Insight
GLI EUROPE INTERVIEW Marco Capozzi
external security firm, because they wanted to manage their risk properly, going above and beyond the requirements of the regulators. However, they were again duplicating much of the process, so we built into our audit the same security service. And because our team is so highly qualified, we can offer services other laboratories and security companies cannot.”
Te qualifications process mentioned earlier is the essential ingredient in offering clients not just a wealth of certification options, but it also reduces time spent on site as GLI achieves multiple objectives in a single audit. GLI is accredited by the PCI Security Standards Council, a non-profit organisation founded by Visa, MasterCard, American Express and JCB International, Marco and his team are qualified security assessors for credit card compliance, which is especially important in the area of online gaming. “Clients have a lot of choice in terms of laboratory work,” stated Marco, “but only GLI can support them from an information security perspective. When I see my client and they ask me why GLI is on site only once a year and other labs they are on site, three, four or more times a year, well that’s because we do things differently.”
From GLI’s perspective, security is a black or white issue. Reputation is everything, since once your brand is compromised, business stops. In these terms, ISS is not about the cost of certification, but rather an investment in security, because if you analyse the ‘figure’ as against the ‘cost’ - the long-term benefits massively outweigh any short-term lack of investment. “We see multiple examples working with clients to reduce risk, whereby issues identified during the audit, ensure that in the long term our clients not only increase their revenue, but there’s going to be less quality cost and more brand security,” said Marco.
within the different jurisdictions. “We mapped all the jurisdictions against IS0 27001,” stated Marco. “We know the exact requirements for Italy, the requirements for Spain, for Denmark etc., so when GLI visits a site, we audit based on IS0 27001 certification. Tis allows us, using the same time frame, to do a better job, because we don’t need to assess the same thing twice. It’s a process that’s also very useful for the client, because when they streamline their internal security controls, they know that if they comply with the requirement for ISO 27001, they comply with multiple jurisdictional requirements at the same time.”
GLI is the only Lab to have invested the time and effort to provide ISO 27001 certification, saving its clients considerable time and expense through multi-jurisdictional certification - though to Marco, certification is not the right terminology. “Te way I discuss the process with clients is not in terms of gaming certification,” said Marco. “I’m offering a security service, which meets all the requirements for gaming. In the past, clients would use the service of an
Te cost of protecting valuable assets by investing in security is an obvious point to make. In fact it’s a simple graph, one that shows how costs for security decrease together with the risk level. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle, in which the cost of security certification decreases as clients shift from high risk vulnerability, to low risk security, which requires less input from GLI. “We let our clients concentrate on being the experts in gaming, because we are the experts in security,” underlined Marco.
One of the points Marco stresses several times during our interview, is that the audit process must be performed as part of a continuous three year cycle. Each of the certification models, from PCI to ISO 27001, are based on a three year cycle because companies need three years to substantially improve their security. “We work with our clients to build a stable information security environment, working with their team to identify and understand the vulnerabilities and to avoid them in the future,” said Marco. “Mistakes can always happen, but personally I
As part of regulation there’s still too much grey space in which it’s not clear whether a regulation test is
required or not, or it’s not clear if the application has to be assessed in terms of security or not. But of the
two, source engineering is the most important. In fact, I’d rank source engineering as the top priority, then
application security testing, network security testing and finally
information management system security.
would say in the past four years I’ve seen a big improvement, not only in terms of security within the organisation, but generally as an industry as a whole. If you go back just a couple of years, penetration testing was quite unusual - now it’s the norm.”
Tere’s no doubt that international gaming suppliers are working to the highest standards of security and integrity. However, the regulations set by gaming regulators are still limited in scope. Right now there’s no regulation, for example, that demands social engineering, a specific type of penetration test that is focused on the people employed in your company. Phishing is a relatively simple way to trick specific information from employees and there’s no regulation in Europe that requires that kind of test, which is hugely important. Te weakest link in any security system is the people, not the network or the software.
Te network and the software you can fix it, and once you fix it, it always behaves in the same way. People, well, you can try to “fix” them, but who knows what they’re going to do, and this is something that GLI seeks to highlight in client discussions and at the Regulator Roundtable events. “Te dissertation I presented at our Rome Roundtable suggested that two things are really missing in the gaming industry from a security standpoint; the first one is social engineering testing and the second is the disrupter approach in the application of security testing,” commented Marco. “As part of regulation there’s still too much grey space in which it’s not clear whether a regulation test is required or not, or it’s not clear if the application has to be assessed in terms of security or not. But of the two, social engineering is the most important. In fact, I’d rank social engineering as the top priority, then application security testing, network security testing and finally information management system security. We provide a lot of workshops to regulators to underline the importance of these processes, but to change the law takes a long time.”
NEWSWIRE / INTERACTIVE /
247.COM P39
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