2 ms·
I really get mad at peoples bias towards adding more “to be safe”. More security policies, more restrictions, more alerts, more process, more everything. The
by faeriechangling 4y ago
I really get mad at peoples bias towards adding more “to be safe”. More security policies, more restrictions, more alerts, more process, more everything. The very fact that many audits apparently exist to ensure you have a shit security policy by bloating it with nonsense and crap is ridiculous. It’s all insanity.
A classic example is password reset policies, a rule that makes security worse by burdening its users in ways that predictably and reliably make them use the lazy way to do things. In general you get good security by investing in it and hiring careful people, not by writing a list of 10000 rules and exclaiming “if only you followed rule 7354!” when something happens. Security policies seem to be designed like horoscopes, designed to address any possible variation of a security incident that might happen, rather than truly pointing you towards what’s important.
- NoPicklez 4y agoSecurity audits don't exist to ensure you have a shit security policy... I think it goes without saying that's untrue. If a particular standard or framework you need to meet requires these things there's unfortunately not much your auditor can do. As such, your problem is with the standard or framework you're aligning with not so much the auditor. If a security standard requires you to have a reset policy, then you should have free reign to design that how you see fit in the context of your organisation and its compensating controls.