Skip to main content

IPICS OCTAVE-S

OCTAVE-S stands for Operationally Critical Threat, Asset and Vulnerability Evaluation for Small organisations. It is a version of the full OCTAVE methodology aimed specifically at small to medium sized organisations, i.e. those with up to 100 employees. OCTAVE is a risk-based strategic assessment and planning technique for security. It is a top-down approach that is driven by the business's missions and objectives, and is not technology focussed. OCTAVE-S is simply a streamlined version of OCTAVE, with simple worksheets and less expertise required. The outputs of OCTAVE-S should be similar to those of OCTAVE, it is just that it may be possible to shortcut some of the process in smaller orgnisations. OCTAVE itself is designed to be applicable to any organisation, no matter how large.

The Main OCTAVE principles are as follows:
  • Core Information Security Risk Evaluation Principles
    • Self-directed
      • The organisation takes responsibility for the evaluation
      • The organisation makes the decisions
      • Flexible / adaptable in the face of...
        • Changes to best practices
        • Evolution of known threats
        • Technical weaknesses
        • A defined process
          • Responsibilities are set out and assigned to people
          • How activities should be performed is documented
          • Standards are set for documentation/artefacts : tools, worksheets, catalogues etc.
          • A continuous process over time
        • General Risk Management Principles (general principles beyond InfoSec)
          • Forward looking – proactive
            • Identify future asset that may be significant
            • New classes of threat
            • Focus on critical few
              • Resources are always constrained
              • Avoid spreading effort too thinly
              • Integrated management
                • Information security as routine consideration for general business strategy
              • Organisational / Cultural Principles
                • Open Communication
                  • Information sharing : avoidance of blame/judgment
                  • Global perspective
                    • Consult widely and integrate all views
                    • Widen perspective to organisational goals
                    • Based on teamwork
                  To find out more about OCTAVE-S visit the website, where you can download the Implementation Guide, which contains introductory materials as well as the actual guidelines and worksheets.

                  Comments

                  Popular Posts

                  Trusteer or no trust 'ere...

                  ...that is the question. Well, I've had more of a look into Trusteer's Rapport, and it seems that my fears were justified. There are many security professionals out there who are claiming that this is 'snake oil' - marketing hype for something that isn't possible. Trusteer's Rapport gives security 'guaranteed' even if your machine is infected with malware according to their marketing department. Now any security professional worth his salt will tell you that this is rubbish and you should run a mile from claims like this. Anyway, I will try to address a few questions I raised in my last post about this. Firstly, I was correct in my assumption that Rapport requires a list of the servers that you wish to communicate with; it contacts a secure DNS server, which has a list already in it. This is how it switches from a phishing site to the legitimate site silently in the background. I have yet to fully investigate the security of this DNS, however, as most

                  Security Through Obscurity

                  I have been reminded recently, while looking at several products, that people still rely on the principle of 'security through obscurity.' This is the belief that your system/software/whatever is secure because potential hackers don't know it's there/how it works/etc. Although popular, this is a false belief. There are two aspects to this, the first is the SME who thinks that they're not a target for attack and nobody knows about their machines, so they're safe. This is forgivable if misguided and false. See my post about logging attack attempts on a home broadband connection with no advertised services or machines. The second set of people is far less forgivable, and those are the security vendors. History has shown that open systems and standards have a far better chance of being secure in the long run. No one person can think of every possible attack on a system and therefore they can't secure a system alone. That is why we have RFCs to arrive at ope

                  Web Hosting Security Policy & Guidelines

                  I have seen so many websites hosted and developed insecurely that I have often thought I should write a guide of sorts for those wanting to commission a new website. Now I have have actually been asked to develop a web hosting security policy and a set of guidelines to give to project managers for dissemination to developers and hosting providers. So, I thought I would share some of my advice here. Before I do, though, I have to answer why we need this policy in the first place? There are many types of attack on websites, but these can be broadly categorised as follows: Denial of Service (DoS), Defacement and Data Breaches/Information Stealing. Data breaches and defacements hurt businesses' reputations and customer confidence as well as having direct financial impacts. But surely any hosting provider or solution developer will have these standards in place, yes? Well, in my experience the answer is no. It is true that they are mostly common sense and most providers will conform