Challenges of Managing Data Security: Causes and Effects of Data System Failures

The activities related to this step take place after all other steps in data security are complete, and all affected data or network systems are restored. The purpose of the this data management step is to review the security incident and determine how to prevent the same type of successful data or network attack in the future as well as to identify areas for improvement to facilitate faster response and better business impact mitigation. Using documents created during the Detect, Contain, and Eradicate steps, the IRTs seek to answer the following questions:

• What happened to corporate data or network systems?
• What was supposed to happen to these information systems?
• What are the differences, or gaps, between 1 and 2?
• What are the reasons for the differences?
• What data security controls failed or were missing in the areas of people, process, and technology?
• What are the lessons learned?

The process of answering these questions and the development of an Action Plan to improve incident detection and response are the elements of an After Action Review, or AAR.

One of the easiest and most effective methods of tracing the chain of cause and effect is the use of a Cause and Effect Diagram. There are different approaches to mapping cause and effect. Figure 1 depicts a variation on an approach documented by Dean L. Gano (1999). Figure 1A is a basic diagram with no controls specified. Figure 1B is the same diagram with controls. Let’s step through the process.

1. Begin at the end. To create a Cause and Effect Diagram, begin at the primary effect on the left and work to the right. The
   

   click to enlarge
   primary effect is the business impact caused by the data security or network incident. In our example, it is described as “No Checks Printed.”
2. Ask why. For each effect identified, ask the question, “Why did this happen?” In Figure 1A, the answer is that the “AR Process Failed”; this is the action that created the effect. Notice that there is another box paired with the action, “No Monitoring Tools.” This is a condition statement. In many cases, an effect is caused due to an action occurring in the presence of a specific condition. This isn’t always the case, but be sure to explore the possibilities carefully. This is considered a condition in this case, because identifying the data security or network failure earlier may have provided opportunities to recover and run the checks on time.
3. Proceed until you reach the point of ignorance or irrelevance. Continue to ask why until you arrive at a cause/condition pair where any information about what caused them may be unknown or irrelevant when assessing how to prevent the chain of events under analysis. That is where you stop. There is no hard rule for how to identify this point. The IRT members will have to make that determination based on the data provided and their knowledge of the business and the technical infrastructure.
4. Tell the story. Once you complete the diagram, walk through it from right to left while describing the chain of events leading up the primary effect of the data security incident. Document this description in an incident report.
5. Identify failed or missing controls. As you walk through the diagram, identify where existing controls exist and why they failed. Also identify points in the chain where a new data security control might serve to stop the progression of cause and effect instances leading up to the primary effect on the company network. Annotate both existing and proposed controls in your diagram. Figure 1B is one way you might accomplish this.

Let’s walk through our example and see how the story might be documented.

The security team created a more secure baseline configuration. Without testing the new configuration, a change was made to the AR Server. This resulted in a corrupt operating system on the AR Server. The corrupted state of the system went undetected since no validation process was executed to ensure proper operation of the AR Server. When the operators ran the AR process in the corrupted environment, the AR process failed. Since there were no automated tools or manual checkpoints to monitor the health of the AR process, the operators were unaware that the process had stopped. Because no action was taken that would have resulted in a successful data recovery of the AR system, no checks were printed.

Notice that there is no assignment of blame anywhere in this description. The fastest way to make your AARs ineffective is to make it a forum for finger-pointing. The AAR process should be professional and objective, seeking only the facts so that improvements can be made.

As we told the story represented by our example Cause and Effect Diagram, it was easy to see the points at which controls were missing. The following is the story again with text in bold that point to missing controls.

The security team created a more secure baseline configuration. Without testing the new configuration, a change was made to the AR Server. This resulted in a corrupt operating system on the AR Server. The corrupted state of the system went undetected since no validation process was executed to ensure proper operation of the AR Server. When the operators ran the AR process in the corrupted environment, the AR process failed. Since there were no automated tools or manual checkpoints to monitor the health of the AR process, the operators were unaware that the process had stopped. Because no action was taken that would have resulted in a successful data recovery of the AR system, no checks were printed.

If you compare the missing controls identified in the second iteration of the story, you’ll see that they are closely related to the conditions identified in the diagram. This is no accident. In most cases, the most effective way to stop an unwanted chain of events is to eliminate one or more unwanted conditions. In our example, no data security controls existed. We inserted recommended controls in Figure 1B we will use to create our action plan.