Structure & Frameworks for Establishing and Managing the Internal IT Security Program, Cybersecurity risk profile

(1)Structure & Frameworks for Establishing and Managing the Internal IT Security Program

This week, our focus is upon the structures and frameworks used to establish and manage a business’s internal cybersecurity or IT security program. Most businesses do not attempt to create their own structure from the ground up. Instead, they adopt and adapt one or more governance frameworks developed by an industry standards setting body, e.g. ISACA, a national standards body (e.g. NIST or the British Standards Organization), or an international body such as the International Standards Organization (ISO). Specific IT governance frameworks and standards for information security management include:

• COBIT® 4.1
• ISO/IEC 27001/27002
• ITIL® v. 3

These frameworks and standards set forth recommended organization structures for information security functions within a business and recommend policies, procedures, activities, and best practices which should be adapted and adopted by a business.

Businesses also need to adopt a standard set of IT security controls which will be used to mitigate and manage risk. (seehttp://www.praxiom.com/iso-27000-definitions.htm#Control). IT security controls are also used to establish the performance standards used to evaluate the effectiveness (functioning) of the IT security program. There are three primary categories (“classes”) of security controls:

• Management Controls
• Operational Controls
• Technical Controls

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) publishes a catalog of recommended security controls for information, information technology, and related management functions (NIST Special Publication 800-53: Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-53r4). Originally developed for federal government organizations, this controls catalog is widely used by businesses and includes 18 families of controls. The table below is from Revision 3 of NIST SP 800-53 and shows the mapping of security control families to the three categories (“Classes”): management, operational, and technical.

Security controls are integrated with and serve as the basis for the audit and compliance elements of the organization’s IT governance program. Compliance audits serve as a means for determining the effectiveness of the IT security program with respect to implementing controls.

Many businesses use COBIT and/or ITIL as their governance frameworks for managing the delivery of IT services. In this debate, you are asked to take a position as to which framework is a better fit for managing IT SECURITY services.

Write a 3 to 5 paragraph position statement in which you identify and describe 3 to 5 contributions that your chosen framework will make to “good governance” and “good management” for a company’s IT Security Management Program.

Provide in-text citations and references for 3 or more authoritative sources. Put the reference list at the end of your posting.

 If you need help getting started, review chapter 1 in Aligning CobiT® 4.1, ITIL® V3 and ISO/IEC 27002 for Business Benefit
http://www.isaca.org/Knowledge-Center/Research/Documents/Aligning-COBIT-ITIL-V3-ISO27002-for-Business-Benefit_res_Eng_1108.pdf

You can also search this document for “information security” to find processes (ITIL) or control objectives (COBIT) that are specific to the management and delivery of IT security services.

Timeliness of Initial PostingOn TimeLateVery LateNo SubmissionTimeliness of Briefing Statement or Paper

2) Corporate Profile Part 2: Cybersecurity Risk Profile

For this paper, you will
construct a cybersecurity risk profile for the company that you wrote about in
Part 1 of the Corporate Profile project. Your risk profile, which includes an
Executive Summary, Risk Register, and Risk Mitigation Recommendations (Approach
& Security Controls by family), will be developed from information provided
by the company in its Form 10-K filing (Annual
Report to Investors) retrieved from the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) Edgar database.  You
will also need to do additional research to identify security controls,
products, and services which could be included in the company’s risk response
(actions it will take to manage cybersecurity related risk).

Research

1.  Review the Risk section of the
company’s SEC Form 10-K. Develop a list of 5 or more specific cyberspace or
cybersecurity related risks which the company included in its report to
investors. Your list should include the source(s) of the risks and the
potential impacts as identified by the company.

2.  For each risk, identify the risk
management or mitigation strategies which the company has implemented or plans
to implement.

3.  Next, use the control families
listed in the NIST Special Publication 800-53 http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-53r4.pdf to identify general categories
of controls which could be used or added to the company’s risk management
strategy for each risk in your list.

4.  For each control family, develop
a description of how the company should implement these controls (“implementation
approach”) as part of its risk management strategy.

Write

1.  Develop a 2 to 3 page Executive
Summary from your Corporate Profile Part 1 (reuse and/or improve upon the
business profile). Your Executive Summary should provide an overview of the
company, summarize its business operations, and discuss the sources, potential
impacts, and mitigation approach/strategy for cybersecurity related risks identified
in the company’s annual report. The Executive Summary should appear at the
beginning of your submission file.

2.  Copy the Risk Register & Security
Control Recommendations table (see template at the end of this assignment) to
the end of the file that contains your Executive Summary.

3.  Using the information you
collected during your research, complete the table. Make sure that you include
a name and description for each risk. For the security controls, make sure that
you include the family name and a description of how each recommended control
should be implemented (implementation approach). Include the control family
only. Do not include individual security controls from NIST SP 800-53.

Your Risk Profile is to be
prepared using basic APA formatting (including title page and reference list) and
submitted as an MS Word attachment to the Corporate
Profile Part 2 entry in your assignments folder. See the sample paper and
paper template provided in Course Resources > APA Resources for formatting
examples. Consult the grading rubric
for specific content and formatting requirements for this assignment.

Table 1. Risk Register & Risk Mitigation Approach with Recommended Security
Controls

Risk Identifier	Description of the Risk & Current Risk Management Strategy	Risk Mitigation Approach with Recommended Security Controls (by NIST SP 800-53 family)
Sequence # or Brief title (<50 characters)	Must be from Form 10-K. Split complex risk statements into multiple individual risks.	Must list NIST Control Family (two character ID) as part of recommended mitigation

12CriteriaExcellentOutstandingAcceptableNeeds ImprovementNeeds Significant ImprovementMissing or UnacceptableExecutive Summary: Introduction to the Company

Rubrics for both questions.

20 points

Provided an excellent introduction which identified the company being profiled and included a brief overview of the company (may reuse narrative from Part 1 of this assignment). Appropriately used information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

18 points

Provided an outstanding introduction which identified the company being profiled and included a brief overview of the company (may reuse narrative from Part 1 of this assignment). Appropriately used information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

16 points

Provided an introduction which identified the company being profiled and included a brief overview of the company (may reuse narrative from Part 1 of this assignment). Appropriately used information from authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided an introduction to the company but the section lacked some required details. Information from authoritative sources was cited and used in the overview.

9 points

Attempted to provide an introduction to the company but this section lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources. 

0 points

The introduction section was missing or did not clearly identify the company.

Executive Summary: Sources of Cybersecurity Risk20 points

Provided an excellent summary of the sources, potential impacts, and planned mitigation approach/strategy for cyberspace and/or cybersecurity related risks as identified in the Risk Section of the company’s annual report.

18 points

Provided an outstanding summary of the sources, potential impacts, and planned mitigation approach/strategy for cyberspace and/or cybersecurity related risks as identified in the Risk Section of the company’s annual report. Appropriately used and cited information from 3 or more authoritative sources.

16 points

Provided a summary of the sources, potential impacts, and planned mitigation approach/strategy for cyberspace and/or cybersecurity related risks as identified in the Risk Section of the company’s annual report. Appropriately used and cited information from 2 or more authoritative sources.

14 points

Provided a summary of the sources, potential impacts, and planned mitigation approach/strategy for cyberspace and/or cybersecurity related risks as identified in the Risk Section of the company’s annual report. Appropriately used and cited information from authoritative sources.

9 points

Provided a discussion of the cybersecurity risks that the company faces. The discussion lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources.

0 points

Risk discussion was missing or off topic.

Table: Risk Register15 points

Provided a complete, concise, and thorough Risk Register (columns 1 and 2 of table) for 10 or more cyberspace or cybersecurity related risks as identified in the company’s annual report. (Risk ID was numeric sequence # or short title suitable for cross-referencing.)

14 points

Provided a complete, concise, and thorough Risk Register (columns 1 and 2 of table) for 8 or more cyberspace or cybersecurity related risks as identified in the company’s annual report. (Risk ID was numeric sequence # or short title suitable for cross-referencing.)

13 points

Provided a completed Risk Register (columns 1 and 2 of table) for 5 or more cyberspace or cybersecurity related risks as identified in the company’s annual report. (Risk ID was numeric sequence # or short title suitable for cross-referencing.)

11 points

Provided a completed Risk Register (columns 1 and 2 of table) for at least three cyberspace or cybersecurity related risks which the company faces.

9 points

Attempted to complete the Risk Register (columns 1 and 2 of table) for 3 or more entries but information about the risks was lacking details.

0 points

Did not complete 3 or more entries in the Risk Register.

Table: Risk Mitigation Approach15 points

Provided a complete, concise, and thorough Risk Mitigation Approach with Recommendation Security Controls by family (column 3 of table) for 10 or more cyberspace or cybersecurity related risks as identified in the company’s annual report.

14 points

Provided a complete, concise, and thoroughRisk Mitigation Approach with Recommendation Security Controls by family (column 3 of table) for 8 or more cyberspace or cybersecurity related risks as identified in the company’s annual report.

13 points

Provided a completed Risk Mitigation Approach with Recommendation Security Controls by family (column 3 of table) for 5 or more cyberspace or cybersecurity related risks as identified in the company’s annual report.

11 points

Provided a completed Risk Mitigation Approach with Recommendation Security Controls by family (column 3 of table) for at least three cyberspace or cybersecurity related risks which the company faces.

9 points

Attempted to complete the Risk Mitigation Approach with Recommendation Security Controls by family (column 3 of table) for 3 or more entries but information about risk mitigation was lacking details.

0 points

Did not complete 3 or more entries in the Risk Mitigation Approach column of the table.

Addressed security issues using standard cybersecurity terminology5 points

Demonstrated excellence in the integration of standard cybersecurity terminology into the case study.

4 points

Provided an outstanding integration of standard cybersecurity terminology into the case study.

3 points

Integrated standard cybersecurity terminology into the into the case study

2 points

Used standard cybersecurity terminology but this usage was not well integrated with the discussion.

1 point

Misused standard cybersecurity terminology.

0 points

Did not integrate standard cybersecurity terminology into the discussion.

APA Formatting for Citations and Reference List5 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. Reference list entries and in-text citations are correctly formatted using the appropriate APA style for each type of resource.

4 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. One or two minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

3 points

Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. No more than 3 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

2 points

Work has no more than three paragraphs with omissions of citations crediting sources for facts and information. Work contains a reference list containing entries for cited resources. Work contains no more than 5 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.

1 point

Work attempts to credit sources but demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand and apply the APA formatting standard as defined in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6^th ed.).

0 points

Reference list is missing. Work demonstrates an overall failure to incorporate and/or credit authoritative sources for information used in the paper.

Professionalism Part I: Organization & Appearance5 points

Submitted work shows outstanding organization and the use of color, fonts, titles, headings and sub-headings, etc. is appropriate to the assignment type.

4 points

Submitted work has minor style or formatting flaws but still presents a professional appearance. Submitted work is well organized and appropriately uses color, fonts, and section headings (per the assignment’s directions).

3 points

Organization and/or appearance of submitted work could be improved through better use of fonts, color, titles, headings, etc. OR Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Professional appearance could be improved.

2 points

Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Organization and professional appearance need substantial improvement.

1 point

Submitted work meets minimum requirements but has major style and formatting errors. Work is disorganized and needs to be rewritten for readability and professional appearance.

0 points

Submitted work is poorly organized and formatted. Writing and presentation are lacking in professional style and appearance. Work does not reflect college level writing skills.

Professionalism Part II: Execution15 points

No formatting, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.

14 points

Work contains minor errors in formatting, grammar, spelling or punctuation which do not significantly impact professional appearance.

13 points

Errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation which detract from professional appearance of the submitted work.

11 points

Submitted work has numerous errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation. Work is unprofessional in appearance.

4 points

Submitted work is difficult to read / understand and has significant errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, punctuation, or word usage.

0 points

Submitted work is poorly executed OR does not reflect college level work.

Overall ScoreExcellent
90 or moreOutstanding
80 or moreAcceptable
70 or moreNeeds Improvement
56 or moreNeeds Significant Improvement
36 or moreMissing or Unacceptable
0 or more points

Posted briefing statement or paper before 11:59 PM ET on Friday.

10 points

Posted briefing statement or paper before 11:59 PM ET on Saturday.

5 points

Posted briefing statement or paper before 11:59 PM ET on Sunday.

0 points

Did not post a briefing statement or paper before 11:59 PM ET on Sunday.

Briefing Statement or PaperExcellentOutstandingAcceptableNeeds ImprovementNeeds Significant ImprovementMissing or No Work SubmittedIntroduction to Briefing Statement or Paper10 points

Provided an excellent introduction to the deliverable which clearly, concisely, and accurately addressed the topic of the briefing statement or paper. Appropriately paraphrased information from authoritative sources.

8.5 points

Provided an outstanding introduction to the deliverable which clearly and accurately addressed the topic of the briefing statement or paper. Appropriately paraphrased information from authoritative sources.

7 points

Provided an acceptable introduction to the deliverable which addressed the topic of the briefing statement or paper. Appropriately paraphrased information from authoritative sources.

6 points

Provided an introduction to the deliverable but the section lacked some required details. Information from authoritative sources was mentioned.

4 points

Attempted to provide an introduction to the deliverable but this section lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources (too many quotations or improper paraphrasing).

0 points

Introduction was missing or no work submitted.

Analysis15 points

Provided an excellent analysis of the issues for the required briefing topic. Addressed at least three separate issues and provided appropriate examples for each. Appropriately used and cited information from authoritative sources.

13.5 points

Provided an outstanding analysis of the issues for the required briefing topic. Addressed at least two separate issues and provided appropriate examples for each. Appropriately used and cited information from authoritative sources.

12 points

Provided an acceptable analysis of the issues for the required briefing topic. Addressed at least one specific issue and provided an appropriate example. Appropriately used and cited information from authoritative sources.

11 points

Addressed the required briefing topic but the analysis lacked details or was somewhat disorganized. Appropriately used and cited information from authoritative sources.

8 points

Mentioned the required briefing topic but the analysis was very disorganized or off topic. OR, the analysis did not appropriately use information from authoritative sources (too many quotations or improper paraphrasing).

0 points

Analysis was missing or no work was submitted.

Summary10 points

Included an excellent summary section for the briefing statement or paper which was on topic, well organized, and covered at least 3 key points. The summary contained at least one full paragraph.

8.5 points

Included an outstanding summary paragraph for the briefing statement or paper which was on topic and covered at least 3 key points.

7 points

Included a summary paragraph for the briefing statement or paper which was on topic and provided an appropriate closing.

6 points

Included a summary paragraph but, this section lacked content or was disorganized.

4 points

Included a few summary sentences for the briefing statement or paper.

0 points

Did not include a summary for the briefing statement or paper.

Use of Authoritative Sources5 points

Included and properly cited three or more authoritative sources (no errors).

4 points

Included and properly cited three or more authoritative sources (minor errors allowable).

3 points

Included and cited two or more authoritative sources (minor errors allowable). Reference list entries contain sufficient information to enable the reader to find and retrieve the cited sources.

2 points

Included and cited at least one authoritative source (errors allowable in citations or reference entries). Reference list entries contain sufficient information to enable the reader to find and retrieve the cited sources.

1 point

Mentioned at least one authoritative source but, the citations and/or reference list entries lacked required information (not sufficient to retrieve the correct resource).

0 points

References and citations were missing. Or, no work submitted.

Professionalism10 points

No formatting, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors. Submitted work shows outstanding organization and the use of color, fonts, titles, headings and sub-headings, etc. is appropriate to the assignment type.

8.5 points

Work contains minor errors in formatting, grammar, spelling or punctuation which do not significantly impact professional appearance. Work needs some polishing to improve professional appearance.

7 points

Errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation which need attention / editing to improve professional appearance of the work.

6 points

Submitted work has numerous errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation. Substantial polishing / editing is required.

4 points

Submitted work is difficult to read and/or understand. OR, work has significant errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, punctuation, or word usage which detract from the overall professional appearance of the work.

0 points

No submission.

Timeliness of PostingsOn TimeLateVery LateFirst Critique for Another Student2 points

Posted a critique of another student’s briefing statement or paper before 11:59 pm ET on Saturday.

1 point

Posted a critique of another student’s briefing statement or paper before 11:59 pm ET on Sunday.

0 points

Did not post a critique of another student’s briefing statement or paper before 11:59 PM ET on Sunday.

Second Critique for Another Student2 points

Posted a second critique of another student’s briefing statement or paper before 11:59 pm ET on Saturday.

1 point

Posted a second critique of another student’s briefing statement or paper before 11:59 pm ET on Sunday.

0 points

Did not post a second critique of another student’s briefing statement or paper before 11:59 PM ET on Sunday.

Follow-Up Reply or Discussion Participation2 points

Posted a follow-up reply or discussion posting before 11:59 pm ET on Sunday.

0 points

Posted a follow-up reply or discussion posting after 11:59 pm ET on Sunday.

0 points

Did not post a follow-up reply in the week’s topic.

Second Follow-Up Reply or Discussion Posting2 points

Posted a second follow-up reply or discussion posting before 11:59 pm ET on Sunday.

0 points

Posted a second follow-up reply or discussion posting after 11:59 pm ET on Sunday.

0 points

Did not post a second follow-up reply in the week’s topic.

Quality of Discussion PostingsExcellentAcceptableNeeds ImprovementLow-Quality or No Work SubmittedCritique #1 for Another Student’s Briefing Statement or Paper10 points

Posted an excellent critique for another student’s briefing statement or paper. Critique focused on ways in which the content could be improved and/or better organized. Provided 3 or more specific examples and added value to the discussion.

8.5 points

Posted an acceptable critique for another student’s briefing statement or paper. Critique focused on ways in which the content could be improved and/or better organized. Provided at least one specific example and added value to the discussion.

7 points

Posted a critique of another student’s briefing statement or paper. Critique provided at least one suggestion for improvement.

0 points

Posting was missing or did not add contain a critique of the briefing statement or paper.

Critique #2 for Another Student’s Briefing Statement or Paper10 points

Posted an excellent critique for another student’s briefing statement or paper. Critique focused on ways in which the content could be improved and/or better organized. Provided 3 or more specific examples and added value to the discussion.

8.5 points

Posted an acceptable critique for another student’s briefing statement or paper. Critique focused on ways in which the content could be improved and/or better organized. Provided at least one specific example and added value to the discussion.

7 points

Posted a critique of a second student’s briefing statement or paper. Critique provided at least one suggestion for improvement.

0 points

Posting was missing or did not add contain a critique of the briefing statement or paper.

Follow-up Reply or Comment #15 points

Posted a follow-up reply or comment which added value to the discussion.

4 points

Posted an acceptable follow-up reply or comment which added some value to the discussion.

3 points

Posted a follow-up reply or comment but added little value to the discussion.

0 points

Posting was missing or did not add value to the discussion.

Follow-up Reply or Comment #25 points

Posted a follow-up reply or comment which added value to the discussion.

4 points

Posted an acceptable follow-up reply or comment which added some value to the discussion.

3 points

Posted a follow-up reply or comment but added little value to the discussion.

0 points

Posting was missing or did not add value to the discussion.

Overall ScoreExcellent
100 or moreOutstanding
85 or moreAcceptable
75 or moreNeeds Improvement
65 or moreNeeds Significant Improvement
1 or moreNo Work Submitted
0 or more