least one of the plurality of information security items applies.
35. The method of claim 30, wherein the first dimension is displayed using at least one row and the second dimension is displayed using at least one column.
36. A computer system for assessing an information security policy and practice of an organization, comprising.
a processor;
a memory;
an input means; and
software instructions stored in the memory for enabling the computer system under control of the processor, to:
collect information about the information security policy and practice of the organization;
generate a rating for each of a plurality of information security items using a security maturity assessment matrix and the collected information,
wherein the security maturity assessment matrix comprises a first dimension and a second dimension,
wherein the first dimension corresponds to the plurality of information security items,
wherein the second dimension corresponds to a plurality of maturity levels, and
wherein each rating is derived using the first dimension and the second dimension;
generate a graphical assessment of the ratings;
display the graphical assessment of the ratings.
37. The computer system of claim 36, further comprising software instructions stored in the memory for enabling the computer system under control of the processor, to:
generate a new rating for each of a plurality of information security items using the security maturity assessment matrix when there is a change in an information security environment of the organization.
38. The computer system of claim 36, wherein the graphical assessment of the ratings is generated by a security maturity assessment reporting tool.
39. The computer system of claim 38, wherein the security maturity assessment reporting tool comprises functionality to track the ratings of each of the plurality of information security items over time.
40. The computer system of claim 38, wherein the security maturity assessment reporting tool comprises functionality to graphically compare the ratings associated with each of the plurality of information security items with a corresponding rating goal associated with each of the plurality of information security items.
41. The computer system of claim 36, further comprising software instructions stored in the memory for enabling the computer system under control of the processor, to:
determine how to modify the information security policy and practice of the organization using the rating for the at least one of the plurality of security items.
42. The computer system of claim 41, wherein software instructions stored in the memory for enabling the computer system under control of the processor, to determine how to modify the information security policy and practice of the organization, comprise software instructions for:
generating a corrective action using the rating for at least one of the plurality of information security items and the security maturity assessment matrix.
43. The computer system of claim 42, wherein software instructions stored in the memory for enabling the computer system under control of the processor, to generate the corrective action comprise software instructions for:
obtaining a first description from the security maturity assessment matrix corresponding to the rating of the at least one of the plurality of information security items;
obtaining a second description from the security maturity assessment matrix corresponding to a goal rating of the at least one of the plurality of information security items; and
comparing the first description with the second description to obtain the corrective action for the at least one of the plurality of information security items.
44. The computer system of claim 42, further comprising software instructions stored in the memory for enabling the computer system under control of the processor, to:
execute the corrective action to create a new security information policy and practice.
45. The computer system of claim 44, further comprising software instructions stored in the memory for enabling the computer system under control of the processor, to:
monitor the new security information policy and practice.
46. The computer system of claim 36, wherein at least one of the plurality of security items corresponds to an information security item associated with at least one selected from the group consisting of BS7799 and ISO17799.
47. The computer system of claim 36, wherein at least one of the plurality of maturity levels corresponds to a maturity level associated with a Capability Maturity Model
48. The computer system of claim 47, wherein the maturity level is at least one selected from the group consisting of: initial, repeatable, defined, managed, and optimized.
49. The computer system of claim 36, wherein at least one of the plurality of information security items in the first dimension is associated with a scope requirement.
50. The computer system of claim 49, wherein the scope requirement defines what portions of the organization to which the at least one of the plurality of information security items applies.
51. The computer system of claim 36, wherein the first dimension is displayed using at least one row and the second dimension is displayed using at least one column.