69
know what the best process is to render the data irretrievable and even if they know this, do they check that each hand set undergoes this process?
So is the threat real? • KPMG’s data barometer identified that 10% of data breach between Jan – June 2010 was as a result of improper end of life disposal
• A leading insurance company was fined in excess of £2m in 2010 as a result of the loss of backup tapes
• There are WEEKLY stories of data being found on 2nd user equipment, found in landfill and worst of all in the electrical markets in Africa
What can be done? There are clear governmental guidelines written by John Sutton, formerly of CESG, in the form of Information Assurance Standard Number 5 (IAS5) but this does not translate and is not releasable into the commercial sector.
The only answer is for the data controllers to
appreciate the threat from asset disposal and to invest in ensuring that their equipment is being handled in the most appropriate way to protect their data.
Examples of data controller good practice: • A Security Policy that clearly defines the business drivers of asset disposal (e.g. security, environmental, cost recovery or a combination of the three)
• Categorising the data to assess the risk
• Robust disposal processes which encompass ALL parties, products and outlets
• Manage the chain of custody from point of decommission to point of data safe
• Fully verify and audit that process • Allocate budget and choose partners based on their ability to manage that risk appropriately
Examples of data controller bad practice: • Releasing assets without inventory control • Failure to audit partners • Making vendor selection based on: o lowest bid
o adding the service to an incumbent supplier o first through the door
• Trusting a partner due to their brand, length of engagement or perceived credibility
• Failure to invest in managing this area by failing to appoint a disposal champion
It is hard to answer the question: Why is asset disposal undervalued? Explanation can be sought in explaining indifference due to the lack of exciting and expensive new technologies to implement or perhaps because by default the assets are old or broken. However, these are just excuses and the real reason sits with the individual. Budgets are restrictive, workloads are full and as such no one will ever thank you for lifting a stone and uncovering problems to add to this.
See ADISA on Stand G95
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144