Now that we are on a subject of testing security and breach/attack simulation tools, one more interesting question arises: if you test security, what constitutes a “pass”? Or, alternatively, at what level do you test?
Think back to the infamous bear analogy. In security, it is NOT a certainty [it is also not obviously false, BTW] that it is enough to outrun the slowest competitor [who the bear can then eat … chomp-chomp], you may actually have to outrun the bear [a Russian APT joke is here somewhere I am sure].
So, there are good arguments that you need to test at the level of your likely adversary [i.e. the above BEAR, even if he is not that FANCY … there!]. But how do you know that level? Even if your threat assessment capabilities are not shitty, this is likely achievable by a tiny minority only… people who basically know what “threat assessment” even means (some actually call it “threat modelling” despite the appsec connotations) …
Here is what I am thinking:
|Conceptual test level||Pros||Cons|
|Test at maximum possible level||You can test whether your security posture will withstand the best of the best||Gap may be so huge, that no clear action plan is evident|
|Test at the level of your current security||Can test the freshly deployed controls; can actually ace the test||Not immediately motivating for making improvements|
|Test at the level of your current security PLUS 10%||Easy to figure out what to improve||How do you actually define and measure it?|
|Test at the level of your past adversary||Can have data, to be turned into test methods||Not a good prediction of the future, perhaps?|
|Test at the level of your likely adversary||Philosophically, this is the best scenario!||Hard to gather solid data on this, and figure it out|
Now, hilarity ensues if “level of your likely adversary” is MUCH higher than “level of your current security”
Blog posts related to this project:
- On Negative Pressure or Why NOT Objectively Test Security?
- The Bane of All Security Tests: Acting on Results
- Threat Simulation – How real does it have to be? (by Augusto)
- New Research: How to Actually Test Security?
- Threat Simulation Call to Action for 2018
Read Complimentary Relevant Research
Leadership Vision for 2018: Security and Risk Leaders
Security and risk management are key enablers for digital business. SRM leaders are accountable for helping the enterprise balance the...
View Relevant Webinars
The Top Security Trends for Midsize Enterprises
Security continues to be both a top challenge and an investment priority for IT leaders in midsize organizations. By keeping these trends...
Comments or opinions expressed on this blog are those of the individual contributors only, and do not necessarily represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management. Readers may copy and redistribute blog postings on other blogs, or otherwise for private, non-commercial or journalistic purposes, with attribution to Gartner. This content may not be used for any other purposes in any other formats or media. The content on this blog is provided on an "as-is" basis. Gartner shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of the content or use of this blog.