Classification versus tagging

I'm not happy with the idea of 'levels' in many contexts, including information classification schemes. The term 'level' implies a stepped progression in one dimension. Information risk and security is more nuanced or fine-grained than that, and multidimensional too.
The problems with 'levels' include:
  • Boundary/borderline cases, when decisions about which level is appropriate are arbitrary but the implications can be significant; 
  • Dynamics - something that is a medium level right now may turn into a high or a low at some future point, perhaps when certain event occurs; 
  • Context e.g. determining the sensitivity of information for deliberate internal distribution is not the same as for unauthorized access, especially external leakage and legal discovery (think: internal email); 
  • Dependencies and linkages e.g. an individual data point has more value as part of a time sequence or data set ... 
  • ... and aggregation e.g. a structured and systematic compilation of public information aggregated from various sources can be sensitive; 
  • Differing perspectives, biases and prejudices, plus limited knowledge, misunderstandings, plain mistakes and secret agendas of those who classify stuff, almost inevitably bringing an element of subjectivity to the process despite the appearance of objectivity; 
  • And the implicit "We've classified it and [maybe] done something about securing it ... so we're done here. Next!". It's dismissive. 
The complexities are pretty obvious if you think about it, especially if you have been through the pain of developing and implementing a practical classification scheme. Take a blood pressure reading, for instance, or an annual report or a system security log. How would you classify them? Whatever your answer, I'm sure I can think of situations where those classifications are inappropriate. We might agree on the classification for a particular situation, hence a specific level or label might be appropriate right there, but information and situations are constantly changing, in general, hence in the real world the classification can be misleading and unhelpful. And if you insist on narrowing the classification criteria, we're moving away from the main advantage of classification which is to apply broadly similar risk treatments to each level. Ultimately, every item needs its own unique classification, so why bother?

Another issue with classification schemes is that they over-emphasize one aspect or feature of information - almost always that's confidentiality. What about integrity, availability, utility, value and so forth? I prefer a conceptually different approach using several tags or parameters rather than single classification 'levels'. A given item of information, or perhaps a collection of related items, might usefully be measured and tagged according to several parameters such as:
  • Sensitivity, confidentiality or privacy expectations; 
  • Source e.g. was it generated internally, found on the web, or supplied by a third party?; 
  • Trustworthiness, credibility and authenticity - could it have been faked?; 
  • Accuracy and precision which matters for some applications, quite a lot really; 
  • Criticality for the business, safety, stakeholders, the world ...; 
  • Timeliness or freshness, age and history, hinting at the information lifecycle; 
  • Extent of distribution, whether known and authorized or not; 
  • Utility and value to various parties - not just the current or authorized possessors; 
  • Probability and impact of various incidents i.e. the information risks; 
  • Etc. 
The tags or parameters required depend on what needs to be done. If we're determining access rights, for instance, access-related tags are more relevant than the others. If we're worried about fraud and deception, those integrity aspects are of interest. In other words, there's no need to attempt to fully assess and tag or measure everything, right now: a more pragmatic approach (measuring and tagging whatever is needed for the job in hand) works fine.

Within each parameter, you might consider the different tags or labels to represent levels but I'm more concerned with the broader concept of taking into account a number of relevant parameters in parallel, not just sensitivity or whatever. 

All that complexity can be hidden within Gary's Little World, handled internally within the information risk and security function and related colleagues. Beyond that in the wider organization, things get messy in practice but, generally speaking, people working routinely with information "just know" how important/valuable it is, what's important about it, and so on. They may express it in all sorts of ways (not just in words!), and that's fine. They may need a little guidance here and there but I'm not keen on classification as a method for managing information risk. It's too crude for me, except perhaps as a basic starting point. More useful is the process of getting people to think about this stuff and do whatever is appropriate under the circumstances. It's one of those situations where the journey is more valuable than the destination. The analysis generates understanding and insight which are more important that the 'level'.

Popular posts from this blog

Pragmatic ISMS implementation guide (FREE!)

Image
Early this morning ( very  early!) I remotely attended an ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27/WG 1 editing meeting in London discussing the planned revision of ISO/IEC 27003:2017 . Overall, the meeting was very productive in that we got through a  long  list of expert comments on the preliminary draft standard, debated the objectives of the project and the standard and reached consensus on most points. In summary: 27003 is to be revised to align with the current 2022 releases of ISO/IEC 27001 , 27002 and 27005 : These changes are  mostly  minor aside from the new section 6.3 on ISMS changes.
Read more

Two dozen information risks that ISO forgot

Image
Selecting the wrong controls - controls that are inappropriate, ineffective, too costly, impracticable, fragile, unnecessary, counterproductive or whatever, often as a result of blind faith in fads and fashions of the day and FOMO e.g. MFA, AI, cyber Failing to select the right controls - controls that are ideal for the particular situation, both now and in perpetuity, for whatever reason - mostly ignorance and prejudice Selecting and implementing controls at the wrong time or in the wrong way (where 'wrong' includes ineffective, inappropriate, sub-optimal e.g. bolting on controls rather than designing and building them in) Inept and inaccurate identification, analysis and quantification of risk, including reliance on p oor quality (incomplete, inaccurate, out of date, misleading, unreliable ...) information about actual risks, particularly subtle and emerging risks plus those involving deliberate concealment and misdirection e.g. fraud, misinformation, disinformation, propagan
Read more

Philosophical phriday - compliance risk

Image
According to a vendor's promotional video interview I saw recently, the 'cybersecurity compliance burden' has allegedly become so significant that [customer] organisations are eagerly buying [their] software tools and services to help them manage and fulfil their obligations. The vendor's argument goes that, instead of accumulating a ragtag bunch of policies and other controls relating to user Identification and Authentication (I&A), for instance, it makes sense to:  Identify all the cybersecurity-related laws, regulations and standards that apply to the organisation; Examine them for any security control requirements relating to, say, I&A; Rationalise the I&A controls down to the smallest set that satisfies all the requirements - the lowest common denominator; Design, implement, use, manage and maintain those I&A controls; Have the I&A controls checked or audited to gain assurance that the compliance requirements are met.  OK so far? Sounds reasonab
Read more

ISMS internal audit priorities

Image
A thread on the ISO27k Forum sparked my imagination over coffee this morning. Hope had previously asked for assistance with an ISO/IEC 27001:2022 audit plan.  Bhushan offered a lengthy and generally sound response explaining how to use a spreadsheet with tabs to plan and record the audit work performed on 100% of the main body clauses and 50% of the 93 Annex A controls, day-by-day. That's OK ... except it wasn't entirely clear that he was interpreting and elaborating on the standard's actual requirements. ISO/IEC 27001 does not explicitly require, for example, that (as Bhushan stated) "ALL the management system clauses from 4 to 10 AND their sub-clauses need to be listed and audited" in an ISMS internal audit, although evidently he interprets it in that way. In clause 9.2.1, the standard states a requirement for internal audits to provide information on whether the ISMS conforms to the organization’s own requirements for the ISMS plus the requirements of the stan
Read more

Reading between the lines of ISO27001 [L O N G]

Image
ISO/IEC 27001 is a succinct, formally-worded standard for two key reasons: It is deliberately generic, being applicable to all manner of organisations regardless of difference in location/s, size, industry, maturity, structure, information risk and security status ... and so on. In effect, it specifies the lowest common denominator - the things that ALL organisations should be doing to manage their information security controls, as a minimum. The hurdle is set low enough that every organisation ought to find value in designing, implementing and operating an I nformation S ecurity M anagement S ystem as laid out in the standard. It is a certifiable standard, explicitly specifying the characteristics that every certified organisation's ISMS is expected to have. Again, it is a minimal specification with no concept of typical, average or maximum security: that is entirely down to the organisations themselves to determine, following the information risk management processes minimally de
Read more

Passionate dispassion

Image
Someone who is actively involved in, or is managing, an activity is patently not independent of it. They may well make a conscious, rational and determined effort to be objective, dispassionately reviewing evidence etc ., but their subconscious/emotional biases/prejudices and beliefs/value-systems will inevitably influence what they do. With the best will in the world, they will struggle to challenge and assess their past decisions and activities, especially if they were "certain" or "determined" or genuinely believed they were "doing the right thing". Furthermore, it is very hard for anyone to review the things they did not do, decisions they did not make or options they did not even consider. Mostly, they remain out of sight or out of the question.
Read more

45 ISO Management Systems Standards

Image
The ISO website  currently lists 45 published M anagement S ystems S tandards: 1. ISO 7101:2023 Healthcare organization management — Management systems for quality in healthcare organizations — Requirements 2. ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems — Requirements 3. ISO 10012:2003 Measurement management systems — Requirements for measurement processes and measuring equipment 4. ISO 13485:2016 Medical devices — Quality management systems — Requirements for regulatory purposes 5. ISO 14001:2015 Environmental management systems — Requirements with guidance for use 6. ISO 14298:2021 Graphic technology — Management of security printing processes
Read more

Philosophical phriday - a noncompliance ramble

Image
In a previous philosophical phriday post , I moaned about vendors of security compliance support/management tools and services over-promising and under-delivering - an admittedly biased, even cynical opinion piece about the compliance imperative . A recent article in Corporate Compliance Insights notes that "CISOs are not just defenders against cyber threats but also champions of compliance and operational resilience". Hmmm, are CISOs 'compliance champs', really? Today, I'm discussing alternatives to being compliance-driven. How else can organisations drive their information risk, security and related concerns in a positive direction?
Read more

Adaptive SME security Crowdstrike special

Image
As if on cue, along comes a golden opportunity to consider what the Adaptive SME security  approach has to say regarding the Crowdstrike incident: That's not 20/20 hindsight but foresight: I've picked out the most relevant rows from the security controls table published in the guide 24 hours before the incident.  Although Crowdstrike primarily supplies much larger enterprises than SMEs, the incident could equally have afflicted other security software, or indeed operating systems such as Windows and assorted cloud apps commonly used by SMEs. Regardless of the details, it is a wake-up call, an opportunity to consider and respond to the information risks ... and to adapt , accordingly.
Read more