• Good news: router is now officially a firewall (it has been for a while, but many people are still stuck in "security device" vs "network device" cloud) - see Req 1
• From the "WTH dept": anti-virus is a MUST on ALL platforms - Req 5. Please ship me some of the stuff they are smoking; I want it! BTW, I am going to Amsterdam soon :-)
• WAF or code review for web application security is still a stupid "OR" - Req 6.6. OMG, please, software security folks, teach them the truth.
• Can we kill "plain text passwords" once and for all? Req 8 tries to achieve that noble goal (good thing!)
• Visit your offsite data storage - good (if costly) idea - added to Req 9. Requirements to secure electronic AND  paper media  are solid too.
• Love it, love it! Req 10 explains that logs needs to be actually available: 'three months of audit trail history must be “immediately available for analysis” or quickly accessible' (bye-bye, silly log dumps...)
• Some vulnerability stuff clarified in Req 11, mostly about ASVs and pentesting.
• Scope of security policy is expanded to "employee-facing technologies" (what a term!) - Req 12
• All over: more references to wireless  (WEP, access points, hidden SSIDs, etc) - indeed, recent data losses are often due to insecure wireless.

Overall, a minor change that, sadly, doesn't touch a few KEY areas, such as virtualization, for one.

Complicating factors is the impact (or lack thereof) of incidents on stock price.  Many researchers who identify themselves with the New School of Information Security (yours truly included) want to immediately look at stock price as a bell-weather metric for incident impact.  I think this stems from our days of slinging FUD, back when we could scream “Buy a firewall or we’ll have an incident and you’ll be on the front page of the paper and the stock price will go down!”  But these days notable incidents seem to suggest that the impact on stock price for an incident is short lived.  With qualifications, of course.

So what would/should we make of this from Money.co.uk?

£12million ($24m) Wiped off Helphire Stock after Malicious Email Sent to Clients

Car hire firm Helphire have taken Google to court after a malicious email sent from a Gmail account saw their shares plummet £12million in a single day.

The Bath-based business who specialise in providing replacement cars to ‘no-fault’ drivers involved in accidents on behalf of car insurance companies, initiated legal proceedings against the search engine giant as part of their attempt to find out who is responsible for sending the defamatory mailing.

Google are now known to have complied with the court order and have controversially supplied details of the email account and ISP used by the meddler.

Written under the psudoname Peter Franks, the 1200 word email is know to have been sent from a gmail account that was opened specifically for this purpose and closed a few minutes after the damage had been done…

…The misdemeanour couldn’t have come at a worse time for the struggling firm who have undergone a £45million rights issue and seen a 75% drop in the value of their stock already this year.

That last paragraph, for me, explains some of the difficulty in tying reputation damage to stock decreases.  It’s like when you read the headlines from Bloomberg about why the days stocks (or commodity) prices are up or down.  You know, the “Oil closes $3 higher on news that a notable South American dictator has a rather unpleasant boil in a very uncomfortable area” type of headlines.  You really do have to question the causality and correlation.  So in the Helphire case above - is this new drop in stock really because of the email sent?  If so, should we view that $24mil number as an independent data point to describe this sort of attack on reputation, or is the magnitude aggravated due to the long-term trend of stock price?

Even when we have “Objective Data” (an in-joke for Adam S.) like this decline in stock price, it is really difficult to provide any sort of precise estimate or measurement - about the future, present or past.  The best we can do is use ranges, distributions, that are reasonable based on evidence and observation.

So it’s worth filing away this sort of datum for future use - while dutifully acknowledging the qualifiers we might place around it.

So the questions I ask here - what should we make of this new information, and how should we view the $24million drop - they’re not rhetorical.  I am very interested in your views and welcome your comments!

My friend, I’m going to give you a hint.  If your firewall is “high risk” and your actual business applications are “low risk” - you might be doing it wrong.

For example, Reconnex that was recently absorbed by McAfee, touts "information protection" before compliance. Similarly, my friends from nexTier only mention "compliance" on a few pages. Even newly unveiled DLP resource  (DLP In-Depth portal) only contains a little bit  of information on how DLP solutions help with various compliance projects. People tout "data protection", " data security", "data governance" (aka "we know big words - bigger than you") or even "data risk management" (aka "we are confused about what we sell")

I decide to explore this curious phenomenon.

Initially, I thought that it was reverse compliance at work? People not wanting to know what content packs up and leaves their network. Then I thought that maybe DLP vendors just aren't "the bandwagon jumping kind" (yeah, right!) Then I thought that they are "beyond compliance" already :-)

But you know what? I actually think that it is something different, much more sinister. It is the ominous checklist mentality (here too)!  You know, DLP is newer than  most regulations (PCI DSS, HIPAA, FISMA, etc) and - what a shock! - the documentation for these mandates just doesn't mention DLP (or CMF) by name. Sure, they talk about data protection (e.g. PCI DSS Requirements 3 and 4), but mostly in terms of encryption, access control, logging (of course!).

Also, PCI DSS directly and explicitly says "get a firewall", "deploy log management", "get scanned", "install and update AV" - but where is DLP? Ain't there...

Yes, Virginia, folks who "go by the book" and just "do the minimum" are missing out on the chance to procure DLP while their compliance budgets are still flowing. To me that means that many still don't get the "compliance+" model - buy for compliance -> use for security, operations, having fun, etc. Think what a good DLP solution  will do for you in discovering regulated data across the entire organization, blocking those pesky email with SSNs, PHI (hi, HIPAA) and CCs (hi, PCI) as well as solving plenty of other problems ...