If you had to go up one level in a train station, would you take the stairs or use the escalator? Most people would choose the escalator. But what if the staircase played musical notes like an interactive piano? This may change things, right? A couple of years ago, Volkswagen began sponsoring an initiative called The Fun Theory that tested the degree to which they could change people’s behavior for the better by introducing an element of fun. In one example, they found that by adding a unique element to the stairs – transforming it into an interactive piano – they were able to increase staircase use by 66%. You can watch the short video here.
You can apply this same principle to your training and awareness programs -- find your own piano staircase, and use it to begin guiding people to choose the right thing on their own. Chris and I have been working on a report that stresses the importance of organizational culture in the development of risk and compliance programs. Throughout the research process, we asked risk and compliance professionals and vendors in the space the same question: “How are you influencing and promoting positive behavior?”
You can create new technical controls and policies, and you can require employees to sign attestations all day, but these efforts have minimal value (or worse) when there’s no positive reinforcement. When compliance and risk management are considered obligatory tasks, rather than meaningful efforts that the company values, it diminishes the perceived importance of ethical behavior.
Today we see two basic flavors of cloud IAM. One archetype is the model offered by Covisint, VMware Horizon, Symplified, Okta, OneLogin, etc.: these vendors provide relatively tight integration, but less capable identity services based on their respective firm's own intellectual property. Because of the above, these offerings clearly have a short implementation time. The other camp of vendors believes in providing hosted services of "legacy" IAM products: CA Technologies coming out with CloudMinder, Lighthouse adding their own IP to IBM TIM/TAM, Simeio Solutions blending OpenAM and Oracle's identity stack with their own secret sauce, and Verizon Business using NetIQ'sIDM stack as a basis for their hosted offering solution.
Last night I stumbled across a documentary on BBC2 (content only available to UK residents – sorry!) about the human brain. One section talked about how the brain perceived risk issues – obviously an interesting topic for security folk!
A test subject was placed into a brain scanner and asked to estimate the likelihood of 80 different negative events occurring to him in the future – from developing cancer, to his house being burgled, to breaking a leg etc. Once he had stated his opinion, the real likelihood was then displayed to him.
At the end of the 80 events, the process resets and the subject is presented with the same events and asked to, once again, state his perceived likelihood, although this time with some knowledge of the actual answers.
The results are surprising.
Where his initial response had been too pessimistic, the test subject adjusted his perception to align with the actual likelihood. However, where he had initially been too optimistic, his opinion remain largely unchanged by the facts! It was apparent that the brain proactively maintained a ‘rose-tinted’ view of the risks, accommodating a more optimistic view but shunning anything more negative.
The scientists argued that this was the brain did this for two main reasons
1 – To minimise stress and anxiety, for the resultant health benefits; and
2 – Because an optimistic outlook helps drive success, support ambition and keep humanity striving for a better future.
Cloud providers and many federated IAM practitioners are excited about OAuth, a new(ish) security technology on the scene. I’ve written about OAuth in Protecting Enterprise APIs With A Light Touch. The cheat-sheet list I keep of major OAuth product support announcements already includes items from Apigee, Covisint, Google, IBM, Layer 7, Microsoft, Ping Identity, and salesforce.com. (Did I miss yours? Let me know.)
OAuth specializes in securing API/web service access by a uniquely identified client app on behalf of a uniquely identified user. It has flows for letting the user explicitly consent to (authorize) this connection, but generally relies on authorizing the actions of the calling application itself through simple authentication. So does the auth part of the name stand for authentication, authorization, or what? Let’s go with “all of the above.”
However, OAuth is merely plumbing of a sort similar to the WS-Security standard (or, for that matter, HTTP Basic Authentication). It doesn’t solve every auth* problem known to humankind, not by a long shot. What other IAM solutions are popping up in the API-economy universe? Two standards communities are building solutions on top of OAuth to round out the picture:
Now, I wasn’t born in Texas, but I got here as soon as I could. I’ve lived in Dallas, TX for 30 years so I consider myself an adopted native-Texan. I’ll be at South-by-Southwest Interactive this weekend, so I thought I’d share some tips for all my current and future friends. For those of you from out-of-state – known as furriners – I hope you’ll find this advice helpful.
Last Friday, after a long week of RSA conference events and meetings, I eagerly looked forward to slipping on my headphones and enjoying the relative silence of my flight back to Dallas. As I approached my seat, I saw I was sitting next to a United States Air Force (USAF) officer. I looked at his rank and saw two stars on his uniform, making him a major general. I had a sudden sense of nostalgia and I instinctively wanted to salute him. I resisted the urge, introduced myself, and thanked him for his service.
Over the next two hours I had the most unexpected and fascinating conversation of my RSA week. It turned out that my fellow traveler is the commanding officer of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). According to the website, the AFRL is “the Air Force’s only organization wholly dedicated to leading the discovery, development, and integration of war fighting technologies for our air, space, and cyberspace forces.” We discussed a variety of open source topics, including electromagnetic pulse weapons, cyberweapons, Stuxnet, unmanned aerial vehicles, USAF renewable energy initiatives, as well as national policy.
The new revolution in apps and social media continues at a stunning rate. Nearly every day a colleague tells me of another app or site that is bubbling up and about to hit the big time. Many will not break through, but some will capture the imagination and become the next generation of YouTube and Facebook.
The behaviour of certain apps/sites, however, gives me some cause for concern. As a recent entrant to Pinterest, I was alarmed to note that the site takes a copy of the pinned image and serves that from its own servers. The burden of managing copyright issues seems to sit firmly with the users, most of whom never give such legislation a second thought. There is a method for removing content however, unsurprisingly, it’s not half as simple as pinning new content. Pinterest’s terms and conditions are also interesting, giving it “irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free” permission to “exploit” member content.
The Pinterest site is building its value on other people’s content — which is fine as long as those people have consented. I recently looked at some interesting Infographics pinned on the site, all of which must have taken considerable resources to put together, yet I never once needed to visit the source site, which may have perhaps triggered advertising income vital to enabling them to continue their work. I wonder if they even realize their content is available in this way?
The legendary British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli is said to have noted that “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Much of the technology world is focused on statistics and metrics. You’ve often heard it said, “If I can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist.” Known as the McNamara fallacy — named after the business tycoon turned Vietnam-era Secretary of Defense — this famous idea failed miserably as a strategy. While it sounds good to the CEO’s ears, there is a corollary bubbling up below him that implicitly states that “If my boss wants to measure something that doesn’t exist, then I’ll invent it!”
Last night I attended a vendor presentation about cloud-based risk and the threat from nation state attacks. Unfortunately, due to a busy schedule and a difficult journey, I arrived just as the final presentation moved to its Q&A stage. Listening to a Q&A session when I had no idea what the content of the presentation had been was actually quite an interesting experience, unfortunately not for all the best reasons. A section of the audience immediately dived into the detail and tried to find fault with the solutions that had evidently been outlined. They poked and prodded the presenter until she admitted that no solution was 100% and, yes, there were ways to mount a successful attack even with her recommendations in place. At that point, the questioners sat back in their seats, triumphant – they had won. There seemed little interest in continuing the conversation to figure out ways to minimize the remaining risk, and their body language suggested that they had mentally discounted everything that had been said.
I was a little disappointed by this. Some S&R pros seem to treat information security as an academic exercise, a challenge where the best argument wins and security is a mere footnote. These folk are often also the ones who overreact to very complex, and very unlikely, technical threat scenarios while overlooking behaviors and processes that may be fundamentally flawed. They appear unhappy with any security solution that isn’t perfect. I had hoped that we all recognized that good security was not about hitting a home-run; it’s much more about applying the 80/20 rule over and over again, iteratively reducing the risk to the organization.