Part of the problem is that good security people need to know the following skills:

• IT technology: since the data more often than not is in a computer, you need to understand them
• People technology: policies and procedures for managing people
• Business sense:  understanding that you’re supporting business goals
• And for Government:  politics

Back when I was PFC Rybolov, my battalion commander told me something along the lines of “The intelligence world is a hard job, you have to be able to out-infantry the infantry, out-mechanic the mechanics, out-radio the radio guys, and you need to know a language.”  Security is pretty much the same thing–you have to out-techie the techies, out-business the MBAs, and out-jerkify the auditors.  =)

Sound complicated?  Yes, it is, and it’s hard to find people who can do all this.  IT is an employment niche, IT security is a niche to a niche.  And there isn’t enough people who have the experience to do it.

So how do we mitigate the staffing shortage?  Here is what we are doing today in the Government:

• CyberCorps scholarship program for undergrads and graduate students with a minimum government service obligation.
• Using other career fields in “crossover roles”–yes, accountants can be used for some light security tasks.  Some things that we think of as security are really Quality Assurance and Change Control jobs that we have a vested interest in making work.
• Using contractors in some roles such as ISSO, ISSM, etc.
• Automation as much as possible.  Technical is easier, the policy and procedures side takes longer.  What you’ll find out eventually is that good IT management is good security management.
• Hanging on methodologies to “automate” the process side of security.

Now this is cool and all, but it’s hard to sustain and really hard to justify as a long-term solution.  In order to support the Government, we need to create more people.  Cybercorps is a start, but the need is so much larger than the supply that we have to consider better ways to create Government security dweebs.

Do we need Security Awareness and Training?  Yes we do, but much more than what is being provided (think system administrator training and procurement specialist training, not end-user training), and as an internal recruiting pipeline.  Still, I don’t think that we can recruit enough people to “the dark side” and that we need to look outside the Beltway for people.  Problem is that DC is such an insular community and we don’t speak the same language as the rest of the world.

Bookmark to:

Those so-called Afghan National Auxiliary Police (ANAP), all formerly in the service of local warlords, had received two months of training by Dutch and American soldiers and were now the first line of defense against the Taliban.

Arming tribesmen was a risky idea. True, this sort of tribal initiative had been effective in Iraq. But NATO commanders feared that Afghan loyalties to their warlords ran too deep. NATO was “arming people who were not necessarily in line with the [Afghan] government,” U.S. Brig. Gen. Robert Cone told Wired.com.

So, last month, NATO fired the auxiliary cops and scrapped the tribal strategy, leaving gaping holes in Afghanistan's defenses. The fix? Marines, of course, armed with fingerprint pads, iris scanners and electronic databases.

With these biometric tools, the Marines are planning to recruit new cops who have no ties to tribal warlords. “We know there are some shadow police and some militia-type police,” Lt. Col. Ray Hall, the Marine commander, said. “Once we go through the vetting process, we'll have everybody screened … so that problem should go away.”

That means scanning every new recruit's unique iris “eye prints,” logging their thumb prints and feeding it all into a growing, but still very spotty, national database linked to criminal and intelligence records. If a cop has any known warlord ties, he's disqualified from serving.

CIA teams used FBI biometrics while hunting for known Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan in 2001, and since then, the military has gathered data on almost every Afghan it comes in regular contact with.

There's one more problem. Not all the military databases can talk to one another. “We haven't standardized,” said Larry Schneider, a Northrop Grumman VP who last year was working on collapsing many biometrics systems into just one.

Until everyone is looking at the same data, seditious Afghan cops will probably keep falling through the cracks.

As part of their investigation, the Committee engaged a multitude of experts ranging from e.g. PayPal CISO Michael Barrett to Prof. Ross Anderson, Bruce Schneier to Robert Littas, Head of Fraud Management in Visa Europe. Both the report and evidence (submitted in writing and during interview sessions) are available from the Parliament's web site and are a must read for every security professional.

Amongst renowned security experts and executives of multi-billion companies, Ilkley Computer Club - a local community support group in a small town (population 13,828) in the north of England (UK), was asked to submit their views on the subject. They did so with the following introduction:

Ilkley Computer Club is approximately 25 years old. When it started, it was the time of the first micro computers for home use; Ataris, Commodores, Sinclairs and BBCs. Membership was mainly 5th & 6th Formers from local schools. Today, the majority of members are “silver surfers” who almost always use a Windows computer. When the Club started, the Internet had not been invented. Now all members use it and at most meetings, Internet issues dominate discussions. The members wanted to pool their recent experiences with Internet use and to present them to the Committee in the hope that their collective knowledge – or lack of it – may aid understanding.

Like every other witness the Club was asked to suggest ways of "tackling the problem" and provided 6 recommendations. What I could not fail to note is that the Committee adopted 5 out of 6 suggestions made by the Club. The following excerpts from the report illustrate this.

Club: "There must be positive Government guidance pushed to users;"

Committee:

8.24. We recommend that the Department for Children, Schools and Families, in recognition of its revised remit, establish a project, involving a wide range of partners, to identify and promote new ways to educate the adult population, in particular parents, in online security and safety. (6.49)

Club: "Government advice must be from a single point of contact;"

Committee:

8.21. The Government-sponsored Get Safe Online website already provides useful information and practical advice to Internet users, but its impact is undermined by the multiplication of other overlapping websites. We recommend that the Government provide more explicit high-level political support to the Get Safe Online initiative and make every effort to recruit additional private sector sponsors. If necessary, the site should be relaunched as a single Internet security “portal”, providing access not only to the site itself but acting as a focus and entry-point for other related projects.
(6.46)

Club: "Internet Service Providers must take a proactive stance in prevention (viruses, trojans, spam, spyware, etc);"

Committee:

8.10. We recommend that the “mere conduit” immunity should be removed once ISPs have detected or been notified of the fact that machines on their network are sending out spam or infected code. This would give third parties harmed by infected machines the opportunity to recover damages from the ISP responsible. However, in order not to discourage ISPs from monitoring outgoing traffic proactively, they should enjoy a time-limited immunity when they have themselves detected the problem. (3.69)

Club: "Software produces must take more care when writing software to avoid bugs in the first place;"

Committee:

8.12. The IT industry has not historically made security a priority. This is gradually changing—but more radical and rapid change is needed if the industry is to keep pace with the ingenuity of criminals and avoid a disastrous loss of confidence in the Internet. The major companies, particularly the software vendors, must now make the development of more secure technologies their top design priority. We urge the industry, through selfregulation and codes of best practice, to demonstrate its commitment to this principle. (4.38)

8.15. We therefore recommend that the Government explore, at European level, the introduction of the principle of vendor liability within the IT industry. In the short term we recommend that such liability should be imposed on vendors (that is, software and hardware manufacturers), notwithstanding end user licensing agreements, in circumstances where negligence can be demonstrated. In the longer term, as the industry matures, a comprehensive framework of vendor liability and consumer protection should be introduced. (4.41)

Club: "If washing machines can be “kite marked” to EU or UK standards, why not computers?"

Committee:

8.23. We further recommend that, in addition to the new kite mark for content control software, Ofcom work with the industry partners and the British Standards Institute to develop additional kite marks for security software and social networking sites; and that it continue to keep under review possible areas where codes of best practice, backed up by kite marks, might be appropriate. (6.48)

Everyone might have their own interpretation of how the suggestions of ordinary computer users ended up being so spot-on as far as the Committee's conclusions are concerned, but undoubtedly it is a fascinating result. Perhaps, "users don't know what they want" is not as true as many vendors tend to believe and users can not only help to identify problems but also to develop solutions?