Today’s security leaders encounter many challenges. They have to operate with reduced budgets and face challenging and evolving risks on a daily basis. Security leaders are often ignored and only called upon when needed or in disaster situations. Many don’t have an ongoing relationship with the C-suite because the C-suite doesn’t understand the value they bring to the whole business.

In order to resolve these challenges, a security leader can apply a risk-based approach to their security program. According to  dictionary.com, risk is “exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance”. Risk is broader than a security concern and involves the entire business. 

Through utilising a 3R model - considering resources, risks and resolutions - a security leader can evaluate the output from the model to build the foundation of a strong plan. This allows the leader to make security decisions based on a quantified risk measure. 

A business determines what resources it wants to protect, what risks it needs to protect the resources from and what resolutions it can put in place to mitigate the risk. Decisions are based on measurable evidence. Free online risk assessment tools are available to provide a fast, easy way to determine an organisation's basic security risks through an investigative approach

The 3 Rs

The first step in the 3R model is to figure out what resources need protection. This could be physical - such as buildings, critical infrastructure or valuable equipment, knowledge-based - such as intellectual property, or organisational - such as people or governance structure. Understanding the business will help the security leader develop a list of critical elements. Look for tangible resources such as buildings and machinery, and intangible resources like reputation, knowledge and processes.

Second, determine what the resources need to be protected from. Anything that threatens harm to the organisation, its mission, its employees, customers, partners, its operations or its reputation could be at risk. These can include contextual risks (workplace safety or natural disasters), criminal risks (theft or cybercrime) or business risks (compliance or legal issues). 

Anything that threatens harm to the organisation, its mission, its employees, customers, partners, its operations or its reputation could be at riskFree online risk assessment tools are available to provide a fast, easy way to determine an organisation's basic security risks through an investigative approach. The tools ask several questions and determine risk based on an organisation’s location and the answers provided. Security leaders can also work with security companies and consultants that offer risk assessments to determine their company’s needs, and then offer solutions based on that assessment. 

The third objective is to determine how businesses can best protect the identified resource. The last of the 3 Rs - resolutions - are those security activities that enable the business to mitigate the impact of security risks. Resolutions can potentially prevent a security incident from occurring, contain the impact to resources if an event does occur and also assist the organisation in recovering from an impact more quickly or easily.

 

Building protection with 3R model
The first step in the 3R model is to figure out what resources need protection, this could physical such as buildings or critical infrastructure 

The path forward

Understanding what risks a business faces in totality provides an opportunity for the security leader to collaborate with other department heads. This gives security leaders an opportunity to engage with functions outside their norm as well as a chance to demonstrate their subject matter expertise. A risk-based approach also helps security leaders fully understand an organisation’s needs and concerns, which they can communicate to the C-suite to help them make better business decisions. Metrics can also help business leaders understand the cost/benefit of resolutions

C-suite and executives help define an acceptable level of security risk tolerance to resources and make quality, educated decisions about mitigating security risks. Through collaborating with security leaders using a risk-based approach and the 3R model, metrics and reports show the impact of security expenses, and there is a transparent view of security risk.

The final decision about how to mitigate and resolve risks is up to the business owner of the resource and the risk stakeholders. To obtain funding, show the risk and value of resources exposed to potential impact. Then present the recommended resolution that reduces the potential level of impact and the associated cost benefit savings. By providing this information, security leaders can ensure that the business owners can make an educated decision.

Measuring success

A risk-based approach aligns the security mission with the organisation’s mission. Security leaders should have these conversations with their business leaders on a regular basis. Understanding the thresholds of risk tolerance and showing when incidents or activities are trending outside of acceptable boundaries will help business leaders make educated decisions. The 3R model also helps a business to track occurrences, quantify the direct and ancillary impact and make continuous adjustments to the security program

Determining a baseline of acceptance gives a foundation for security leaders to point out when the organisation is not meeting its own requirements. Metrics can also help business leaders understand the cost/benefit of resolutions and demonstrate when costs may be trending outside of acceptable boundaries.

The 3R model also helps a business to track occurrences, quantify the direct and ancillary impact and make continuous adjustments to the security program. It is important to note that this process is not stagnant, and needs to be constantly revisited.

Risk-based-business-approach
Examining risks, resources and resolutions in a systematic way will help security leaders understand what they are protecting

Defining risks and vulnerabilities

Continuous conversations using the 3R model also help business leaders understand what security risks could interfere with meeting business objectives. It also aligns the total cost of ownership for the security program with the business value of the resources at risk.The approach puts the security risk decisions in the hands of the ones impacted by those risks And it defines the security role as risk management, not just task management. The approach puts the security risk decisions in the hands of the ones impacted by those risks…the “owners” of the resources.

Examining risks, resources and resolutions in a systematic way will help security leaders understand what they are protecting, what they are protecting it from, and how they can help prevent, contain or recover against a specific risk. Followers of this approach are in a better position to ask for funding because they can clearly define and quantify risks and vulnerabilities.

Applying these principles will equip security leaders with the knowledge needed to have better dialogue with colleagues in other departments, encouraging more proactive discussions about security.

Download PDF version

Author profile

In case you missed it

What characteristics do salespeople require in the physical security industry?
What characteristics do salespeople require in the physical security industry?

A basic tenet of sales is ABC – always be closing. But it's a principle that most professional salespeople would say oversimplifies the process. Especially in a sophisticated, high-tech market such as physical security, the required sales skills are much more involved and nuanced. We asked this week's Expert Panel Roundtable: What unique characteristics are required of salespeople in the arena of physical security systems?

Can microchip implants replace plastic cards in modern access control?
Can microchip implants replace plastic cards in modern access control?

A futuristic alternative to plastic cards for access control and other applications is being considered by some corporate users in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The idea involves using a microchip device implanted into a user’s hand. About the size of a grain of rice and provided by Swedish company Biohax, the tiny device employs passive near field communication (NFC) to interface with a user’s digital environment. Access control is just one application for the device, which can be deployed in lieu of a smart card in numerous uses. Biohax says more than 4,000 individuals have implanted the device. Using the device for corporate employees Every user is given plenty of information to make an informed decision whether they want to use the deviceCurrently Biohax is having dialogue with curious corporate customers about using the device for their employees. “It’s a dialogue, not Big Brother planning to chip every employee they have,” says Jowan Österlund, CEO at Biohax. Every user is given plenty of information to make an informed decision whether they want to use the device. Data capture form to appear here! “Proof of concept” demonstrations have been conducted at several companies, including Tui, a travel company in Sweden that uses the device for access management, ID management, printing, gym access and self-checkout in the cafeteria. Biohax is also having dialogue with some big companies in the United Kingdom, including legal and financial firms. Österlund aims to have a full working system in place in the next year or so. A Swedish rail company accepts the implanted chip in lieu of a paper train ticket. They accept existing implants but are not offering to implant the chips. Österlund says his company currently has no plans to enter the U.S. market. The device is large enough to locate easily and extract if needed, and small enough to be unobtrusive Access control credential The device is inserted/injected below the skin between the index finger and the thumb. The circuitry has a 10-year lifespan. The device is large enough to locate easily and extract if needed, and small enough to be unobtrusive. The only risk is the possibility of infection, which is true anytime the skin is pierced, and the risk is mitigated by employing health professionals to inject the chip. Use of the device as an access control credential or any other function is offered as a voluntary option; any requirement by an employer to inject the device would be illegal, says Österlund. It’s a convenient choice that is made “based on a well-informed decision by the customer.” Aversion to needles, for example, would make some users squeamish to implant the device. More education of users helps to allay any concerns: Some 10% of employees typically would agree quickly to the system, but a larger group of 50% to 60% are likely to agree over time as they get more comfortable with the idea and understand the convenience, says Österlund. Protection of information The passive device does not actively send out any signals as you walk. It is only powered up by a reader if a user has access rightsIn terms of privacy concerns, information contained on the device is in physical form and is protected. The passive device does not actively send out any signals as you walk. There is no battery. It is only powered up by a reader if a user has access rights. With use of the device being discussed in the United Kingdom, there has been some backlash. For example, Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), has said: “Microchipping would give bosses even more power and control over their workers.” A big misconception is that the chip is a tracking device, says Österlund. It isn’t. “We love people to get informed,” says Österlund. “If they’re scared or apprehensive, they can just read up. It’s not used to control you – it’s used to give you control.”

Ethical consumption: should you buy security products ‘Made in China’?
Ethical consumption: should you buy security products ‘Made in China’?

Should ‘Made in China’ be seen as a negative in security systems and products? It’s an important and complex issue that merits a more detailed response than my recent comment in the Expert Panel Roundtable. For me, there are two sides of the answer to this question: Buying products that have certain negative attributes that are not in alignment with some part of a belief system or company mandate. Buying products that do not perform as advertised or do something that is unacceptable. For integrators and end users making the buying decisions, the drive to purchase products may not be based on either aspect and instead on the product that can do the best job for their business. But for others, a greater emphasis on the ethical implications of purchasing decisions drives decision-making. What is ethical consumption? Ethical consumption is a type of consumer activism that is based on the concept of ‘positive buying’ in that ethical products are favouredEthical consumption — often called ethical consumerism — is a type of consumer activism that is based on the concept of ‘positive buying’ in that ethical products are favoured, and products that are ethically questionable may be met with a ‘moral boycott’. This can be as simple as only buying organic produce or as complex as boycotting products made in a totalitarian regime that doesn't offer its citizens the same freedoms that we enjoy in the United States. Consider the goals of the Boston Tea Party or the National Consumers League (NCL), which was formed to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. Some examples of considerations behind ethical consumption include fair trade, treatment of workers, genetic modification, locally made and processed goods, union-made products and services, humane animal treatment, and in general, labour issues and manufacturing practices that take these factors into account. Increase in ethical consumption The numbers show that ethical consumption is on the rise. In a 2017 study by Unilever, 33 percent of consumers reported choosing to buy and support brands that they believe are doing social or environmental good. In the same study, 53 percent of shoppers in the United Kingdom and 78 percent in the United States said they feel better when they buy products that are ‘sustainably’ produced. There’s clear evidence that products from some Chinese companies suffer from cybersecurity vulnerabilities Though the aforementioned question that sparked this conversation centres around concerns with products made in China, there are many other countries where, for example, governments/dictators are extremely repressive to all or parts of their populations, whose products, such as oil, diamonds, minerals, etc., we happily consume. There are also a number of countries that are a threat in terms of cybersecurity. It may be naive and simplistic to single out Chinese manufacturers. Impact on physical security products Product buying decisions based on factors other than product functionality, quality and price are also starting to permeate the security marketplace. While this hasn't been a large focus area from the business-to-business consumption side, it's something that should be considered for commercial security products for a variety of reasons. Hardware hacks are more difficult to pull off and potentially more devastating" There’s clear evidence that products from some Chinese companies suffer from cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Last fall, 30 U.S. companies, including Apple and Amazon, were potentially compromised when it was discovered that a tiny microchip in the motherboard of servers built in China that weren't a part of the original specification. According to a Bloomberg report, “This attack was something graver than the software-based incidents the world has grown accustomed to seeing. Hardware hacks are more difficult to pull off and potentially more devastating, promising the kind of long-term, stealth access that spy agencies are willing to invest millions of dollars and many years to get.” This, along with many other incidents, are changing the considerations behind purchasing decisions even in the physical security industry. Given that physical security products in general have been lax on cybersecurity, this is a welcome change. Combating tech-specific threats In early January, members of the U.S. Senate introduced bipartisan legislation to help combat tech-specific threats to national security posed by foreign actors and ensure U.S. technological supremacy by improving interagency coordination across the U.S. government. The bill creates the Office of Critical Technologies & Security at the White House, an indication that this issue is of critical importance to a number of players across the tech sector. Members of the U.S. Senate introduced bipartisan legislation to help combat tech-specific threats to national security posed by foreign actors To address a significant number of concerns around ethical production, there are certifications such as ISO 26000 which provides guidance on social responsibility by addressing accountability, transparency, ethical behaviour, respect for stakeholder interests, respect for rule of law, respect for international norms of behaviour and respect for human rights. While still emerging within physical security, companies that adhere to these and other standards do exist in the marketplace. Not buying products vulnerable to cyberattacks It may be counter-productive, even irresponsible, to brand all products from an entire country as unfit for purchasing. Some manufacturers’ products may be ethically questionable, or more vulnerable to cyberattacks than others; so not buying products made by those companies would make sense. The physical security industry might be playing a bit of catch up on this front, but I think we're beginning to see a shift toward this kind of responsible buying behaviour.