Summary of Security Risk Management Controls

Safeguarding information and ensuring organizational integrity require more than just basic security measures. Implementing intricate policies around least privilege, separation of duties, mandatory vacation, job rotation, need to know, and dual control is crucial. Each principle serves a unique purpose in a cohesive strategy designed to protect sensitive data, prevent fraud, and promote operational resilience. There are nuanced differences between these administrative controls, read on to explore their similarities and differences.

Least privilege

Least Privilege - In-depth Analysis

The principle of least privilege is foundational to information security by ensuring that every user is assigned the minimum level of access needed for their job responsibilities. The primary aim of least privilege is to curtail unnecessary access to sensitive systems and data, thereby reducing opportunities for exploitation and minimizing potential damage from insider threats or compromised accounts.

Core Components of Least Privilege

• Access Control Lists: Central to implementing least privilege are comprehensive access control lists that clearly delineate which resources users can access.
• Continual Assessment: An ongoing need exists for continuous assessment to ensure the spectrum of least privilege stays current with evolving job roles and changing technology landscapes.
• Automated Systems: Implementing automated tools to manage and log access changes is crucial to maintaining the intent of least privilege effectively.

Least Privilege Comparisons

• Least privilege vs. Need to Know: While both least privilege and need to know restrict access, the former is more focused on limiting broader operational capabilities, whereas need to know emphasizes restricted access to specific pieces of sensitive information.

Real-World Example of Least Privilege

In a healthcare setting, the least privilege principle ensures that medical staff can access patient records only for the patients they are directly interacting with, thereby maintaining confidentiality and lowering the risk of information breaches.

Target Data Breach (2013)

• Incident: Attackers gained access to Target’s network through credentials stolen from a third-party vendor.
• Failure: The lack of strict access controls allowed the attackers to move laterally within the network, leading to the compromise of 40 million credit card accounts.
• Lesson: Implementing clear separation between vendor access and internal systems could have mitigated this risk.

The principle of least privilege is a fundamental security concept designed to minimize risks by providing users with the minimum levels of access�or permissions�necessary to perform their jobs. In the context of the 2017 Equifax breach, the lack of stringent adherence to this principle was a contributing factor to the severity of the incident. Attackers were able to exploit a vulnerability in the Apache Struts web application framework used by Equifax, gaining access to sensitive data stored on their systems. If proper least privilege policies had been consistently applied and enforced, access to critical data would have been more restricted, potentially limiting the attacker’s ability to traverse the network and access the extensive amounts of personal information that were ultimately compromised. This breach highlighted the necessity of implementing robust least privilege strategies as part of a holistic approach to cybersecurity, reducing the attack surface and containing potential breaches.

Separation of Duties

Separation of Duties - In-depth Analysis

Separation of duties acts as a fundamental control to protect against both errors and malicious acts by distributing responsibilities among multiple individuals. This principle is essential in any operation where financial transactions or regulatory compliance are involved, as it prevents any one individual from having unchecked control over a crucial process.

Core Components of Separation of Duties

• Functional Role Designation: Clearly defining functional roles and responsibilities is crucial to implementing effective separation of duties.
• Transaction Limits: Setting limits on approvals or transaction amounts to ensure no single person has the power to perform significant actions.
• Independent Verification: Incorporating independent verification layers ensures adherence to separation of duties in practice.

Comparisons

• Separation of Duties vs. Dual Control: Whereas separation of duties focuses on dividing processes across multiple role-players, dual control emphasizes joint decision-making and execution, enhancing oversight and minimizing risks associated with singular control.

Real-World Example of Separation of Duties

In manufacturing, the separation of duties might ensure that one technician is responsible for initiating machinery calibration while another verifies the calibration results, preventing potential errors or fraudulent manipulation.

Mandatory vacation

Mandatory Vacation - In-depth Analysis

The practice of enforcing mandatory vacation acts as a covert detection mechanism, allowing organizations to uncover fraudulent activities or operational discrepancies that might occur due to certain employees exploiting consistent control over specific processes or systems.

Core Components of Mandatory Vacation

• Policy Development: Establishing clear guidelines and durations for mandatory vacation, ensuring all employees comply.
• Risk Assessment: Identifying critical roles where mandatory vacation would most effectively reveal irregularities.
• Reporting and Adjustments: Monitoring the impacts and findings from mandatory vacation and making necessary adjustments to policies.

Comparisons

• Mandatory vacation vs. Job Rotation: Although both principles aim to uncover irregularities, mandatory vacation focus on temporary absence revealing issues, whereas job rotation actively engages employees in different roles to prevent stagnation and spotlight vulnerabilities.

Real-World Example of Mandatory Vacation

In audit functions, enforcing mandatory vacation ensures that another auditor can review previous findings and procedures, which might bring to light discrepancies or procedural shortcuts overlooked by the initial auditor. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation recommends a mandatory two week vacation. Such a mandatory vacation is endorsed by many high profile institutions, including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Examples of a company mandating two week vacations include Sourcegraph

Job Rotation

Job Rotation - In-depth Analysis

By encouraging job rotation, organizations facilitate operational transparency and versatility. Employees gain comprehensive insights into different organizational roles, reducing dependency on singular job holders and helping organizations identify employee capabilities and potential weaknesses. In addition to the security benefits, job rotations also facilitates cross-training of employees, enabling more resilience and increasing internal cohesion and synergy.

Core Components of Job Rotation

• Rotation Frameworks: Designing schedules and frameworks that facilitate effective and meaningful rotations without disrupting service levels.
• Skill Development Programs: Tailoring training sessions to equip employees with the necessary skills for new job responsibilities.
• Feedback and Improvement: Collecting employee feedback post-rotation to refine processes and enhance job satisfaction.

Comparisons

• Job Rotation vs. Need to Know: Job rotation aims to expose employees to various roles and perspectives, broadening organizational understanding, while need to know limits exposure to information strictly required for current job duties, enhancing security.

Real-World Example of Job Rotation

Large organizations like multinational corporations may rotate staff between different subsidiaries or departments, granting them holistic organizational perspectives, while simultaneously uncovering procedural inefficiencies.

Need to Know

Need to Know - In-depth Analysis

The need to know principle restricts information access solely to individuals who need such information to fulfil their roles effectively. This limits both accidental and intentional data breaches, keeping critical information confined to pertinent users.

Core Components of Need to Know

• Classification and Labeling: Proper labeling of documents and data sets to ensure users understand the sensitivity level and access permissions, aligning with the need to know protocols.
• Access Request Mechanisms: Streamlined mechanisms for requesting access when there’s a legitimate need to know, which includes meticulous logging and auditing features.
• Information Dispersion Checks: Regular audits to ensure sensitive information complies with need to know constraints and is not over-distributed.

Comparisons

• Need to Know vs. Least privilege: The need to know restricts data access by specific informational content, while least privilege limit rights more broadly across systems and resources.

Real-World Example of Need to Know

Defense industries frequently use the need to know principle, allowing access to classified information strictly on a project or task basis, thus curtailing overall visibility and preventing leaks. In a global enterprise setting, you might find HR leads for different regions, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, operating at the same privilege level. However, each HR professional’s access is determined by their specific “need to know” scope, which restricts them to information relevant to their designated geographical area. For instance, while the American HR lead must have access to data pertinent to U.S. employees, they should be restricted from accessing the payroll data of U.K. employees, and vice versa, as they do not need to know the details of the other area. This distinction ensures that sensitive information remains protected and that access is granted strictly on a need-to-know basis, thus maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of employee data across geographic boundaries.

Dual Control

Dual Control - In-depth Analysis

Dual control ensures that no single individual can execute a crucial procedure or access highly sensitive information without another’s involvement. Dual control acts as a powerful deterrent against unauthorized actions, essentially safeguarding particularly sensitive or critical operations.

Core Components of Dual Control

• Critical Function Mapping: Identifying crucial systems and processes requiring additional security through dual controls.
• Collaborative Protocols: Establishing protocols outlining how dual control is conducted, including authentication, verification, and collaboration steps.
• Audit Trails: Implementing comprehensive audit trails for actions performed under dual control to ensure accountability and traceability.

Comparisons

• Dual Control vs. Separation of Duties: While both principles emphasize distributed responsibilities for enhanced security, dual control centers on collective action, whereas separation of duties divides components of a process among different individuals to prevent unilateral abuse. The distinction between dual control and separation of duties is subtle, yet both aim to minimize the power any single individual holds within an organization. Separation of duties involves dividing responsibilities so that, for example, Department One is responsible for creating new vendors while Department Two handles issuing payments. This division prevents any single department from having the authority to both create a new vendor and process payments to them, with each department clearly having distinct responsibilities. In contrast, dual control requires the concurrence of two individuals for a transaction or action to proceed. Although these individuals share the same responsibility in this scenario, the system mandates that two separate people provide confirmation.

Applying dual control to our vendor creation/payment example might involve ensuring that a newly created vendor’s profile is not activated until it is confirmed by another individual. Similarly, no payment could be processed without dual control verification�although, in some cases, smaller payments might not necessitate dual control, whereas larger payments could require the approval of a manager or another department. If a task is broken down into multiple sub-tasks, then separation of duties likely applies. If the same task requires dual approval, then dual control is in use.

Real-World Example of Dual Control

In banking environments, dual control is often used for operations such as vault access or high-value transaction approvals, requiring simultaneous confirmation by multiple authorized personnel to proceed. The most famous example of dual control is during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war as tensions escalated between the United States and the Soviet Union. The crisis was sparked by the discovery of Soviet ballistic missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles from the U.S. coast, which led to a tense 13-day political and military standoff.

In the midst of this precarious situation was Soviet submarine B-59, part of a flotilla sent to the Caribbean by the Soviet Union. Unlike most other Soviet naval vessels, which required the agreement of only two officers to launch a nuclear weapon, the B-59 had a unique chain of command requiring the consensus of all three senior officers on board: Captain Valentin Savitsky, Political Officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and the flotilla commander himself, Second Captain Vasily Arkhipov.

In the intense pressure and chaos inside the B-59, the situation deteriorated rapidly. The submarine’s air conditioning failed, temperatures soared, and carbon dioxide levels rose dangerously high. The stress and confusion dominating the crew’s minds were compounded by a lack of information on the situation above water. Captain Savitsky, believing that nuclear war might already have commenced, made the decision to arm the B-59’s nuclear torpedo.

The protocol aboard the B-59 required all three commanding officers to agree on the use of nuclear weapons. While Captain Savitsky and Political Officer Maslennikov were in favor of launching the torpedo, it was Vasily Arkhipov who stood firmly against it. Arkhipov’s decision to veto the launch of the nuclear torpedo is now credited with averting a nuclear disaster. This critical moment highlighted the importance of dual and, in this case, triple control, with dual control itself clearly insufficient in this example.

Split Knowledge

Split Knowledge - In-depth Analysis

Split knowledge is a security principle wherein no single individual possesses complete information or ability to execute a particular process. This method is predominantly implemented to protect sensitive data and processes, ensuring that crucial tasks cannot be completed unless specific pieces of information are combined from multiple parties. Split knowledge serves as a vital deterrent against misuse or unauthorized data access, providing enhanced security through distributed information.

Core Components of Split Knowledge

• Information Segmentation: Dividing critical information into segments that are distributed among multiple individuals. Each person holds only a portion of the information necessary to complete a task or access a system.
• Interdependent Access: Configuring systems so that no single individual has the authority or the means to access complete information or execute sensitive tasks without collaboration.
• Secure Communication: Establishing channels and protocols that manage how segments of information are securely exchanged, ensuring that these exchanges are logged and monitored for potential anomalies.

Comparisons

• Split Knowledge vs. Dual Control: Both principles aim to enhance security by preventing unilateral access or actions. Split knowledge focuses on distributing pieces of critical information among multiple individuals, thereby requiring collaboration to complete the puzzle. Meanwhile, dual control necessitates collective action from multiple parties to execute or approve a transaction, with all parties sharing the same access level but required to perform simultaneous confirmations.

The unique aspect of split knowledge is that no individual has complete authority or understanding of the task without collaboration. For example, in a banking scenario where funds are transferred, split knowledge might involve three different individuals each holding a portion of an encryption key required to authorize the transfer. Only when the segments are combined does the key complete, enabling the action. This ensures that no single individual can unilaterally access or misuse the key, thereby safeguarding the process against potential internal threats.

Summary of Security Risk Management Controls

Understanding and leveraging the interplay between least privilege, separation of duties, mandatory vacation, job rotation, need to know, and dual control can significantly fortify an organization’s resistance to both internal and external threats. By deploying these security principles collectively, organizations can construct a layered defense approach that not only minimizes the potential risk of human error, fraud, and data breaches but also fosters a culture of accountability and vigilance. This strategic integration of security measures serves to build a resilient organizational framework capable of withstanding the complex and dynamic challenges of modern-day digital ecosystems.