The National Institute of Standards Cybersecurity Framework (NIST CSF for short) is a set of best practices recommended for businesses to protect critical IT infrastructure. Published in 2014, it’s been adopted by about one-third of large companies at least in part, as indicated by a survey of CISOs last year by Tenable Network Security.
In any effective risk management program, you will find a team of dedicated analysts armed with robust analyses. However, an analysis is only as effective as the rationale. I have identified five simple components that help in any risk assessment, with the FAIR model or other methods.
This time last year we provided you with a list of five must-have resources to delve into risk. If you haven’t invested 30 hours into these books, there’s no better time than now!
If you’re looking to hire a cyber risk analyst – or if you are a risk analyst looking to up your game – I recommend reading Jack Jones’ new eBook An Executive’s Guide to Cyber Risk Economics where you’ll find the definitive checklist of skills required to do reliable risk analysis.
The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (NIST CSF) is one of the cornerstones – and most popular features – of US government policy to strengthen our nation’s cybersecurity. The hottest topic at the recent NIST workshop aimed at updating and refining the CSF was the development of metrics.
During the April meeting of the Operational Risk workgroup, the members continued working on a project to recast a list of top operational risks using the FAIR model. Quick recap of this effort so far - every year, you’ll find numerous lists of supposed “top risks” from various sources, but are they even risks?
The terms “risk appetite” and its close cousin “risk tolerance” are often poorly understood, very rarely used to good effect, and commonly used interchangeably.
In my previous post (No Data? No Problem) I discussed the question, “How do you make estimates when you have no data?” This post focuses on a related question – whether historical data can be relied upon to reflect the future.
FAIR Institute Member Wade Baker surveyed over a hundred CISOs and corporate board directors to find out just why these two groups have so much trouble communicating. The results are in the just released Cyber Balance Sheet from Wade’s Cyentia Institute and risk management firm Focal Point (FAIR Institute Chairman Jack Jones was a contributor).