DOCSLIB.ORG

Examining Cybersecurity Risk Reporting on US SEC Form 10-K

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Examining Cybersecurity Risk Reporting on US SEC Form 10-K FEATURE Examining Cybersecurity Risk Reporting on US SEC Form 10-K On 27 June 2017, A.P. Moller-Maersk, Merck & Co., Statistics from 2016 show:6 Inc., TNT, WPP, DLA Piper, Rosneft, the Ukrainian • One in 131 email messages contained malware. state postal service and Princeton Community Hospital in West Virginia, USA, were among the • 15 cyberbreaches exposed more than 10 million numerous organizations that were affected by a identities in each breach. cybersecurity attack that held information systems • 1.1 billion identities were exposed due to hostage in exchange for ransom payments (i.e., cyberincidents. ransomware attack).1, 2 This attack occurred the month after the major ransomware attack WannaCry • On average, it took two minutes for an Internet of was reported on 12 May 2017. Things (IoT) device to be attacked. • Close to 230,000 web attacks occurred each day. One day later, BBC America host Katty Kay asked Michael Chertoff, executive chairman of • 357 million variants of malware were detected. The Chertoff Group and former head of the US Department of Homeland Security, to comment Clearly, organizations face the danger of significant on the chance that state-sponsored or nonstate- losses from cybersecurity incidents and breaches. sponsored terrorist groups will initiate a material The 2011 recommendations for voluntary cyberattack. Chertoff responded that this is “the cybersecurity risk disclosure guidance from the US most serious threat we currently face.”3 Cybersecurity incidents and breaches cause significant losses to affected organizations. For example, if an organization’s information system is hacked and millions of customers’ data are stolen, the organization’s post-breach costs that are related to the attack will break down as follows:4 • 41 percent from lost customer business from either a lack of trust from existing customers or a diminished ability to attract new customers • 17 percent for legal fees to defend the organization in lawsuits resulting from the breach • 16 percent to discover what went wrong and why • 26 percent comprised of eight different line items, none of which exceeds 8 percent In the United States in 2016, the average cyberbreach cost to an organization that had a small Grace F. Johnson, CPA data breach (fewer than 100,000 customer records) Is the McCoy Professor of Management and Accounting in the was US $7.35 million.5 Department of Business and Economics at Marietta College (Ohio, USA). She can be reached at [email protected]. ISACA JOURNAL VOL 4 1 ©2018 ISACA. All rights reserved. www.isaca.org Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for Figure 1—Companies Evaluated in the Study publicly traded companies have been the subject of support and criticism, but such disclosure Abbott Laboratories is a valuable picture of the vulnerability of an Allergan Plc organization’s data and information systems. These Alphabet Inc. disclosure narratives—which should be included American Express Company among the top risk factors in a company’s Form Apple Inc. 10-K (the annual report required by the SEC for public companies), “if these issues are among the The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation most significant factors that make an investment BlackRock Inc. 7 in the company speculative or risky” —offer a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company reminder to Form 10-K readers that the information Caterpillar Inc. technologies on which an organization relies for its most critical business processes can be the target Cisco Systems Inc. of enemies on the outside and the inside. Colgate-Palmolive Company Costco Wholesale Corporation This article examined disclosures about The Dow Chemical Company cybersecurity threats included in Item 1A-Risk Factors on Form 10-K. A sample of organizations Eli Lilly and Company listed in the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 100 Index Exxon Mobil Corporation were chosen for an examination of their cyberrisk FedEx Corporation disclosures in the year the SEC recommendations General Motors Company were released (fiscal year 2011) and five years later Halliburton Company (fiscal year 2016). Intel Corporation Using a small sample of the largest US publicly JPMorgan Chase & Co. traded companies that were considered leaders Lockheed Martin Corporation in their industries, this article identifies the McDonald’s Corporation cybersecurity threats that large companies deem material and highlight in their Item 1A-Risk Factors MetLife, Inc. disclosures and examines specific ways that their Monsanto Company cybersecurity risk factor narratives have changed Nike Inc. between the year that the SEC released guidance Philip Morris International Inc. about these disclosures (2011) and the most Raytheon Company recent fiscal year end (2016). In this study, the terms “cyberrisk,” “cybersecurity risk,” “IT risk” and Southern Company “information systems risk” are interchangeable. Texas Instruments Incorporated Union Pacific Corporation Methodology United Technologies Corporation The study analyzed the cybersecurity risk factor Verizon Communications Inc. disclosures of one-third of the corporations listed Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in the S&P 100 Index on 31 May 2017. Figure 1 lists the 33 studied companies. For the several companies whose 2011 fiscal years ended within a few months prior to the October 2011 release of the SEC’s disclosure recommendations, ISACA JOURNAL VOL 4 2 ©2018 ISACA. All rights reserved. www.isaca.org the fiscal year 2012 Form 10-K was used for Business Activities analysis because it was the first annual filing subject The SEC encourages registrants to describe the to the SEC’s guidance. nature of information technology-dependent business activities and the effect and financial Each company’s Item 1A-Risk Factor disclosure costs of cyberrisk on those activities. Close to 50 was examined for narratives about information percent of the companies reported this information system risk. These narratives were read in full and in 2011 and, in 2016, about 60 percent disclosed the comparisons were made between the disclosures in information; however, several qualifications must be 2011 and 2016. Those comparisons included: made about the disclosures: • Whether both, one or neither year’s narrative • Not all of the 20 companies that provided business addresses the five areas of coverage activity narratives in 2016 included meaningful recommended by the SEC details about these activities. Some noted their IT-dependent activities in general terms, such as • If the two years’ disclosures are unique, follow a Costco Wholesale’s statement from its 2016 Form template or use boilerplate language 10-K: • How 2016 cybersecurity risk topics differ from We rely extensively on computer systems to those identified in 2011 process transactions, compile results, and manage our business.”8 Other companies Study Results and Discussion omitted their business activities but The two key study takeaways are: provided lists of types of data subject to cyberrisk. Eli Lilly and Company’s 2016 • Across the five-year period, companies provide Form 10-K narrative exemplified this more cybersecurity risk information. approach, stating, “This includes valuable • In nearly 40 percent of the 2016 Form 10-Ks, trade secrets and intellectual property, cyberrisk disclosures are detailed and specific. corporate strategic plans, marketing plans, customer information, and personally SEC Recommended Disclosures identifiable information, such as employee and patient information.”9 Figure 2 reports the 2011 and 2016 disclosures according to the five SEC suggested topic areas for The Colgate-Palmolive and Nike disclosures stood Item 1A-Risk Factors on the Form 10-K. out for their highly useful and specific descriptions of the nature of their business functions. Figure 2—Five SEC-Suggested Risk Factors Topic Area Narratives 2011* Percent 2016 Percent Business activities, 13 43 20 61 impact and cost Outsourced IT 9 30 19 58 functions and steps to mitigate risk Incidents, impacts 4 13 17 52 and significance Consequences of 29 97 33 100 undetected incidents Insurance coverage 2 7 7 21 and amounts *In 2011, three companies (Halliburton, Monsanto, and Texas Instruments) did not identify information technology risk in Item 1A. Therefore, 2011 percentages reflect the number out of 30, rather than 33, companies. ISACA JOURNAL VOL 4 3 ©2018 ISACA. All rights reserved. www.isaca.org • Because of overlapping content in the description Insurance Policies Covering Cybersecurity Threats of the impact of cybersecurity risk on company Four of the SEC’s five recommended risk topics business activities and the SEC’s fourth suggested emphasize the hazards inherent in using information area for inclusion, a narrative focusing on the technologies. The fifth topic encourages companies consequences of undetected cyberincidents, these to highlight the protection they have for these narratives were blended together in the Item 1A hazards. In 2016, just 21 percent of companies disclosures. indicated that they were insured for IT risk. In the 2011 Form 10-Ks, only 7 percent of companies • None of the companies quantify costs of identified the existence of insurance coverage. cyberthreats, but qualitatively tally these costs in terms such as lost business, weakened competitive positions, impaired reputations and adverse impacts on profits and/or financial THE DEGREE OF QUALITATIVE condition. IMPROVEMENT FROM 2011 TO 2016 SHOWS Outsourced IT Functions and Steps to Mitigate THAT LENGTHIER DISCLOSURES APPEARED Associated Risk of Outsourcing Although not the only company
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Seven Steps to a Forever Safe Cipher
    International Journal on Advances in Security, vol 11 no 1 & 2, year 2018, http://www.iariajournals.org/security/ 91 RMDM – Further Verification of the Conceptual ICT Risk-Meta-Data-Model Verified with the underlying Risk Models of COBIT for Risk and COSO ERM 2017 Martin Latzenhofer 1 2 Gerald Quirchmayr 2 1 Center for Digital Safety & Security 2 Multimedia Information Systems Research Group Austrian Institute of Technology Faculty of Computer Science, University of Vienna Vienna, Austria Vienna, Austria email: [email protected] email: [email protected] Abstract— The aim of this article is to introduce an approach to initialize and re-establish the risk management that integrates the different models and methods currently frameworks and related processes each time. It is evident that applied for risk management in information and these parameters result in a smaller degree of reusability of a communication technologies (ICT). These different risk given risk management process and less comparability of the management approaches are usually bound to the organization information obtained from it. where they are applied, thus staying quite specific for a given When interpreting this problem as a pure ICT issue, an setting. Consequently, there is no possibility to compare or explicit ICT solution is required. This leads to the main reuse risk management structures because they are individual research question of this paper, i.e., whether it is possible to solutions. In order to establish a common basis for working develop a common risk management model, which is with different underlying risk models, a metamodeling approach from the area of disaster recovery is used.
    [Show full text]
  • Redefining & Strengthening IT Governance Through Three Lines Of
    Redefining & Strengthening IT Governance through Three Lines of Defense Presented by Ronke Oyemade, CISA, CRISC, PMP CEO, Principal Consultant, Strategic Global Consulting L.L.C Introduction • Brief Introduction of the Presenter. • Session Presentation: ‘Redefining & Strengthening IT Governance through Three Lines of Defense” This session takes a different and practical approach to strengthening IT Governance by applying the three lines of defense model. This approach adopts the use of Risk IT and Cobit as frameworks through which the three lines of defense model is implemented. The session gives an overview of the three lines of defense model, Risk IT and Cobit frameworks and provides practical application of them to the IT environment of a fictitious enterprise. • Benefits obtained from this session. Agenda 1. Use of IT and IT Risk 2. IT Governance: Overview and Importance 3. Overview of Three Lines of Defense, Risk IT and Cobit Framework 4. Three Lines of Defense Model 5. What is the relationship between Risk IT Framework and Cobit Framework 6. How do the Risk IT Framework and Cobit fit into the Three Lines of Defense Model 7. First Line of Defense 8. Second Line of Defense 9. Three Line of Defense Use of IT and IT risk • What is the importance of IT? • Why is IT Risk? What is IT risk? • IT risk is business risk and a component of overall risk universe of the enterprise. • IT-related risk is a component of other business risks IT risk as Business Risk Enterprise Risk StrategicStrategic RiskRisk EnvironmentalEnvironmental MarketMarket
    [Show full text]
  • IS.010-Sdr-Information Security Risk Management
    Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Technology Services and Security (EOTSS) Enterprise Security Office Information Security Risk Management Standard Document Name: Information Security Risk Effective Date: October 15th, 2018 Management Last Revised Date: July 15th, 2020 Document ID: IS.010 Table of contents 1. Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 2 2. Authority .................................................................................................................... 2 3. Scope ........................................................................................................................ 2 4. Responsibility ............................................................................................................ 2 5. Compliance ................................................................................................................ 2 6. Standard Statements ................................................................................................. 3 6.1. Information Security Risk Management .............................................................. 3 6.2 Information Security Training and Awareness .................................................... 8 7. Control Mapping ........................................................................................................ 9 8. Document Change Control ........................................................................................ 9 Information
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Risk in Advanced Manufacturing Cyber Risk in Advanced Manufacturing
    Cyber risk in advanced manufacturing Cyber risk in advanced manufacturing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Contents 1 Executive summary 3 2 Executive and board-level engagement 14 3 Talent and human capital 22 4 Protecting intellectual property 30 5 Inherent risks in industrial control systems 34 6 Implications of rapidly evolving connected products 40 7 Cyber risk in the industrial ecosystem 44 8 The changing nature of the cyberthreat landscape 46 9 Conclusion 50 10 Endnotes 51 11 Authors and acknowledgements 52 2 Cyber risk in advanced manufacturing Executive summary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Technologies utilized to drive the business are likely • Emerging risks likely to materialize as a result of rapid Manufacturers drive to include complex global networks, a myriad of back technology change office business applications, generations of different • An assessment of leading strategies manufacturers are extensive innovation in industrial control systems (ICS) controlling high-risk employing to address these types of cyber risks products, manufacturing manufacturing processes, and a variety of technologies directly embedded into current and emerging products. To that end, Deloitte and MAPI launched the Cyber Risk process, and industrial Further, manufacturers continue to drive extensive in Advanced Manufacturing study to assess these trends. innovation in products, manufacturing process, and We conducted more than 35 live executive and industry ecosystem relationships industrial ecosystem relationships in order to compete organization interviews, and in collaboration with Forbes in a changing global marketplace.1 As a result, the Insights, we collected 225 responses to an online survey in order to compete manufacturing industry is likely to see an acceleration in exploring cyber risk in advanced manufacturing trends.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anatomy of Cyber Risk*
    The Anatomy of Cyber Risk* Rustam Jamilov Hélène Rey Ahmed Tahoun London Business School London Business School London Business School September 2020 PRELIMINARY AND INCOMPLETE. Abstract Despite continuous interest from both industry participants and policy makers, empirical research on the economics of cyber security is still lacking. This paper fills the gap by constructing comprehensive text-based measures of firm-level exposure to cyber risk by leveraging machine learning tools developed in Hassan et al.(2019). Our indices capture such textual bigrams as "cyber attack", "ransomware", and "data loss", span 20 years of data, and are available for over 80 counties. We validate our measures by cross-referencing with well-known reported cyber incidents such as the Equifax data breach and the “NotPetya” global ransomware attack. We begin by document- ing a steady and significant rise in aggregate cyber risk exposure and uncertainty across the Globe, with a noticeable deterioration in sentiment. The fraction of most- affected firms is gradually shifting from the US towards Europe and the UK. From virtually zero exposure, the financial sector has grown to become one of the most af- fected sectors in under ten years. We continue by studying asset pricing implications of firm-level cyber risk. First, in windows surrounding conference call announce- ments, we find direct effects of cyber risk exposure on stock returns. Furthermore, we also find significant within-country-industry-week peer effects on non-affected firms. Second, we document strong factor structure in our firm-level measures of exposure and sentiment and show that shocks to the common factors in cyber risk exposure (CyberE) and sentiment (CyberS) are priced with an opposite sign.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Cybersecurity Risk in Government: an Implementation Model
    IBM Center for The Business of Government Managing Cybersecurity Risk in Government: An Implementation Model Rajni Goel James Haddow Anupam Kumar Howard University Howard University Howard University Managing Cybersecurity Risk in Government: An Implementation Model Rajni Goel Howard University James Haddow Howard University Anupam Kumar Howard University MANAGING CYBERSECURITY RISK IN GOVERNMENT: AN IMPLEMENTATION MODEL www.businessofgovernment.org TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword . 4 Introduction . 5 Enterprise and Cybersecurity Risk Management . 7 Nature of Cybersecurity Threats . 10 Frameworks to Manage Cybersecurity Risk . 13 Cyber Risk in the Federal Sector . 16 Gaps in Managing Cyber Risk in the Federal Sector . 18 Elements Necessary in a Cyber Risk Framework: A Meta-Analysis . 21 Decision Framework for Cybersecurity Risk Assessment: The PRISM Approach . 24 Implementing the PRISM Decision Model . 27 Summary . 35 Appendices . 36 About the Author . 49 Key Contact Information . 51 Reports from the IBM Center for The Business of Government . 52 3 MANAGING CYBERSECURITY RISK IN GOVERNMENT: AN IMPLEMENTATION MODEL IBM Center for The Business of Government FOREWORD On behalf of the IBM Center for The Business of Government, we are pleased to present this report, Managing Cyber Risk in Government: An Implementation Model, by Rajni Goel, James Haddow, and Anupam Kumar of Howard University. The increased use of technologies such as social media, the Internet of Things, mobility, and cloud computing by government agencies has extended the sources of potential cyber risk faced by those agencies . As a result, cyber is increasingly being viewed as a key component in enterprise risk management (ERM) frame- works . At the same time, agency managers encounter the challenge of imple- menting cyber risk management by selecting from a complex array of security controls that reflect a variety of technical, operational, and managerial perspectives .
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Iot, Cyber Threats, and Standards Landscape: Evaluation and Roadmap
    sensors Review Industrial IoT, Cyber Threats, and Standards Landscape: Evaluation and Roadmap Lubna Luxmi Dhirani 1,2,*, Eddie Armstrong 3 and Thomas Newe 1,2 1 Confirm Smart Manufacturing Research Centre, V94 C928 Limerick, Ireland; [email protected] 2 Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Limerick, V94 T9PX Limerick, Ireland 3 Johnson & Johnson, Advanced Technology Centre, University of Limerick, V94 YHY9 Limerick, Ireland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Industrial IoT (IIoT) is a novel concept of a fully connected, transparent, automated, and intelligent factory setup improving manufacturing processes and efficiency. To achieve this, existing hierarchical models must transition to a fully connected vertical model. Since IIoT is a novel approach, the environment is susceptible to cyber threat vectors, standardization, and interoperability issues, bridging the gaps at the IT/OT ICS (industrial control systems) level. IIoT M2M communication relies on new communication models (5G, TSN ethernet, self-driving networks, etc.) and technologies which require challenging approaches to achieve the desired levels of data security. Currently there are no methods to assess the vulnerabilities/risk impact which may be exploited by malicious actors through system gaps left due to improper implementation of security standards. The authors are currently working on an Industry 4.0 cybersecurity project and the insights provided in this paper are derived from the project. This research enables an understanding of converged/hybrid cybersecurity standards, reviews the best practices, and provides a roadmap for identifying, aligning, mapping, converging, and implementing the right cybersecurity standards and strategies for securing M2M Citation: Dhirani, L.L.; Armstrong, communications in the IIoT.
    [Show full text]
  • Cloud Specific Issues and Vulnerabilities Solutions Author 4: B.Suresh Kumar (M.Tech), Author 1: C.Kishor Kumar Reddy (M.Tech), Dept
    International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 3, Issue 7, July-2012 1 ISSN 2229-5518 Cloud Specific Issues and Vulnerabilities solutions Author 4: B.Suresh Kumar (M.Tech), Author 1: C.Kishor Kumar Reddy (M.Tech), Dept. of C.S.E, VCE, Dept. of C.S.E, VCE, Samshabad, R.R (Dist), A.P, India. Samshabad, R.R (Dist), A.P, India. [email protected], [email protected], Ph: +91 9533444094. Ph: +91 9493024236. Author 2: SK. Lokesh Naik (Assistant Professor), Dept. of C.S.E, VCE, Samshabad, R.R (Dist), A.P, India. [email protected], Ph: +91 9885601370 Abstract: The current discourse about cloud computing security issues makes a well-founded assessment of cloud computing's security impact difficult for two primary reasons. First, as is true for many discussions about risk, basic vocabulary such as "risk," "threat," and "vulnerability" are often used as if they were interchangeable, without regard to their respective definitions. Second, not every issue that's raised is really specific to cloud computing. We can achieve an accurate understanding of the security issue "delta" that cloud computing really adds by analyzing how cloud computing influences each risk factor. One important factor concerns vulnerabilities: cloud computing makes certain well-understood vulnerabilities more significant and adds new vulnerabilities. Here, we define four Figure 1: Factors contributing to risk according to the indicators of cloud-specific vulnerabilities, introduce security- open Group’s risk taxonomy. specific cloud reference architecture, and provide examples of cloud- specific vulnerabilities for each architectural component. This paper This second factor brings us toward a useful definition of highlights and categorizes many of security issues introduced by the vulnerability.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation Guideline ISO/IEC 27001:2013
    A publication of the ISACA Germany Chapter e.V. Information Security Expert Group Implementation Guideline ISO/IEC 27001:2013 A practical guideline for implementing an ISMS in accordance with the international standard ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Publisher: ISACA Germany Chapter e.V. Oberwallstr. 24 10117 Berlin, Germany www.isaca.de The content of this guideline was developed by members of the [email protected] ISACA Germany Chapter e.V. and was thoroughly researched. Due care has been exercised in the creation of this publication; however, this publication is not comprehensive. It reflects the Team of Authors: views of the ISACA Germany Chapter. ISACA Germany Chapter e.V. • Gerhard Funk (CISA, CISM), independent consultant accepts no liability for the content. • Julia Hermann (CISSP, CISM), Giesecke & Devrient GmbH • Angelika Holl (CISA, CISM), Unicredit Bank AG The latest version of the guideline can be obtained free of • Nikolay Jeliazkov (CISA, CISM), Union Investment charge at www.isaca.de. All rights, including the right to • Oliver Knörle (CISA, CISM) reproduce excerpts of the content, are held by the ISACA • Boban Krsic (CISA, CISM, CISSP, CRISC), DENIC eG Germany Chapter e.V. • Nico Müller, BridgingIT GmbH • Jan Oetting (CISA, CISSP), Consileon Business Consultancy GmbH This guideline was translated from the German original version • Jan Rozek »Implementierungsleitfaden ISO/IEC 27001:2013« published in • Andrea Rupprich (CISA, CISM), usd AG June 2016. • Dr. Tim Sattler (CISA, CISM, CRISC, CGEIT, CISSP), Jungheinrich AG • Michael Schmid (CISM),
    [Show full text]
  • COBIT® 5: Enabling Processes (The ‘Work’), Primarily As an Educational Resource for Governance of Enterprise IT (GEIT), Assurance, Risk and Security Professionals
    Enabling Processes Personal Copy of: Dr. David Lanter : Enabling Processes ISACA® With 95,000 constituents in 160 countries, ISACA (www.isaca.org) is a leading global provider of knowledge, certifications, community, advocacy and education on information systems (IS) assurance and security, enterprise governance and management of IT, and IT-related risk and compliance. Founded in 1969, the non-profit, independent ISACA hosts international conferences, publishes the ISACA® Journal, and develops international IS auditing and control standards, which help its constituents ensure trust in, and value from, information systems. It also advances and attests IT skills and knowledge through the globally respected Certified Information Systems Auditor® (CISA®), Certified Information Security Manager® (CISM®), Certified in the Governance of Enterprise IT® (CGEIT®) and Certified in Risk and Information Systems ControlTM (CRISCTM) designations. ISACA continually updates COBIT®, which helps IT professionals and enterprise leaders fulfil their IT governance and management responsibilities, particularly in the areas of assurance, security, risk and control, and deliver value to the business. Disclaimer ISACA has designed this publication, COBIT® 5: Enabling Processes (the ‘Work’), primarily as an educational resource for governance of enterprise IT (GEIT), assurance, risk and security professionals. ISACA makes no claim that use of any of the Work will assure a successful outcome. The Work should not be considered inclusive of all proper information, procedures and tests or exclusive of other information, procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific information, procedure or test, readers should apply their own professional judgement to the specific GEIT, assurance, risk and security circumstances presented by the particular systems or information technology environment.
    [Show full text]
  • A Scenario-Based Methodology for Cloud Computing Security Risk
    A Scenario-Based Methodology for Cloud Computing Security Risk Assessment Prof. Hany Ammar;Ishraga Mohamed Ahmed Khogali Abstract Cloud computing has been one of the major emerging technologies in recent years. However, for cloud computing, the risk assessment become more complex since there are several issues that likely emerged [1]. In this paper we survey the existing work on assessing security risks in cloud computing applications. Existing work does not address the dynamic nature of cloud applications and there is need for methods that calculate the security risk factor dynamically. In this paper we use the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Risk Management Framework and present a dynamic scenario-based methodology for risk assessment. The methodology is based using Bayesian networks to estimate likelihood of cloud application security failure which enable us to compute the probability distribution of failures over variables of interest given the evidence. We illustrate the methodology using two case studies and highlight the significant risk factors. We also show the effect of using security controls in reducing the risk factors. Keyword: Cloud Computing Published Date: 12/31/2017 Page.126-155 Vol 5 No 12 2017 Link: http://ijier.net/ijier/article/view/875 International Journal for Innovation Education and Research www.ijier.net Vol:-5 No-12, 2017 A Scenario-Based Methodology for Cloud Computing Security Risk Assessment Prof. Hany Ammar, Ishraga Mohamed Ahmed Khogali Abstract Cloud computing has been one of the major emerging technologies in recent years. However, for cloud computing, the risk assessment become more complex since there are several issues that likely emerged [1].
    [Show full text]
  • A Methodology for Measuring and Monitoring IT Risk
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by South East Academic Libraries System (SEALS) A Methodology for Measuring and Monitoring IT Risk by Natalie Tansley Submitted to define the research area for part fulfilment of the degree Master Technologiae in Business Information Systems in the Faculty of Engineering, The Built Environment and Information Technology of the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Supervisor: Helen van de Haar December 2007 Acknowledgements Stephen Flowerday, for his guidance and assistance as promoter for this paper during the initial research period. Helen van der Haar for her guidance and thoroughness as promoter for this paper A Methodology for Measuring and Monitoring IT Risk Table of Contents Chapter 1 : A Methodology for Measuring and Monitoring IT Risk 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Description of Problem Area ..................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Research Objectives .................................................................................................................. 8 1.3.1 Research Methodology .............................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Layout
    [Show full text]