I never like to see the term ‘impact’.
Its not a metric.
I discuss how length, temperature, weight, are metrics whereas speed, acceleration, entropy are derived values. In the same sense, ‘impact’ is a derived value – “the cost of the harm to an asset”. The value of an asset can be treated as a primary metric, but how much it is “impacted” is a derived value.
This is the same kind of sloppy thinking, the same failure to identify tangible metrics as we see when people treating ‘risk’ as if it were something tangible, never mind a metric! Continue reading “Impact” is not a Metric
Take a look at this article.
You’re back? What did you think of it?
OK, now look again, scroll down the section titled “Risk Management“. It picks up on a number of themes I’ve discussed and has this interesting observation:
Prioritization of security efforts is a prudent step, naturally. The problem is that when risk management is done strictly by the numbers, it does deceptively little to actually understand, contain, and manage real-world problems. Instead, it introduces a dangerous fallacy: that structured inadequacy is almost as good as adequacy, and that underfunded security efforts plus risk management are about as good as properly funded security work.
Guess what? No dice:
The author goes on to illustrate a number of ways that the approach we as the InfoSec community have preached and practised makes no sense.
Continue reading Risk Analysis Makes No Sense … does it?