Standards development - a tough, risky business

News emerged during June of likely further delays to the publication of the third edition of ISO/IEC 27001, this time due to the need to re-align the main body clauses with ISO's revised management systems template (specfically, the 2022 edition of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1 "Consolidated ISO Supplement —  Procedure for the technical work — Procedures specific to ISO",  Annex SL "Harmonized approach for management system standards"). 
 
Although we already have considerable discretion over which information security controls are being managed within our ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management Systems today, an unfortunate side-effect of standardisation, harmonisation, adoption, accreditation and certification is substantial inertia in the system as a whole. It’s a significant issue for our field where the threats, vulnerabilities, impacts and controls are constantly shifting and often moving rapidly ahead of us … but to be honest it’s equally problematic for other emerging and fast-moving fields. Infosec is hardly special in this regard. Just look at what's happening in microelectronics, IT, telecomms, robotics, environmental protection and globalisation generally for examples.

One possible route out of the tar-pit we've unfortunately slid into is to develop forward-thinking ‘future-proof’ standards and release them sooner, before things mature, but that’s a risky approach given uncertainties ahead. It would not be good for ill-conceived/premature standards to drive markets and users in inappropriate directions. It’s also tough for such a large, ponderous, conservative committee as ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27. However, the smart city privacy standard ISO/IEC TS 27570 is a shining beacon of light, with promising signs for the developing security standards on Artificial Intelligence and big data security too. I wish I could say the same of 'cyber', cloud and IoT security but (IMNSHO) the committee is struggling to keep pace with these fields, despite some fabulous inputs and proactive support from members plus the likes of the Cloud Security Alliance and NIST. 
 
The floggings will continue until morale improves.

Another tar-pit escape plan involves speeding-up the standards development process, perhaps also the promotion, accreditation and certification processes that follow each standard's publication – but again there are risks in moving ahead too fast, compromising the quality and value of the standards, damaging ISO/IEC’s established brands. 
 
SC 27 management appears to be working on just such an approach right now with ISO/IEC 27028, putting more time and effort into the informal drafting stages ahead of the formalities of Committee Drafts and voting. The idea is to smooth and speed up the formalities by drafting better standards in the first place, and gaining the committee’s implicit support/consensus ahead of explicit approval. Likewise with recent moves to separate subject matter expert involvement in the creative preliminary stages from national body involvement in the latter stages. We’ll see how that turns out!
 
Personally, I yearn for modern, collaborative, cloud-based methods, particularly for the early informal stages of each standard. I'm sure we could get a lot more done, relatively quickly and painlessly, by working together online as a group in near-realtime ahead of the necessary ISO formalities around proofreading and approval. At the very least, more productive social dialogue between the experts would help get us all to the same chapter, if not on the same page. Committee meetings, whether virtual or in person, are costly and ponderous compared to, say, Google Groups or Microsoft Teams. I see these as complementary not alternatives, not either-or but both-and.

Yet another tar-mitigation option would be for SC 27 leadership to clarify the strategy and (re)align the committee members accordingly, increasing their understanding and support for whatever it takes to optimise the processes. However, ‘leadership’, ‘strategy’, 'alignment’ and 'optimisation' are all difficult in the ISO context, given the importance of due process, ample consideration, cultural awareness, diplomacy and global consensus. Management has cats to herd, guide, persuade and convince rather than unilaterally pushing through or blocking changes (as happens occasionally). Governance is challenging at the best of times: in such a large, international, busy, largely voluntary and diverse organisation, it’s tough-as. 

Looking back, despite all the challenges and all that tar, SC 27 has been remarkably successful, generating and managing a sizeable portfolio of well-respected ISO27k, privacy and other infosec standards. Sure, it could have done better in some areas, but overall the world is in better shape today than it would otherwise have been without SC 27.

Meanwhile, aside from shouting a few choice phrases from the touchline, is there anything we can do to help?
  • As we gain knowledge and expertise, we can give something back. Volunteer as subject matter experts, actively engaging with SC 27 through our national standards bodies to help develop better, more forward-thinking standards, for example by contributing to, reviewing and commenting on draft standards, especially in the early, more creative stages of the drafting process;
  • Propose, draft and offer possible new ISO27k standards, as is currently happening with, say, security control attributes and professional services;
  • Collaborate more, pulling together as a supportive community to develop, understand, adopt and extract value from the standards;
  • Think beyond mere certification. Be more creative and innovative, treating the standards as foundational platforms, suggested good practices worth considering, adapting, adopting and building upon rather than targets, hurdles or constraints on progress (as is happening right now with ISO/IEC 27001);
  • Be open to novel approaches, such as integrated management systems, peer-group and collaborative working, and cherry-picking whichever approaches hold the most promise for achieving our organisations' business objectives (e.g. supplementing or completely replacing the current '27001 Annex A controls with a more contemporary mix);
  • Be more tolerant and considerate of each other, including ISO/IEC, SC 27's management and editorial teams, the accreditation and certification bodies, auditors plus our work and professional colleagues. Remember, we're all on the same side here!

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