I need to craft a longer answer, but I will say the results of user
education programs are very dependent on the end user being taught.  I
have had much better luck with some groups than others.  The car
business. that is definitely a "teaching pigs to sing" experience.
Thanks for the insights Raffi and Jody.

I think we'll be hearing more about this topic ;)

Jack


On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Raffi Jamgotchian
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Jack,
>
> I used to feel the same way that you did only a few years ago.  I think it
> was particularly because our security program from the larger corporation I
> came from was ineffective. The problem with giving up on the end-user is
> that you end up with spending too much time and money on tools. I know those
> things are not necessarily items that are exclusive of each other but hear
> me out.
>
> When I was asked to be CTO of a small investment firm startup (after I left
> larger investment firm noted above), I agreed to every security startup that
> I met that I would put their product into my environment at no or low cost
> in return for feedback to them and them allowing to use our company name in
> their marketing.  Besides finding myself becoming somewhat of a tech whore
> (sorry if that offends), I found that I was spending too much time
> overcomplicating the environment which led to other issues. Both of those
> left a bad taste in my mouth so I made a conscious switch.
>
> Since then, I've moved into a consulting role with the same firm as well as
> a few other small investment and non-investment firms.  I've found that by
> spending one on one time about the consequences in addition to pragmatic
> controls is the best defense we have today. Small business typically don't
> have the resources to spend oodles of money on tools and people so they have
> to do, as Mick said at ShmooCon, "secure enough."
>
> The church I go to has a prototypical very conservative Armenian priest.
> His sermons are super long and are said in two languages (Armenian and
> English).  When he wants to teach or preach to a point, he says the same
> thing three different ways, and then again in both languages. Now someone
> that understands both languages got the same lesson 6 times.  Guess what, it
> eventually sinks in.  Although we like to treat employees like adults, and
> we expect them to behave that way, the truth is, that most adults (like
> Kindergarteners) need repetition in different ways to properly learn.  As
> security practitioners (and I'll speak to the small business market since
> that's what I focus on now a days) we need to be equal parts technologists
> to minimize the breakage when things happen but also teach the business
> consequences of the actions people make.  If you work the consequences into
> the conversations in different ways repetitiously, it does eventually sink
> in, but it doesn't happen overnight.
>
> Thanks for sending those links over. I'm always interested in seeing what
> others feel about this since my position is an evolving one.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jack Daniel
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 2:17 PM
> To: PaulDotCom Security Weekly Mailing List
> Subject: [Pauldotcom] End user education
>
> You've probably all seen Larry's fudsec post at
> http://fudsec.com/casual-hex-and-the-failure-of-security-awaren (You
> haven't? Go now, and make sure you read the comments).  I think it is a good
> starting point for a conversation we need to have in InfoSec.
>
> I have largely lined up with the dinosaurs like Ranum in my skepticism of
> the value of user education, but have tried anyway.  I almost always come
> back to Robert Heinlein's quote: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it
> wastes your time and it annoys the pig."  We do get some successes, but at
> what cost?
>
> A more informed look at the education we give end users, and the reasons
> that they should reject the advice, is found in a paper Cormac Herley
> delivered last year.  I read it when it came out, and keep going back to it.
> It isn't very long, but it isn't really a light read, either.  PDF is at
> http://research.microsoft.com/users/cormac/papers/2009/SoLongAndNoThanks.pdf
>
> You may notice that this is focused on the home user, not the corporate end
> user- that is on purpose, there just isn't enough data to extrapolate
> conclusions with the level of detail he wanted.  Cormac has observed that
> end users in business are rejecting the advice anyway.  I do think the
> numbers have to shift significantly when we factor in the costs of breaches
> to organizations and the fact that many fraud protections offered to
> individuals do not apply to businesses.  My gut feeling is that rejecting a
> lot of "security advice" still makes economic sense, at least from the
> corporate end-user perspective, but the margins are slimmer.
>
> There is also the issue of the true cost of breaches; if I have a fraudulent
> charge on a card I am not out any money *directly*, but we're all paying
> double-digit interest rates on credit cards when the prime is below a
> percent, partly to cover fraud expenses- and the price of goods includes an
> added margin to cover "shrinkage" (theft, loss, fraud, etc.).  We are all
> paying for the fraud, but the true costs are so obfuscated that we don't
> know what the real numbers are.
>
> I'm not sure where we go from here, but I do believe we need to be able to
> honestly answer the question "is it worth it" before we hand out security
> advice and education, especially the same stuff we've been saying for years.
>
> I think it makes sense to use this information to justify some lockdown of
> corporate assets; if the users can't be relied on to protect the assets (and
> arguably shouldn't have to), then we need to secure them before letting
> people loose to do their jobs.
>
> I have exchanged a few emails with Cormac, he has received a pretty good
> response to the paper and he is certainly a sharp guy.  Hey, there's a guest
> idea for the podcast...
> (Paul's idol, Steve Gibson, even covered this paper, but of course, didn't
> speak to Cormac about it).
>
> Jack
>
>
> --
> ______________________________________
> Jack Daniel, Reluctant CISSP
> http://twitter.com/jack_daniel
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackadaniel
> http://blog.uncommonsensesecurity.com
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
>



-- 
______________________________________
Jack Daniel, Reluctant CISSP
http://twitter.com/jack_daniel
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackadaniel
http://blog.uncommonsensesecurity.com
_______________________________________________
Pauldotcom mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com

Reply via email to