Defining the Gap: The Cybersecurity Governance Study

Transcription

1 Defining the Gap: The Cybersecurity Governance Study Sponsored by Fidelis Cybersecurity Independently conducted by Ponemon Institute LLC Publication Date: June 2015 Ponemon Institute Research Report

2 Defining the Gap: The Cybersecurity Governance Study Ponemon Institute: June 2015 Boards that choose to ignore, or minimize, the importance of cybersecurity responsibility do so at their own peril. SEC Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar, June 10, 2014 Part 1. Introduction Costly and reputation diminishing cyber attacks have made cybersecurity governance a critical business issue. Concerns about cybersecurity are no longer limited to the IT function. Rather, the possibility of regulatory fines, litigation and costs associated with resolving a security incident has elevated the issue to the boardroom. The purpose of Defining the Gap: The Cybersecurity Governance Study conducted by Ponemon Institute and sponsored by Fidelis Cybersecurity is to determine if boards of directors are a help or hindrance to creating a strong cybersecurity posture. As the findings reveal, boards of directors are not as informed and knowledgeable about cybersecurity risks as they should be in order to fulfill their governance responsibilities. They also lack visibility into the cyber threat landscape affecting their companies and suffer from distrust between IT security professionals and the board. We surveyed 245 board members in a variety of industry sectors in the United States and 409 IT security professionals, mainly CISOs, CIOs and CTOs. The study reveals that boards have been slow to prioritize the importance of cybersecurity governance practices. It was not until the 2013 Target breach that cybersecurity risks had an impact on the board s agenda. One possible explanation for the lack of attention to security threats could be their admitted lack of knowledge and expertise about cybersecurity. Sixty-seven percent of board members report they have only some knowledge (41 percent) or minimal or no knowledge about cybersecurity (26 percent). Despite admitting their lack of knowledge about cybersecurity, 70 percent of board members have confidence that they understand the security risks their organizations face, as shown in Figure 1. However, only 43 percent of IT security professionals think that their board is informed about threats facing the organization. To bridge these very different perceptions about the board s visibility into the threat landscape, more communication between the board and IT function is sorely needed. Further, only 18 percent of IT security professionals believe their boards cybersecurity governance practices are effective. This gap in trust between corporate leadership and those in the trenches needs to be closed for organizations to face increasingly stealthy and sophisticated cyber risks. 1

3 Following are five findings that illustrate why boards of directors are not as informed as they should be in order to make decisions affecting the security preparedness of organizations: Board members admit their knowledge about cybersecurity is limited. Only 33 percent of board members say they are very knowledgeable or knowledgeable about cybersecurity. However, of the 65 percent of board members in our study who say cybersecurity is on the agenda most (76 percent of respondents) say they review and approve strategy and incident response plans. Board members and IT security professionals need to communicate on a regular basis. Board members may not be receiving information and briefings about cyber attacks and data breaches affecting their organization, limiting their visibility into their current risks and the overall threat landscape. The findings reveal that as many as one in five board members are not certain if their organizations had a data breach, theft of high value information or a disruption of services due to a cyber attack. IT security professionals are skeptical about their boards understanding of cybersecurity risks. Board members strongly believe they recognize the damage to reputation that can be a consequence of a data breach, agree that tone at the top is critical to achieving a strong security posture and understand the security risks to the organization. However, information security professionals do not trust that the board is effective in dealing with these governance issues due to the knowledge and visibility gaps. Board members may be overly confident about the effectiveness of their cybersecurity governance practices. Fifty-nine percent of board member respondents rate their cybersecurity governance practices as very effective. However, only 18 percent of IT security professionals believe this is the case. It took the Target breach to get the board s attention. There have been many breaches over the past few years that perhaps should have served as a wakeup call for the board about cybersecurity. However, this research shows it was only recently with the Target breach did the importance of reducing these threats become critical for the C-suite and boardroom. 2

4 Part 2. Key findings In this section, we provide an analysis of the key findings. The complete audited findings are presented in the appendix of this report. We have organized the report according to the following themes: Cybersecurity governance and the importance of an informed board of directors A cybersecurity governance strategy for a changing threat landscape The Security & Exchange Commission (SEC) guidelines and cybersecurity governance Cybersecurity governance and the importance of an informed board of directors Board members admit their knowledge about cybersecurity is limited. The knowledge gap, as shown in Figure 2, is significant. Only 33 percent of board members report they are knowledgeable about cybersecurity. In contrast, 81 percent of IT security professionals say they have the expertise to deal with risks. As a result, boards may lack the information needed to make decisions about cybersecurity governance and meaningful communication between the two groups about cyber risks is a challenge. Figure 2. How knowledgeable are you about cybersecurity? 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 9% 31% 24% 50% 41% 19% 26% Very knowledgeable Knowledgeable Some knowledge Minimal or no knowledge 0% ITS 3

5 Board members may be overly confident in the effectiveness of cybersecurity governance practices but those dealing with the threats are not. As shown in Figure 3, 59 percent of board members rate their cybersecurity governance practices as very effective on a scale of 1 = low effectiveness to 10 = high effectiveness. However, only 18 percent of IT security professionals believe this is the case. This finding reveals the deep divide in the thinking about what constitutes effective governance practices between board members who are in charge of overall company performance and those responsible for stopping data breaches and cyber attacks. This divide is likely the result of the lack of knowledge held by the by board compared to IT security professionals. Figure 3. How effective are your organization s cybersecurity governance practices? Extrapolated mean: = 8.1, ITS = % 60% 59% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 36% 24% 19% 20% 18% 13% 8% 3% 0% 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8 9 or 10 ITS 4

6 Board members are often in the dark about data breaches and security incidents involving the theft of high-value information. Board members may not be receiving information and briefings about cyber attacks and data breaches affecting their organization. Figure 4 shows boards of directors are as not as aware as IT security practitioners about data breaches their organization has had (59 percent of board members vs. 71 percent of IT security professionals). Forty-one percent of board members say their organization did not have a data breach (23 percent) or unsure (18 percent). In contrast, only 29 percent of IT security professionals say their organization did not have a data breach (24 percent) or unsure (5 percent). Figure 4. Did your organization have a data breach that resulted in lost or stolen records? 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 59% 71% 30% 20% 23% 24% 18% 10% 5% 0% Yes No Unsure ITS According to Figure 5, 54 percent of IT security professionals confirm that their organizations had a data breach involving the theft of high-value information, suggesting that the theft of such information is happening frequently. However, only 23 percent of board members believe their companies had a data breach involving intellectual property and 18 percent are unsure. Figure 5. Did your organization have a data breach involving high-value information? 70% 60% 54% 59% 50% 40% 39% 30% 20% 23% 18% 10% 7% 0% Yes No Unsure ITS 5

7 Boards are also uninformed about business disruptions or IT operations. One of the most important responsibilities for IT security professionals is minimizing downtime and business disruption in the aftermath of a cyber attack. The financial consequences of such a security incident can be huge. Figure 6 reveals a significant gap in awareness between the board and IT security about these types of attacks that occurred in the past two years. Figure 6. Did your organization have a cyber attack that disrupted business or IT operations? 70% 60% 50% 60% 63% 40% 34% 30% 20% 19% 21% 10% 3% 0% Yes No Unsure ITS Uncertainty about security incidents puts organizations at risk. In Figure 7, we combine the unsure responses in the previous figures to illustrate the lack of visibility boards have into attacks against the organization. This finding indicates that communication between the board and IT security about security threats, vulnerabilities and risks is not effective Figure 7. Uncertainty about cyber attacks and data breaches in the past two years Unsure response The organization experienced a cyber attack that disrupted business or IT operations 3% 21% The organization had a data breach involving the theft of high-value information (i.e., intellectual property) 7% 18% The organization had a data breach involving 10,000 or more lost or stolen sensitive or confidential records 5% 18% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% ITS 6

8 IT security professionals are skeptical about their boards understanding of cybersecurity risks. As shown in Figure 8, board members strongly agree that they recognize the damage to reputation that can be a consequence of a data breach, agree that tone at the top is critical to achieving a strong security posture and understand the security risks to the organization. However, board members do not share the same level of agreement with IT security professionals that existing communications keep the board fully informed about security threats, vulnerabilities and risks. This indicates that the board is not communicating its attitudes about cybersecurity well to IT security professionals, while the IT security professionals are not adequately communicating information about cybersecurity risks to the board. Figure 8. Board members and IT security professionals governance gap Strongly agree & agree response combined Our board recognizes the impact upon reputation and marketplace value resulting from security failures or breaches 59% 89% Our board believes the tone at the top is critical to achieving a strong security posture 57% 88% Our board of directors understands the security risks to the organization 43% 70% Our board believes the company s upstream communications will keep them fully informed about security threats, vulnerabilities and risks 64% 74% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% ITS 7

9 Board members and IT security professionals worry about different cybersecurity risks. As shown in Figure 9, board members are most concerned about the loss or theft of intellectual property even though they are unable to confirm that a data breach involving such information occurred in the past two years. In contrast, IT security professionals are focused on a cyber attack that significantly disrupts business and/or IT operations (downtime). Figure 9. What worries respondents most? A data breach involving the theft of high-value information (i.e., intellectual property) 31% 43% A data breach involving the loss or theft of customer records 22% 39% A cyber attack that significantly disrupts business and/or IT operations (i.e., downtime) 12% 33% A cyber attack that damages IT systems and infrastructure A data breach involving the loss or theft of employee data 4% 2% 3% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% ITS 8

10 A cybersecurity governance strategy for a changing threat landscape Board members and IT security professionals agree that cybersecurity risk to their organizations is high. The findings reveal that both groups understand cybersecurity risks are high on a scale of 1 = very low to 10 = very high, as shown in Figure 10. As a result, 65 percent of board members and 63 percent of IT security professionals say cybersecurity governance or risk management is on the board s agenda. Figure 10. How high is the cybersecurity risk? Extrapolated mean: = 7.40, ITS = % 50% 48% 40% 30% 20% 21% 25% 31% 26% 38% 10% 0% 5% 6% 0% 0% 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8 9 or 10 ITS Thirty-five percent of board members prefer to leave cybersecurity decisions in the hand of IT security. Despite Commissioner Aguilar s comments, 35 percent of board members say cybersecurity is not on their agenda. The reasons, as shown in Figure 11, reflect the board members desire to delegate cybersecurity in the hands of management (79 percent) and concerns about their personal liability (51 percent). Twenty-five percent admit their lack of knowledge about the topic. Figure 11. Why cybersecurity governance is not on the board s agenda Security governance is best handled by the company s management 79% Concerns about director liability 51% Lack of directors expertise and knowledge about cybersecurity 25% Lack of resources Not considered a priority issue 15% 13% Other 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 9

11 Board members that have cybersecurity on the agenda are involved in strategy, assessments and investments. Figure 12 reveals that they review and approve a formal security strategy and incident response plan (76 percent of respondents), assess the effectiveness of the organization s security policy (63 percent of respondents) and optimize cybersecurity investments in support of organizational efforts. Both groups also confirm that their organization has a crisis management plan in place to deal with cyber attacks. Figure 12. Cybersecurity topics on the board s agenda More than one response permitted The review and approval of a formal security strategy and incident response plan 76% Assessments to ensure the effectiveness of the organization s security policies 63% The optimization of cybersecurity investments in support of organizational efforts 57% The strategic alignment of cybersecurity with business strategy to support organizational goals 55% The identification of cybersecurity leaders in the organization who will be held accountable and supported by the board 44% The use of cybersecurity metrics to ensure an acceptable level of risk for the organization 19% Other 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 10

12 Top cybersecurity oversight and management activities, shown in Figure 13, may not be sufficient to address current threat landscape. Today, most boards are engaged in overseeing risk assessments and audits, reviewing the crisis management plan and determining insurance requirements. However, oversight activities that would make more of a contribution to the cybersecurity strategy of an organization are rarely on the board s agenda such as ensuring compliance with laws and regulations. Figure 13. Top cybersecurity oversight activities More than one response permitted Oversee risk assessments and audits Review the company s crisis management plan 73% 75% 69% 70% Determine insurance requirements 55% 51% Review and approve budget requests Oversee periodic exercise of the incident response plan and review the results Ensure compliance with laws and regulations 38% 39% 36% 39% 31% 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% ITS 11

13 Figure 14 reveals even more important oversight activities boards are not engaged in such as developing strategies for cybersecurity, evaluating security threat intelligence and identifying emerging security risks. Figure 14. Cybersecurity oversight activities rarely conducted More than one response permitted Identify emerging security risks 25% 22% Oversee the positioning of the CISO within the organizational structure to ensure a strong, independent role 21% 25% Review and approve cybersecurity policies 17% 15% Establish metrics for security effectiveness and efficiency 16% 19% Develop strategies for cybersecurity 15% 13% Evaluate the CISO s job performance 13% 12% Evaluate security threat intelligence 9% 11% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% ITS 12

14 Boards of directors and IT security professionals are involved in similar activities. As shown in Figure 15, activities following the breach or cyber attack primarily involved receiving briefings from senior executives and/or the CISO, reviewing the financial impact of the security incident, evaluating the adequacy of insurance coverage and exposure and obtaining on-going reports on the status of remediation efforts. Figure 15. Top four activities following a data breach or cyber attack Received briefing from senior executives and/or the CISO 81% 81% Reviewed financial impact of this security incident Evaluated the adequacy of insurance coverage and exposure Obtained on-going reports on the status of remediation efforts 73% 71% 67% 68% 67% 75% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% ITS 13

15 It took the Target breach to get the board s attention. As shown in Figure 16, the research shows that only recently with the Target breach did the importance of reducing these threats become critical for the C-suite and boardroom. Not having as significant an impact are those security incidents affecting government agencies, such as the VA data breach and hacks of the healthcare.gov website in Figure 16. How have well-publicized data breaches and security incidents impacted your involvement in cybersecurity governance? Significant & moderate impact response combined Target data breach 89% Recent case involving Chinese spys operating within Pittsburgh area companies JP Morgan Chase cyber attack Insider threats and recent cases involving malicious employees Home Depot data breach 72% 68% 62% 62% Sony PlayStation data breach Chatter about cyber terrorist attacks against critical infrastructure TJX data breach 36% 32% 40% Veteran s Administration data breach Successful hack of the Healthcare.gov website 11% 17% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 14

16 The Security & Exchange Commission (SEC) guidelines and cybersecurity governance Do boards of directors worry about their potential liability if a serious security incident involving their organization occurs? As shown in Figure 17, 84 percent of IT practitioners believe the board worries about their potential liability. However, a smaller percentage of board members (69 percent) are concerned about the potential liability. Figure 17. Are board members concerned about their potential liability if the company has a serious security incident? 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 43% 41% 36% 33% 15% 10% 9% 6% 6% 1% Strongly agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly disagree ITS 15

17 In October 2011, the SEC issued guidelines for the disclosure of cybersecurity risk information. While there is no specific requirement associated with cybersecurity risks, it also states such disclosure of cybersecurity risk information is necessary if such risks have a potential material impact on other reporting requirements. The SEC does not expect registrants to disclose information that might compromise their cybersecurity operations. It will take, however, a mandate before SEC guidelines will be followed. Only 5 percent of board members say their organization follows the SEC guidelines and voluntarily discloses a material security incident to shareholders. Data breach experience influences perceptions about the SEC mandates. Fifty-nine percent of board members say their organization had a data breach involving 10,000 or more sensitive or confidential records. These respondents are far more convinced than others the SEC will issue regulations requiring disclosure of material security incidents. As shown in Figure 18, 83 percent of board members whose organizations had a data breach believe the SEC will issue mandated regulations. In organizations that did not experience a data breach, only 17 percent of board members in this study believe mandates will be issued. Figure 18. Do you believe the SEC will issue regulations that mandate the financial disclosure of material security incidents? Yes or No/Unsure responses 90% 80% 83% 70% 60% 61% 50% 40% 39% 30% 20% 17% 10% 0% Had a data breach SEC will issue mandated regulations Did not have a data breach SEC will not issue mandated regulations 16

18 As shown in Figure 19, 81 percent of board members believe this mandate will increase the board s involvement in cybersecurity governance significantly (40 percent of respondents) or some increase (41 percent of respondents). Figure 19. How an SEC mandate will affect the board s involvement in cybersecurity governance 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 40% 41% 11% 8% Yes, significant increase Yes, some increase No Unsure 17

19 Will current governance practices change after the mandate? As shown in Figure 19, cybersecurity governance is reviewed annually, according to 40 percent of board members. More frequent reviews such as quarterly (33 percent) and semi-annually (16 percent) are not conducted as often as they should be due to the constantly changing threat environment. The board-level committees most responsible for overseeing cybersecurity governance are the audit committee (40 percent of board members) and the risk committee (29 percent of board members). Figure 20. How frequently is cybersecurity governance reviewed? 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 33% 16% 40% 5% 6% Quarterly Semi-annually Annually As needed No regular meetings scheduled 18

20 Part 3. Conclusion: Improving the board of directors role in cybersecurity governance Target and, more recently, the Sony breach are examples of the huge liability companies can face when cyber criminals steal confidential and high value information. As discussed in this report, boards of directors are realizing the risk is high, and therefore, it is important to work with the IT function to strengthen their companies cybersecurity posture. However, there are significant gaps between the board and IT on how best to achieve this goal. Some recommendations include the following: Appoint a cybersecurity expert to the board to address the knowledge gap. The research reveals that in many companies the board lacks knowledge about security risks and such expertise would help when reviewing and approving a formal strategy and incident response plan. Form a special cybersecurity committee to elevate the attention and importance of the risk and ensure it is on the board s agenda. Invite cybersecurity experts to conduct frequent briefings to provide board members visibility into the threat landscape and how it may impact the company. This will also increase the trust and communication between the two groups. Prepare for the SEC mandate and requirement for financial disclosures about material security incidents. SEC Commissioner Aguilar also urges boards to refer the National Institute of Standards and Technology s February 2014 report entitled the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, which he said is likely to become a baseline for best practices by companies, including in assessing legal or regulatory exposure to these issues or for insurance purposes. 19

21 Part 4. Methods A sampling frame composed of 6,713 members of boards of directors and 10,928 IT security practitioners located in a variety of industry sectors in the United States was selected for participation in this survey. As shown in the following table, 274 members of boards of directors and 505 IT security respondents completed the survey. Screening removed 125 surveys. The final sample was 245 members of boards (3.6 percent response rate) and 409 IT security respondents (3.7 percent response rate). Table 1. Sample response Board of Directors IT security Total sampling frame 6,713 10,928 Returns Rejected and screened surveys Final sample Response rate 3.6% 3.7% Pie Chart 1 reports the professional background for the boards of directors respondents. Fortyone percent of these respondents described their professional background as CEO or senior executive and 22 percent reported they are financial experts or auditors. Pie Chart 1. What best describes your professional background? 6% 15% 6% 5% 5% 41% CEO/senior executive Financial expert or auditor Venture capitalist Academician Former politician Entrepreneur or business founder Former regulator 22% Pie Chart 2 reports the professional background for IT security survey participants. Almost half (49 percent) of these respondents described their professional background as an IT director or executive such as the CIO or CTO. Pie Chart 2. What best describes your professional background? 18% IT director or executive (CIO, CTO) 49% IT security leader (CISO) Other 33% 20

22 As shown in Pie Chart 3, 62 percent of board member respondents reported they have served on 1 or more boards in the past five years. Pie Chart 3. How many boards of publicly traded companies have you served on over the past five years? Extrapolated average = 1.37 years 4% 13% 38% None 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or more 45% Pie Chart 4 reveals that in the past five years, 71 percent of respondents reported they have served on 1 or more boards of closely-held companies. Pie Chart 4. How many boards of closely-held (non-public) companies have you served on over the past five years? Extrapolated average = 1.65 years 29% 29% None 1 or 2 3 or 4 42% 21

23 As shown in Pie Chart 5, 73 percent of respondents reported they have served on boards for 6 or more years. The average respondent has served 9.27 years. Pie Chart 5. How long have you served on boards? Extrapolated average = 9.27 years 11% 2% 25% Less than 1 year 16% 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 20 years More than 20 years 46% Figure 20 reports the primary industry focus of respondents organizations. This chart identifies financial services (19 percent) as the largest segment for and also ITS (18 percent). Eleven percent of respondents and 12 percent of ITS respondents indicated technology and software as their industry focus. Figure 20. Primary industry classification Financial services Technology & software Health & pharmaceuticals Industrial Services Retail Public sector Hospitality & leisure Energy & utilities Consumer products Transportation Entertainment & media Education & research Agriculture & food services Communications 4% 5% 4% 3% 4% 5% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 11% 12% 11% 13% 10% 8% 9% 8% 9% 10% 8% 9% 19% 18% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% ITS 22

24 Part 5. Caveats There are inherent limitations to survey research that need to be carefully considered before drawing inferences from findings. The following items are specific limitations that are germane to most web-based surveys. Non-response bias: The current findings are based on a sample of survey returns. We sent surveys to a representative sample of individuals, resulting in a large number of usable returned responses. Despite non-response tests, it is always possible that individuals who did not participate are substantially different in terms of underlying beliefs from those who completed the instrument. Sampling frame bias: The accuracy is based on contact information and the degree to which the list is representative of individuals who are members of boards of directors or IT security practitioners in various organizations in the United States. We also acknowledge that the results may be biased by external events such as media coverage. We also acknowledge bias caused by compensating subjects to complete this research within a specified time period. Self-reported results: The quality of survey research is based on the integrity of confidential responses received from subjects. While certain checks and balances can be incorporated into the survey process, there is always the possibility that a subject did not provide accurate responses. 23

25 Appendix: Detailed Survey Results The following tables provide the frequency or percentage frequency of responses to all survey questions contained in this study. All survey responses were captured in October Sample response ITS Total sampling frame 6,713 10,928 Total returns Screened or rejected surveys Final sample Response rate 3.6% 3.7% Q1. Please rate the effectiveness of your organization s cybersecurity governance practices. 10-point scale, where 1 = low to 10 = high. ITS 1 or 2 0% 3% 3 or 4 8% 19% 5 or 6 13% 36% 7 or 8 20% 24% 9 or 10 59% 18% Extrapolated value Q2. Please rate the level of cybersecurity risk to your organization. 10- point scale, where 1 = low to 10 = high. ITS 1 or 2 0% 0% 3 or 4 5% 6% 5 or 6 21% 25% 7 or 8 48% 31% 9 or 10 26% 38% Extrapolated value Q3. With respect to cybersecurity risk, what concerns you most? Please select only one. ITS A data breach involving the loss or theft of customer records 39% 22% A data breach involving the loss or theft of employee data 2% 3% A data breach involving the theft of high-value information (i.e., intellectual property) 43% 31% A cyber attack that significantly disrupts business and/or IT operations (i.e., downtime) 12% 33% A cyber attack that damages IT systems and infrastructure 4% 11% Other (please specify) 0% 0% Q4a. Is cybersecurity governance or risk management on the board s agenda? ITS Yes 65% 63% No 35% 37% 24