Sorry.... this web site provides a good overview: http://www.cxoware.com/what-is...
I guess a better term would have been ‘uninterested’.
The fact that a few people have died to Ebola makes it a novelty.
The fact that 10,000+ people have been killed annually in DUI related offences has jaded the media.
Bruce Schneier has a good essay on this topic - Virginia Tech Lesson: Rare Risks Breed Irrational Responses - https://www.schneier.com/essay...
He sums it up with novelty + dread = overreaction.
Ebola fits that. From a public heath perspective for the US, Ebola is for the most part a non-issue.
Thanks. Will see if the editor can make the change.
Author: Jack Freund and Jack Jones
Reviewer: Ben Rothke
Summary: Superb overview to the powerful FAIR risk management methodology
It's hard to go a day without some sort of data about information security and risk. Researches from firms like Gartner are accepted without question; even though they can get their results from untrusted and unvetted sources.
The current panic around Ebola shows how people are ill-informed about risk. While distressing over Ebola, the media is oblivious to true public health threats like obesity, heart disease, drunk driving, diabetes, and the like.
When it comes to information security, is not that much better. With myriad statistics, surveys, data breach reports, cost of data breach: global analyses and the like, there is an overabundance of data, and an under abundance of meaningful data.
In Measuring and Managing Information Risk: A FAIR Approach, authors Jack Freund and Jack Jones have written a magnificent book that will change the way (for the better) you think about and deal with IT risk.
The book details the factor analysis of information risk(FAIR) methodology, which is a proven and credible framework for understanding, measuring, and analyzing information risk of any size or complexity.
An Open Group standard, FAIR is a methodology and a highly effective quantitative analysis tool.
The power of FAIR is immense: it enables the risk practitioner to make well-informed decisions based on meaningful measurements. While that seems obvious, in practicality, it is a challenging endeavor.
FAIR is invaluable in that it helps the risk professional understand the language that the corporate board and senior executives speak. Understanding that and communicating in their language can make it much easier for information security to be perceived as a valued asset, as opposed to using Chicken Little statistics.
FAIR takes the risk professional out of the realm of the dealing with risk via the checklist; which only serves to produce meaningless measurements, into the world of quantitative, defendable results.
For those that are looking for a tool to create pretty executive summary charts with lots of colors, FAIR will sorely disappoint them. For those that are looking for a method to understand how to calculate qualitative risk to support a formal enterprise risk management program, they won't find a better guide than this book.
The book is an incredibly good reference that will force you to look again at how you view risk management.
Jones writes in the preface that the book is not about checklists and formulas, but about critical thinking.
The authors note that information security and operational risk has operated for far too long as an art, with not enough science. This is the gap that FAIR attempts to fill.
The authors write that risk decision making quality boils down to the quality of information decision makers are operating from, and the decision makers themselves. The book does a remarkable job of showing how a person can become a much better decision maker.
A subtle but important point the book makes early on is that many risk professionals confuse risk possibilities with risk probabilities. The FAIR method forces you to focus on probabilities and not to obsess with Ebola like possibilities. Such a quantitative analysis approach is what makes FAIR so beneficial.
The book spends a few chapters on going through FAIR risk ontology and terminology. Inconsistent and poorly defined terminology is one of the most significant challenges the information security and operational risk profession faces. Having a consistent set of logical terms and definitions that make up the FAIR framework significantly improves the quality of risk relations communications within an organization.
The value of having a consistent set of logical terms and definitions is significant. For example, the book notes that many people use the term threat. In the context of risk analysis, it might not be a real threat if there is no resulting loss. In that case, it would be considered a vulnerability event.
The challenge of FAIR is acclimating to its dialect. But once done, it creates an extremely powerful methodology for risk communication and management. And therein lays its power. Setting up a common framework for risk management becomes and invaluable tool to present risk ideas. In addition, it makes the findings much more objective and defendable.
In chapter 5, the authors address the biggest objections to quantitative risk management that it can't be measured or is simply unknowable. They agree that risk can't be measured at the micro level, but it canbe effectively measured to the degree to reduce management's uncertainly about risk.
They also importantly note that risk is a forward-looking statement about what may or come to pass in the future. With that, perfect accuracy is impossible; but effective quantitative risk management is very possible.
The power of FAIR is that is helps add clarity to ambiguous risk situations by giving you the tools to add data points to a situation that is purported to be unknowable.
Chapter 8 is an extremely enlightening chapter in that it provides 11 risk analysis examples. The examples do a great job of reinforcing the key FAIR concepts and methods.
In chapter 10, the authors write that the hardest part of learning FAIR is having to overcome bad habits. For most people, FAIR represents a recalibration of your mental model about what risk is and how it works. The chapter deals with common mistakes and stumbling blocks when performing a FAIR analysis. The 5 high-level categories of mistakes the chapter notes are: checking results, scoping, data, variable confusion and vulnerability analysis.
FAIR is a powerful methodology that can revolutionize risk management. The challenge is that it takes a village to make such a change. Management may be reticent to invest in what is perceived as yet another risk management framework.
But once you start using the language of FAIR and validate your findings, astute management will likely catch on. Over time, FAIR can indeed be a risk management game changer.
The book is flawless in its execution and description of the subject. The only critique is that in that the author's should have been a bit more transparent in the text when (especially in chapter 8) mentioning the FAIR software, in that it is their firm that makes the software.
For those that are willing to put in the time to understanding FAIR, this book it will make their jobs much easier. It will help them earn the trust of senior management, and make them much better risk management professionals in the process.
Reviewed by Ben Rothke"
If you start a dialogue with a sales rep at AWS, they have a log of diagrams and detailed technical material they will share.
You can also look around at http://aws.amazon.com/document..., as there is a lot of good technical material there.
The use of Netflix on AWS is well documented.
Start here: http://aws.amazon.com/solution...
::::First and foremost, the cloud is not in any way shape or form secure.Any thing you put there is there to share.
It’s as secure as you want to make it.
Many firms that take security seriously use the cloud.
You do have a good point there.
You are correct about my not getting the first sentence right.
With that, don’t let defective sentence stop you from reading a very good book.
:::::Will an experienced admin (20+ years *NIX) that's currently using RackSpace (dedicated and cloud) learn anything from this book? It's so hard to tell from this review.
I think so.
From a hosting and sys admin perspective, it is not a radical difference.
But from a cloud application perspective, there is a lot to learn.
Lack of standardization is one of the biggest problems facing cloud computing.
It’s inevitable a few standards will eventually emerge. But until then, there’s a lot of uncertainty.
:::entrust their data to some unknown and unmonitored external entity such as the 'cloud'.
Do you really consider Amazon Web Services unknown and unmonitored?
The granularity of what they can report on shows their monitoring capabilities are quite sophisticated.
I think the facts speak for themselves. There are thousands of examples of safe and productive instances of cloud computing,
But there are also tens of thousands of examples of insecure and unproductive instances of cloud computing,
The book doesn’t deal with acceptable use per se, as much of acceptable use is determined by the specific user of the cloud.
As I wrote about “almost any security regulation or standard can be met in the cloud. As none of the regulations and standard dictates where the data must specifically reside”.
So if you define what the with acceptable use is and build that into your cloud policy and contract, that would be acceptable.
That’s a major question and one that every firm needs to address before using the cloud.
There are safeguards you can put in place. You can back-up all cloud data as a start.
There are a lot of articles on the topic. Check this one out as a start: http://spendmatters.com/2013/1...
A search of www.merriam-webster.com returns: the word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. So you are correct, this is not an official English word.
Lookif selfie can be a word, why can’t we let architecting in?