Paul wrote:
> Saving money is a form of generating revenue indeed, but even in his
> description Ben is forced to use the words "reducing the risk" to
describe
> his money saving techniques. That's loss avoidance, plain and simple.
One aspect of saving money is indeed risk avoidance. But my point was
that the introduction of effective procedure sets is a very direct method
of saving money for the organisation, not just through risk avoidance but
through the reduction in costs associated with: staffing levels, as people
become more efficient when following a procedure instead of making it up
as they go; staffing type, as a less skilled workforce is required to
execute standard proceduralised functions; and through quality, as fewer
mistakes means less time is spent in fixing problems and repeating
actions.
So its not just about saving money through risk reduction, but is also
about directly reducing the operational overheads of the business through
the use of procedures, which will also improve the security outcome.
--
Benjamin M.A. Robson
Senior Security Consultant
Classic Blue Solutions
134-142 Ferrars St, Southbank
Victoria, Australia, 3006
Phone: +61-(0)3-9684-3104
Mobile: +61-(0)434-149-022
Fax: +61-(0)3-9682-8680
full-disclosure-bounces_at_lists.grok.org.uk wrote on 26/09/2006 04:45:16 AM:
> --On Monday, September 25, 2006 11:30:36 -0400 "Kenneth F. Belva"
> <ken_at_ftusecurity.com> wrote:
>
> > Paul,
> >
> > Thanks for your comments.
> >
> >> Unless you can demonstrate concrete revenue generationg directly
> >> attributable to security, I don't think you can overcome that
perception
> >> (and loss avoidance through trust building does not generate
revenue.)
> >
> > I believe the purpose of the paper is to move away from the loss
avoidance
> > model and describe information security in fashion that demonstrates
how
> > security mechanisms have a direct role to play in the creation of
assets
> > and business relationships.
> >
> I understand that, but I think your trust model is merely a euphemism
for
> loss avoidance. And I don't see how you can avoid being seen as loss
> avoidance - unless you can show the ability to generate revenue.
>
> Ben Robson writes, 'Firstly, your statement, "After all, information
> security doesn?t make money?it only spends." in my experience is
actually
> incorrect. An effective information security outcome actually will save
a
> company a significant amount of money.'
>
> Saving money is a form of generating revenue indeed, but even in his
> description Ben is forced to use the words "reducing the risk" to
describe
> his money saving techniques. That's loss avoidance, plain and simple.
>
> Mind you, I'm not saying there is no merit to couching your argument in
the
> trust model terms. I'm just saying that any PHB worth is salt will
> automatically translate the model into "loss avoidance". They might
make
> dumb decisions from time to time (or at least what appear to be dumb
> decisions to us), but most PHBs *are* pretty intelligent creatures, and
> they excel at cutting through the BS to the bottom line arguments.
(That's
> why, in part, they *are* PHBs.)
>
> Paul Schmehl (pauls_at_utdallas.edu)
> Adjunct Information Security Officer
> The University of Texas at Dallas
> http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
> [attachment "att7uu78.dat" deleted by Benjamin Robson/Australia/IBM]
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Received on Sep 25 2006
Intro
