SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If CISOs don't do a good job of communicating, 59 percent of board members said that the security executives stand to lose their jobs, according to a new survey released today.
"If they're not up to par in the minds of the board, there will be action taken," said Ryan Stolte, co-founder and CTO at Bay Dynamics.
It marks an inflection point in how the boards look at cybersecurity, he said.
Previously, boards looked at breaches as an act of God or natural disaster, he said, or just fired the CISO even if the breach was not something they could have prevented.
"Now they're treating it as a risk management concern," he said. "It's a mind change."
[...] According to the survey, which was conducted by Osterman Research, cyber risk is now a top priority for board members, right up there with financial risk, regulatory risk, competitive risk, and legal risk.
[...] 54 percent of board members said that the data they were getting was too technical, and 85 percent said that IT and security executives need to improve the way they report to the board.
If the reports aren't useful and actionable, 93 percent said that there would be consequences. These included termination, said 59 percent, or warnings, said 34 percent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Wednesday June 15 2016, @05:07PM
"...54 percent of board members said that the data they were getting was too technical, and 85 percent said that IT and security executives need to improve the way they report to the board."
If a board of directors is too lazy, too ignorant or plain too stupid to study how the internet and networks function it seems to me the shareholders should fire them.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @05:21PM
Totally! Otherwise they will be getting reports such as "hackers tried to get in through one of our boxes, we need more money to get a better box and hire a full time box watcher." Great communicationz, much skillz, so ez.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @05:22PM
I agree. Why are non-technical people allowed on the board? They don't understand what is happening and then pass the blame along.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @06:37PM
Because they (used to) represent the owners, and there is no expectation of having them be technical people?
(Score: 2) by khchung on Wednesday June 15 2016, @11:53PM
If you were the owner a business that critically depends on something, such as network security, and yet you did not take the time to understand it, then your business is going to fail. And if you did that as a representative of the owner, then you were "too lazy, too ignorant or plain too stupid" for the job.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @05:43PM
The subject of this sentence should properly be who. Whom is used as the object of a verb or preposition. Whom is not just a fancy form of who, and whom does not exist for the purpose of making yourself appear to be sophisticated. Words have meaning, you mindless dickfucker.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @05:54PM
whom could care less?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Wednesday June 15 2016, @06:05PM
I do! I've been watching Doctor Whom since the Tom Baker years. :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @06:05PM
kys
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday June 15 2016, @10:04PM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩