Skip to main content

You say it's 'Security Best Practice' - prove it!

Over the last few weeks I have had many conversations and even attended presentations where people talk about 'Security Best Practices' and how we should all follow them. However, 'Best Practice' is just another way of saying 'What everyone else does!' OK, so if everyone else does it and it's the right thing to do, you should be able to prove it. The trouble is that nobody ever measures best practice - why would you? If everyone's doing it, it must be right.

Well, I don't agree with this sentiment. Don't get me wrong, many of the so-called best practices are good for most organisations, but blindly following them without thought for your specific business could cause as many problems as you solve. I see best practice like buying an off-the-peg suit - it will fit most people acceptably well if they are a fairly 'normal' size and shape. However, it will never fit as well as a tailored suit and isn't an option for those of us who are outside the bounds of 'normal' according to the retailers.

The real problem is that no company is actually normal, i.e. exactly the same as other companies. Best practice is very useful for small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs), who can't afford to have an expensive security team on hand permanently - security architects and strategic security leaders that can actually turn security into a business enabler demand 6-figure salaries. In the absence of these people, you have little choice other than to follow everyone else or hire consultants in to advise on what really matters and what is right for your business.

Large enterprises, however, can afford in-house security teams and should be demanding more from their security leadership than simple, formulaic repeating of the toolsets that everyone else deploys and that they've seen implemented in their previous organisations. So why do large enterprises follow best practice without much thought? To my mind it's for one of two reasons: it's either that they know no better, or it's so they can defend an audit and protect their jobs. For example, the ICO won't fine you after a breach if you've followed best practice, but if you've done something unusual then you'll have to justify it and defend it. If you have done the job properly though, this defence is easy as you will have gone through a logical set of steps to arrive at that solution. It is a much stronger defence to be able to justify your deployed capabilities rather than just saying that everyone else does it.

Technology should be the last thing that you decide upon once you know what your control objectives are, which you will only be able to articulate when you really understand the specific business in front of you and the strategic objectives. Then you have to look at the threat scenarios for your business and balance the risks accordingly. Don't follow the crowd blindly; I encourage you to strive for the best solution, not best practice.


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