561 lines
28 KiB
Plaintext
561 lines
28 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|||
|
* * * * * * * * * * * * * NOTE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This file is a DRAFT chapter intended to be part of the NIST
|
|||
|
Computer Security Handbook. The chapters were prepared by
|
|||
|
different parties and, in some cases, have not been reviewed by
|
|||
|
NIST. The next iteration of a chapter could be SUBSTANTIALLY
|
|||
|
different than the current version. If you wish to provide
|
|||
|
comments on the chapters, please email them to roback@ecf.ncsl.gov
|
|||
|
or mail them to Ed Roback/Room B154, Bldg 225/NIST/Gaithersburg, MD
|
|||
|
20899.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Chapter 6: Computer and Information Security Policy
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.1 Introduction to Computer Security Policy
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Organizations rely on IT resources today to handle vast amounts of
|
|||
|
information. Because the data can vary widely in type and in
|
|||
|
degree of sensitivity, employees need to be able to exercise
|
|||
|
flexibility in handling and protecting it. It would not be
|
|||
|
practical or cost-effective to require that all data be handled in
|
|||
|
the same manner or be subject to the same protection requirements.
|
|||
|
Without some degree of standardization, however, inconsistencies
|
|||
|
can develop that introduce risks.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Formal IT security policy helps establish standards for IT resource
|
|||
|
protection by assigning program management responsibilities and
|
|||
|
providing basic rules, guidelines, and definitions for everyone in
|
|||
|
the organization. Policy thus helps prevent inconsistencies that
|
|||
|
can introduce risks, and policy serves as a basis for the
|
|||
|
enforcement of more detailed rules and procedures. Ideally, policy
|
|||
|
will be sufficiently clear and comprehensive to be accepted and
|
|||
|
followed throughout the organization yet flexible enough to
|
|||
|
accommodate a wide range of data, activities, and resources.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Policy formulation is an important step toward standardization of
|
|||
|
security activities for IT resources. IT security policy is
|
|||
|
generally formulated from the input of many members of an
|
|||
|
organization, including security officials, line managers, and IT
|
|||
|
resource specialists. However, policy is ultimately approved and
|
|||
|
issued by the organization's senior management. In environments
|
|||
|
where employees feel inundated with policies, directives,
|
|||
|
guidelines and procedures, an IT security policy should be
|
|||
|
introduced in a manner that ensures that management's unqualified
|
|||
|
support is clear. The organization's policy is management's
|
|||
|
vehicle for emphasizing the commitment to IT security and making
|
|||
|
clear the expectations for employee involvement and accountability.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This chapter will discuss IT security policy in terms of the
|
|||
|
different types (program-level and issue-specific), components, and
|
|||
|
aspects of implementation. Potential cost and interdependencies
|
|||
|
will also be noted.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2 Policy Types: Program-Level and Issue-Specific
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Two types of policy will typically need to be developed to meet an
|
|||
|
organization's needs: program-level and issue-specific. Program-
|
|||
|
level policy's main function is to establish the security program,
|
|||
|
assign program management responsibilities, state the
|
|||
|
organizationwide IT security goals and objectives, and provide a
|
|||
|
basis for enforcement. Issue-specific policies also need to be
|
|||
|
developed, in order to identify and define specific areas of
|
|||
|
concern and to state the organization's position and expectations
|
|||
|
in relation to them. Following are discussions on these two basic
|
|||
|
types of policy.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2.1 Program-level Policy
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As discussed above, program-level policy is broad in scope and far-
|
|||
|
reaching in applicability. To make the subject more manageable, an
|
|||
|
effective approach to a discussion of program-level IT security
|
|||
|
policy is to break general policy into its basic components:
|
|||
|
purpose, scope, goals, responsibilities, and enforcement.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2.1.1 Components of Program-level Policy
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Purpose: A primary purpose of program-level policy is to establish
|
|||
|
the IT security program. This includes defining the program
|
|||
|
management structure, the reporting responsibilities, the roles of
|
|||
|
individuals and groups throughout the organization, and the
|
|||
|
organizationwide goals of the security program. (Chapter 5
|
|||
|
provides a detailed discussion of security program management and
|
|||
|
administration.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Additionally, program-level policy should serve the purpose of
|
|||
|
emphasizing to all employees the importance of IT security and
|
|||
|
clarifying the individual employee's role and responsibilities. IT
|
|||
|
security policy may be met with a degree of skepticism unless given
|
|||
|
appropriate visibility and support by top management, and that
|
|||
|
visibility and support should be clearly and energetically
|
|||
|
reflected in the program-level policy and in its emphasis on
|
|||
|
employee participation.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The program-level policy should thus firmly establish individual
|
|||
|
employee accountability. Employees should be made aware via the
|
|||
|
policy that even if they are not designated IT security program
|
|||
|
personnel, they nonetheless have significant IT security
|
|||
|
responsibilities.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Scope: Program-level policy should be of sufficient breadth of
|
|||
|
scope to include all of the organization's IT resources, including
|
|||
|
facilities, hardware, software, information, and personnel. In
|
|||
|
some instances, it may be appropriate for a policy to name specific
|
|||
|
assets, such as major sites, installations, and large systems. In
|
|||
|
addition to such specified assets, it is important to include an
|
|||
|
overview of all of the types of IT resources for which the
|
|||
|
organization is responsible, such as workstations, Local Area
|
|||
|
Networks (LANs), standalone microcomputers, etc.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Goals: According to the National Research Council's Computers at
|
|||
|
Risk, published in 1991, the three security-related needs
|
|||
|
universally most emphasized among IT resource experts and the
|
|||
|
general computer user community are integrity, availability, and
|
|||
|
confidentiality. These concepts are the focus of many discussions
|
|||
|
in this handbook as well. These concepts should be the basis of
|
|||
|
the goals established for an organization in its IT security
|
|||
|
policy. Integrity means assuring that information is kept intact,
|
|||
|
and not lost, damaged, or modified in an authorized manner.
|
|||
|
Availability means assuring that information is accessible to
|
|||
|
authorized users when needed and that, to the extent possible, IT
|
|||
|
systems are safe from accidental or intentional disablement.
|
|||
|
Confidentiality means assuring that information is accessible only
|
|||
|
as authorized and that it cannot be acquired by unauthorized
|
|||
|
personnel and/or via unauthorized means.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Goals related to these concepts should be stated in meaningful ways
|
|||
|
to employees based on the given environment. It is important that
|
|||
|
the organization's program-level policy reflect goals that are
|
|||
|
applicable to the specific environment by targeting the kinds of
|
|||
|
activities, information, and terminology that employees are
|
|||
|
familiar with.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For instance, in an organization responsible for maintaining large
|
|||
|
but not highly confidential databases, goals related to reduction
|
|||
|
in errors, data loss, or data corruption might be specifically
|
|||
|
stressed. In an organization responsible for maintaining much more
|
|||
|
confidential data, however, goals might emphasize increased
|
|||
|
assurance against unauthorized disclosure.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Responsibilities: As noted in the earlier discussion of Purpose,
|
|||
|
program-level policy performs the important function of
|
|||
|
establishing the IT security program and assigning program
|
|||
|
management responsibilities. In addition to the security program
|
|||
|
management responsibilities, many other responsibilities throughout
|
|||
|
the organization should also be discussed in the policy, including
|
|||
|
the role of line managers, applications owners, data users, and the
|
|||
|
computer systems security group.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In some instances, the relationships among various individuals and
|
|||
|
groups may also need to be defined in the program-level policy.
|
|||
|
Such clarification can diminish ambiguity and confusion related to
|
|||
|
areas of responsibility or authority. It might be desirable to
|
|||
|
clarify, for example, who is to be responsible for approving the
|
|||
|
security measures to be used for new systems or components being
|
|||
|
installed: Should it be the department line manager where the item
|
|||
|
will be installed? Or should it be a designated inter-departmental
|
|||
|
IT security specialist? It might even be desirable to indicate
|
|||
|
under what circumstances, if any, approval of security measures
|
|||
|
implemented would be warranted by the head of the security program.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Overall, the program-level assignment of responsibilities should
|
|||
|
cover those activities and personnel who will be integral to the
|
|||
|
implementation and continuity of the IT security policy.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Enforcement: Without a formal, documented IT security policy, it
|
|||
|
is not possible for management to proceed with the development of
|
|||
|
enforcement standards and mechanisms. Program-level policy serves
|
|||
|
as the basis for enforcement by describing penalties and
|
|||
|
disciplinary actions that can result from failure to comply with
|
|||
|
the organization's IT security requirements. Discipline
|
|||
|
commensurate with levels and types of security infractions should
|
|||
|
be discussed. For example, serious offenses, such as theft,
|
|||
|
conspiracy, or intentional acts of sabotage, might be designated by
|
|||
|
policy as punishable by firing and prosecution. Lesser
|
|||
|
infractions, such as pirating software, might be stated as
|
|||
|
punishable by formal written reprimand.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Consideration should also be given to the fact that nonconformance
|
|||
|
to policy can be unintentional on the part of employees. For
|
|||
|
example, nonconformance can often be due to a lack of knowledge or
|
|||
|
training. It can also be the result of inadequate communication
|
|||
|
and explanation of the policy. For these reasons, it is desirable
|
|||
|
that, along with enforcement, program-level policy make provisions
|
|||
|
for orientation, training, and compliance within a realistic
|
|||
|
timeframe.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2.2 Issue-specific Policy
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Whereas program-level policy is intended to address the broadest
|
|||
|
aspects of IT security and the IT security program framework,
|
|||
|
issue-specific policies need to be developed to address particular
|
|||
|
kinds of activities and, in some environments, particular systems.
|
|||
|
The types of subjects covered by issue-specific policies are areas
|
|||
|
of current relevance, concern, and, sometimes, controversy upon
|
|||
|
which the organization needs to assert a position. In this manner,
|
|||
|
issue-specific IT security policies help to standardize activities
|
|||
|
and reduce the potential risks posed by inadequate and/or
|
|||
|
inappropriate treatment of the IT resources. Issue-specific
|
|||
|
policies serve to provide guidelines for the further development of
|
|||
|
procedures and practices within the functional elements of an
|
|||
|
organization.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Program-level policy is usually broad enough that it does not
|
|||
|
require much modification over time. Issue-specific policies,
|
|||
|
however, are likely to require revision and updating from time to
|
|||
|
time, as changes in technology and related activities take place.
|
|||
|
This is largely because as new technologies develop, some issues
|
|||
|
diminish in importance while new ones continually appear. A major
|
|||
|
challenge to IT security specialists has long been the fact that
|
|||
|
for every new technology there are also new associated problems and
|
|||
|
issues to be addressed.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For example, the enormous increase in the use of electronic mail
|
|||
|
(E-mail) systems in recent years has introduced many new issues in
|
|||
|
communications security, which is one of the topics that will be
|
|||
|
briefly discussed later in this section. Many organizations today
|
|||
|
are developing and refining communications security policies in
|
|||
|
order to better address such questions as who should have E-mail
|
|||
|
access, how will privileges be assigned and monitored, for what
|
|||
|
types of activities and information is E-mail sufficiently secure,
|
|||
|
and what criteria should be used for the re-sending (forwarding) of
|
|||
|
messages among users.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Another topic of recent notoriety impacting IT security policies is
|
|||
|
the threat posed by computer viruses. New viruses and new methods
|
|||
|
of transmitting them are making it necessary that organizations
|
|||
|
develop policies regulating activities that were once performed
|
|||
|
freely, such as exchanging floppy disks among users, accessing
|
|||
|
electronic bulletinboards, and using shareware products.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As for the discussion of program-level policy, a useful approach is
|
|||
|
to first break issue-specific policy into its basic components:
|
|||
|
statement of an issue, statement of the organization's position,
|
|||
|
applicability, roles and responsibilities, and points of contact.
|
|||
|
Thereafter, some of the areas that often require issue-specific
|
|||
|
policies will be covered.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2.2.1 Components of Issue-specific Policy
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Statement of an Issue: In order to formulate a policy on an issue,
|
|||
|
the issue must first be defined, with any relevant terms,
|
|||
|
distinctions, and conditions delineated. For example, an
|
|||
|
organization might want to develop an issue-specific policy on the
|
|||
|
use of "foreign software." "Foreign software" might be defined to
|
|||
|
mean any software, whether applications or data, not approved,
|
|||
|
purchased, screened, managed, and owned by the organization.
|
|||
|
Additionally, the applicable distinctions and conditions might then
|
|||
|
need to be included, for instance, for software privately owned by
|
|||
|
employees but approved for use at work and for software owned and
|
|||
|
used by other businesses under contract to the organization.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Statement of the Organization's Position: Once the issue is stated
|
|||
|
and related terms and conditions delineated, the organization's
|
|||
|
position or stance on the issue will need to be clearly stated. To
|
|||
|
continue the example of developing an issue-specific policy on the
|
|||
|
use of foreign software, this would mean stating whether use of
|
|||
|
foreign software as defined is strictly prohibited, whether or not
|
|||
|
there are further guidelines for approval and use, or whether case-
|
|||
|
by-case decisions will be rendered based on some defined criteria.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Applicability: Issue-specific policies will also need to include
|
|||
|
statements of applicability. This means clarifying where, how,
|
|||
|
when, to whom, and to what a particular policy applies. For
|
|||
|
example, it could be that the hypothetical policy on foreign
|
|||
|
software is intended to apply only to the organization's own onsite
|
|||
|
resources and employees and is not to be applicable to contractor
|
|||
|
organizations with offices at other locations. Additionally, the
|
|||
|
policy's applicability to employees travelling among different
|
|||
|
sites and/or working at home who need to transport and use disks at
|
|||
|
multiple sites might need to be clarified.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Roles and Responsibilities: Also included in issue-specific
|
|||
|
policies should be the assignment of roles and responsibilities.
|
|||
|
This would mean, to continue with the above example, that if the
|
|||
|
policy permits foreign software privately owned by employees to be
|
|||
|
used at work with the appropriate approvals, then the approval
|
|||
|
authority granting such permission would need to be stated.
|
|||
|
Likewise, it would need to be clarified who would be responsible
|
|||
|
for ensuring that only approved foreign software is used on
|
|||
|
organizational IT resources and, perhaps, for monitoring users in
|
|||
|
regard to foreign software.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Related to the assignment of roles and responsibilities is the
|
|||
|
inclusion of guidelines for procedures and enforcement. The issue-
|
|||
|
specific policy on foreign-software, for example, might include
|
|||
|
procedural guidelines for checking disks used by employees at home
|
|||
|
or at other locations. It might also state what the penalties
|
|||
|
would be for using unapproved foreign software on the
|
|||
|
organization's IT systems.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Points of Contact: For any issue-specific policy, the appropriate
|
|||
|
individuals in the organization to contact for further information,
|
|||
|
guidance, and enforcement should be indicated. For example, for
|
|||
|
some issues the point of contact might be a line manager; for other
|
|||
|
issues it might be a facility manager, technical support person, or
|
|||
|
system administrator. For yet other issues, the point-of-contact
|
|||
|
might be a security program representative. Using the above
|
|||
|
example once more, employees would need to know whether the point
|
|||
|
of contact for questions and procedural information would be
|
|||
|
his/her immediate superior, a system administrator, or a computer
|
|||
|
security official.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2.2.2 Areas Appropriate for Issue-specific Policies
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Some of the areas in which management today needs to consider
|
|||
|
issue-specific IT security policies are covered in this section.
|
|||
|
These topics are intended to provide examples and serve as sources
|
|||
|
for ideas and analysis. Although many of these topics are standard
|
|||
|
to any discussion of IT security, an organization would necessarily
|
|||
|
need to tailor its policies relating to them to meet its own unique
|
|||
|
needs.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Physical security: The physical protection of and access to IT
|
|||
|
resources and facilities will generally need to be addressed in one
|
|||
|
or more specific policies. In organizations with extensive IT
|
|||
|
systems and equipment, this may mean developing policies that
|
|||
|
address such issues as who has access to what sites/locations; how
|
|||
|
often risks to installations are be analyzed and by whom; what
|
|||
|
types of physical access controls and monitoring equipment are put
|
|||
|
in place; what responsibilities will be assigned to trained
|
|||
|
security officials and what activities and responsibilities will be
|
|||
|
required of all employees.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Personnel Security: Depending on the types of activities being
|
|||
|
performed, degree of data sensitivity to be encountered, and sheer
|
|||
|
numbers of personnel, specific security policies related to
|
|||
|
personnel screening, requirements, hiring, training, evaluating,
|
|||
|
and firing may need to be developed and administered. It may be
|
|||
|
appropriate that a trained personnel security specialist initiate,
|
|||
|
review, approve, and perform all security-related personnel
|
|||
|
actions.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Communications Security: Communications security is a complex
|
|||
|
technical specialty unto itself. In organizations where day-to-day
|
|||
|
business relies on communicating routinely with remote locations,
|
|||
|
the security of the communications transmissions and lines is
|
|||
|
usually an issue that needs to be addressed by policy. If the data
|
|||
|
being transmitted is highly sensitive, then this concern is
|
|||
|
magnified, and issue-specific security policies may need to be
|
|||
|
developed on a number of activities. Issues associated with the
|
|||
|
use of cryptography and its related options and procedures
|
|||
|
(discussed in Chapter 19), the use of modems and dial-in lines, and
|
|||
|
precautions against wiretapping are just some of the potential
|
|||
|
issues to be addressed. Additionally, as noted earlier, the
|
|||
|
proliferation of E-mail has introduced many security- and privacy-
|
|||
|
related issues for which organizations need to document positions
|
|||
|
and policies.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Administrative Security: Administrative security as it applies to
|
|||
|
IT system management and oversight activities comprises many
|
|||
|
potential security policy issues. Included are such topics as
|
|||
|
input/output controls, training and awareness, security
|
|||
|
certification/accreditation, incident reporting, system
|
|||
|
configurations and change controls, and system documentation.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Risk Management: Risk management involves assessing IT resources
|
|||
|
in terms of potential threats and vulnerabilities and planning the
|
|||
|
means for counteracting those identified risks. Issues that will
|
|||
|
need to be addressed by policies include how, by whom, and when the
|
|||
|
assessments should be performed; and what type of documentation
|
|||
|
should result.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Contingency Planning: Related to Risk Management, Contingency
|
|||
|
Planning means planning for the emergency actions to be taken in
|
|||
|
the event of damage, failure, and/or other disabling events that
|
|||
|
could occur to systems. Issues that need to be addressed by
|
|||
|
policies include determining which systems are most critical and
|
|||
|
therefore of highest priority in contingency planning; how the
|
|||
|
plans will be tested, how often, and by whom; and who will be
|
|||
|
responsible for approving the plans.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.3 Policy Implementation
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Policy implementation is a process. Policy cannot merely be
|
|||
|
pronounced by upper management in a one-time statement or directive
|
|||
|
with high expectations of its being readily accepted and acted
|
|||
|
upon. Rather, just as formulating and drafting policy involves a
|
|||
|
process, implementation similarly involves a process, which begins
|
|||
|
with the formal issuance of policy.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.3.1 Policy Visibility
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Especially high visibility should be afforded the formal issuance
|
|||
|
of IT security policy. This is due to a combination of factors,
|
|||
|
including the following:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
* Nearly all employees at all levels will in some way be affected;
|
|||
|
* Major organizational resources are being addressed;
|
|||
|
* Many new terms, procedures, and activities will be introduced.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Providing visibility through such avenues as management
|
|||
|
presentations, panel discussions, guest speakers, question/answer
|
|||
|
forums, and newsletters can be beneficial, as resources permit.
|
|||
|
Including IT security as a regular topic at staff meetings at all
|
|||
|
levels of the organization can also be a helpful tactic.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As an aspect of providing visibility for IT security policies,
|
|||
|
information should also be included regarding the applicable higher
|
|||
|
level directives and requirements to which the organization is
|
|||
|
responding. Educating employees as to the requirements specified
|
|||
|
by the Computer Security Act and related OMB circulars will help
|
|||
|
emphasize the significance and timeliness of computer security, and
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
it will help provide a rational basis for the introduction of IT
|
|||
|
security policies.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.3.2 Policy Documentation
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Once IT security policy has been approved and issued, it may be
|
|||
|
initially publicized through memorandums, presentations, staff
|
|||
|
meetings, or a variety of means. As soon as possible, though, it
|
|||
|
will also need to be incorporated into formal policy documentation
|
|||
|
as well. The process of documenting policies will usually require
|
|||
|
updating existing documentation as well as creating new
|
|||
|
documentation.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Existing Documentation: IT security will need to be integrated
|
|||
|
into many existing activities and practices throughout many levels
|
|||
|
of the organization. This integration will be facilitated by
|
|||
|
revising any existing applicable documentation to reflect new
|
|||
|
procedures, rules, and requirements. Included may be the
|
|||
|
modification of various existing documents, forms, and plans at all
|
|||
|
levels of the organization to reflect the IT policy.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For example, if IT equipment purchases and/or upgrades have been
|
|||
|
reviewed and approved based on documented criteria such as cost,
|
|||
|
productivity, maintainability, etc., then security considerations
|
|||
|
may need to be introduced into that criteria. Also, if it has
|
|||
|
previously been the documented policy to review the progress and
|
|||
|
status of internal IT systems under development, then security-
|
|||
|
related concerns should be introduced into that review process.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
New Documentation: Additionally, the development of many new
|
|||
|
documents, such as guidelines, standards, and procedures, may be
|
|||
|
required. This is often true in large organizations performing
|
|||
|
many different activities and having many levels of management. In
|
|||
|
such environments, different functional elements may have widely
|
|||
|
differing IT systems and needs to accommodate. It is therefore
|
|||
|
generally more practical, to the extent possible, to allow elements
|
|||
|
to tailor their implementations of policy to meet their unique
|
|||
|
needs. This can be accomplished through the development of
|
|||
|
documents containing more detailed procedures and practices to be
|
|||
|
used for specific kinds of systems and activities within
|
|||
|
functional elements.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For example, organizations will want to issue policies to decrease
|
|||
|
the likelihood of data loss due to technology failures and/or
|
|||
|
operator errors. A program-level policy might state something to
|
|||
|
the effect that: "It is the policy of the organization to ensure
|
|||
|
against data loss due to accidents or mishaps." In an area where
|
|||
|
extensive writing and editing of lengthy documents is performed,
|
|||
|
such as a word processing or technical publications unit, security
|
|||
|
documentation might be developed on saving work in-progress much
|
|||
|
more often than would usually be done, and/or utilizing automatic
|
|||
|
"save" features on IT systems and software. In a different type
|
|||
|
of functional area, however, where, for example, databases are
|
|||
|
maintained that do not undergo significant changes very often, the
|
|||
|
security documentation might focus on procedures for the database
|
|||
|
administrator to use in performing periodic (daily, weekly, etc.)
|
|||
|
backups of the system.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Appropriate visibility should be afforded the IT security policy
|
|||
|
through all applicable documentation. The more integral security
|
|||
|
policy is to all other aspects of daily routines, the more quickly
|
|||
|
the associated actions and practices will become natural to doing
|
|||
|
business. Ultimately, among the goals of policy are the
|
|||
|
assimilation of a common body of knowledge and values and the
|
|||
|
demonstration of appropriate corresponding behaviors. Those goals
|
|||
|
will be expedited by making the IT security policy integral to the
|
|||
|
organization through all avenues.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.4 Cost Considerations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There are a number of potential costs associated with developing
|
|||
|
and implementing IT security policies. In some environments, the
|
|||
|
major costs may be those incurred through the numerous
|
|||
|
administrative and management activities required for drafting,
|
|||
|
reviewing, disseminating, and publicizing the policies. In some
|
|||
|
organizations, though, successful policy implementation may require
|
|||
|
additional staffing, training, and equipment. In general, how
|
|||
|
costly IT security policy development and implementation are to an
|
|||
|
organization will depend upon how much change needs to be
|
|||
|
accomplished in order to ensure adequate security and a basic
|
|||
|
standardization throughout the organization.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.5 Interrelationships
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
IT security policy can be related to nearly every topic covered in
|
|||
|
this handbook on some level. This is because all of the topics
|
|||
|
discussed in the handbook have associated issues that organizations
|
|||
|
may need to address via policies. The topics most directly
|
|||
|
related, however, are: IT security program management and
|
|||
|
administration; risk management; personnel; security training and
|
|||
|
awareness; contingency planning; and physical and environmental
|
|||
|
security.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.6 Conclusion
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Formulating viable IT security policies is a challenge for an
|
|||
|
organization and requires communication and understanding of the
|
|||
|
organizational goals and potential benefits to be derived from
|
|||
|
policies. Through a carefully structured approach to policy
|
|||
|
development, which includes the delegation of program management
|
|||
|
responsibility and an understanding of both program-level and
|
|||
|
issue-specific policy components, a coherent set of policies -
|
|||
|
integrated into sensible practices and procedures - can be
|
|||
|
developed
|
|||
|
6.1, para 2: IT security policy helps to provide basic standards,
|
|||
|
guidelines, and rules for everyone in an organization.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2, para 1: Program-level IT security policy establishes the
|
|||
|
security program and assigns program management responsibilities.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2.1.1, para 4: Program-level policy should be sufficiently broad
|
|||
|
in scope to include all of the organization's IT resources.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2.1.1, para 5: Program-level IT security policy goals should
|
|||
|
stress the universal concepts of integrity, availability, and
|
|||
|
confidentiality.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2.2, para 1: Issue-specific policies address particular
|
|||
|
activities, concerns, and, sometimes, systems.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2.2, para 4: New products, developments, and trends often
|
|||
|
require the creation of corresponding issue-specific policies.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2.2.2, para 1: Many activities within an organization should be
|
|||
|
considered when developing issue-specific policies, including
|
|||
|
physical security, personnel, communications, administrative
|
|||
|
security, risk management, and contingency planning.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.3.1, para 1: IT security policy should be given especially high
|
|||
|
visibility in order to help ensure employee awareness and
|
|||
|
understanding.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.3.2, para 4: Many existing documents of an organization will
|
|||
|
need to be revised to reflect IT security policies, and new
|
|||
|
documents may also need to be developed.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|