Senior risk and compliance professionals within financial services company’s lack confidence in the security data they are providing to regulators, according to Panaseer.
Results from a global external survey of over 200+ GRC leaders reveal concerns on data accuracy, request overload, resource-heavy processes and lack of end-to-end automation.
The results indicate a wider issue with cyber risk management. If GRC leaders don’t have confidence in the accuracy and timeliness of security data provided to regulators, then the same holds true for the confidence in their own ability to understand and combat cyber risks.
41% of risk leaders feel ‘very confident’ that they can fulfill the security-related requests of a regulator in a timely manner. 27.5% are ‘very satisfied’ that their organization’s security reports align to regulatory compliance needs.
GRC leaders cited their top challenges in fulfilling regulator requests, as:
- Getting access to accurate data (35%)
- The number of report requests (29%)
- The length of time it takes to get information from security team (26%)
The limitations of traditional GRC tools
The issue has been perpetuated by the limitations of traditional GRC tools, which rely on qualitative questionnaires to provide evidence of compliance. This does not reflect the current challenges from cyber.
92% of senior risk and compliance professionals believe it would be valuable to have quantitative security controls assurance reporting (vs qualitative) and 93.5% believe it’s important to automate security risk and compliance reporting. However, only 11% state that their risk and compliance reporting is currently automated end to end.
96% said it is important to prioritize security risk remediation based on its impact to the business, but most can’t isolate risk to critical business processes composed of people, applications, devices. Only 33.5% of respondents are ‘very confident’ in their ability to understand all the asset inventories.
Charaka Goonatilake, CTO, Panaseer: “Faced with increasing requests from regulators, GRC leaders have resorted to throwing a lot of people at time-sensitive requests. These manual processes combined with lack of GRC tool scalability necessitates data sampling, which means they cannot have complete visibility or full confidence in the data they are providing.
“The challenge is being exacerbated by new risks introduced by IoT sensors and endpoints, which rarely consider security a core requirement and therefore introduce greater risk and increase the importance of controls and mitigations to address them.”
Andreas Wuchner, Panaseer Advisory Board member: “To face the new reality of cyberthreats and regulatory pressures requires many organizations need to fundamentally rethink traditional tools and defences.
“GRC leaders can enhance their confidence to accurately and quickly meet stakeholder needs by implementing Continuous Controls Monitoring, an emerging category of security and risk, which has just been recognised in the 2020 Gartner Risk Management Hype Cycle.”
Senior security leaders within financial services companies are being challenged with a lack of trusted data to make effective security decisions and reduce their risk from cyber incidents, according to Panaseer.
Results from a global external survey of over 400 security leaders that work in large financial services companies reveal concerns on security measurement and metrics that include data confidence, manual processes, resource wastage and request overload.
Issues with processes, people and technologies
The results demonstrate myriad issues with the processes, people and technologies required to have a full understanding of the organization’s cyber posture and the preventative measures required to stop a security control failure from becoming a security incident.
The vast majority (96.77%) of respondents claimed they use metrics to measure their cyber posture, with the primary use for security metrics being risk management (41.69%), demonstrating the success of security initiatives (28.04%), supporting security investment business cases (19.11%) and Board/ executive reporting (10.17%).
Over a third (36.72%) of security leaders said that their biggest challenge in creating metrics to measure and report on risk is ‘trust in the data,’ followed by the resources required to produce them (21.34%), the frequency of requests (14.64%) and confusion over knowing what metric to use (15.3%).
Less than half of respondents (47.75%) could claim to be ‘very confident’ that they are using the right security metrics to measure cyber risk.
Too many security leaders still use spreadsheets
Resource requirements and request overload are cited as other issues fueling the metrics mayhem. On average, security teams are spending 5.34 days a month compiling metrics for managing risk – and that doesn’t include the time the team spending compiling metrics for other stakeholders, including regulators, auditors and the Board. Security leaders also claim they must refresh these security metrics for risk teams every 16 days.
Manual processes are also cited as fuelling data mistrust. Over half (59.8%) of security leaders still rely on spreadsheets to produce metrics and 52.85% are using custom scripts. Nearly one in five (18.75%) admitted to relying exclusively on manual processes to develop their security metrics for risk.
Nik Whitfield, CEO, Panaseer: “Security metrics are frequently cited as the bane of the security teams’ lives. Not knowing the accuracy, timeliness or even limitations of a metric can render it useless – which is simply unacceptable against a backdrop of tightening regulation and an increasing attack surface. The President of the European Central Bank recently went on record to warn that a cyber-attack on a major financial institution could trigger a liquidity crisis.
“We must move on from the era of out-of-date inaccurate metrics to one where they are automated and measured on a continuous basis. Financial service organizations, in particular, need trusted and timely metrics into an organization’s technology risk, segmented where possible to critical operations. With this information, the Board can then have a better understanding of what risks are and aren’t acceptable to keep customer data safe.”