|
|
To print: Select File and then Print from your browser's menu
-------------------------------------------------------------- This story was printed from ZDNet Australia. --------------------------------------------------------------
|
Groups vie for superiority in security standards competition By Judith N. Mottl, TechRepublic October 23, 2001 URL: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Groups-vie-for-superiority-in-security-standards-competition/0,130061744,120261379,00.htm
The ongoing disagreement between IT security pros about what security standards should look like is not due to a lack of ideas. In fact, the abundance of standards efforts--there are nearly a half-dozen groups working on similar projects at this point--is a big reason why experts say uniform standards haven't yet been, and may never be, developed. Those involved say that a void in leadership, a lack of cooperation and coordination, and the necessity to incorporate both technical requirements and the security process within a standard are the major hurdles. What follows is a snapshot of the groups currently working on security standards as well some insight into why reaching industry agreement on security standards is such a difficult and contentious process.
Plenty of opinions and players
Today's security standards organisations run the gamut from
government initiatives to international standards-setting groups to professional movements within the industry. Here's a look at the biggest players in the field:
Agreeing on a standard Because there are so many initiatives in the works, establishing just one set of standards would be a Herculean task requiring considerable cooperation and some big bucks, say security experts. "It could happen if someone like NIAP takes the leadership role. This would, however, also require that all involved in current duplicative efforts defer to the NIAP lead. And I'm not sure this would ever happen," said James Wingate, director of information assurance for Backbone Security.com. Wingate became aware of the deluge of standards while researching corporate strategies related to vulnerability assessment. He quickly learned there are many simultaneous duplicate efforts as well as conflicting best practices. "It seems there are many out there who seek to portray themselves as having the 'best' of the 'best practices.' In my opinion, NIAP should step up to lead the standards development/best practice promulgation efforts, as it has access to a great deal of experience in standards setting and IT security," he said. While Will Ozier, the GASSP committee chairman since 1992, acknowledges that there are numerous documents offering more detail than GASSP's offering at this point, none, he said, are comprehensive, sufficiently detailed, or generally accepted. A big obstacle facing the GASSP Detailed Principles movement is financial support--he estimates the effort will cost half a million dollars, which would cover start-up costs for the organisation, including establishing an office and a Web site, equipping and staffing testing labs, paying an executive director, and covering incorporation costs. Ozier, also president and founder of OPA, The Integrated Risk Management Group in Petaluma, CA, has served as a member of the International Information Risk Management Advisory Group's Risk Model Builders' Workshop Committee. He is also on the CSI Advisory Council and most recently, he served as a consultant to the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. "No one body has established itself as the authoritative custodian charged with the development and ongoing maintenance of such guidance. There have been several for-profit documents drafted [by vendors or industry groups] that represent the agenda of specific areas of vulnerability, though. But these fall far short of broadly based, Detailed Principles guidance," he said. "What also interferes is the proprietary interest of existing professional organisations and published guidance documents that would be developed and maintained by IISF [the International Information Security Foundation], which is not yet a fully established, not-for-profit entity," he added. Defining the scope of the standards Security expert Ed Skoudis believes that a big obstacle to standards uniformity is that it would need to incorporate both technical issues and policy issues involved in security and that no group's effort yet encompasses both areas. "I don't think it'll be just one group or one standard. Instead, I see two or three initiatives complementing each other within a unified approach in the next few years," said Skoudis, who is vice
president of security strategy for Predictive Systems, a New York network and
security consulting firm. Skoudis recently published his first book, Counter
Hack: A Step-by-Step Guide to Computer Attacks and Effective Defenses
.
Copyright © 2009 CBS Interactive, a CBS Company. All Rights Reserved. |