CYBERSECURITY: THE ENDGAME – PART TWO

Abstract

In Part One, the conversation between the sisters and the origin story of “controls” revealed how errors in assumptions, use of wrong math and method – compounded by complexity, and uncertainty created structural flaws in cybersecurity. Recall, a “structural flaw” is about design, whether a business process or a building. Better implementation/construction, maintenance or bandage solutions cannot fix a structural flaw. Part One analyzed the first of four structural flaws in cybersecurity – “controls.” These flaws churn cyber pros, CISOs and senior managers. These flaws are more dangerous in an era of cyberwarfare. Part One then described how to review controls to determine which to keep, fix or eliminate. The opportunity is to achieve more efficient and effective security – with less waste, distraction, and false sense of security. In Part Two, we diagnose three more structural flaws – “lines of defense,” frameworks and insider threats. The emphasis continues on structural flaws that cannot be fixed by better implementation, working longer hours or tweaking. Instead, cybersecurity improvements come from fixing the structural flaws and shifting to better approaches. Better approaches are drawn from proven and practical business management methods in simplification, psychology, systems thinking and design thinking. These can more easily achieve benefits through diverse, high-performing teams.