What Was the Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO)?
One of the major features of digital currencies is that they are decentralized. This means they are not controlled by a single institution like a government or central bank, but instead are divided among a variety of computers, networks, and nodes. In many cases, virtual currencies make use of this decentralized status to attain levels of privacy and security that are typically unavailable to standard currencies and their transactions.
Inspired by the decentralization of cryptocurrencies, a group of developers came up with the idea for a decentralized autonomous organization, or DAO, in 2016.1
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The DAO was an organization created by developers to automate decisions and facilitate cryptocurrency transactions.
In June 2016, due to programming errors and attack vectors, hackers attacked the DAO, accessing 3.6 million ETH.
Digital exchange currencies de-listed the DAO token in September 2016.
Understanding the Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO)
The DAO was an organization that was designed to be automated and decentralized. It acted as a form of venture capital fund, based on open-source code and without a typical management structure or board of directors. To be fully decentralized, the DAO was unaffiliated with any particular nation-state, though it made use of the ethereum network.
Why make an organization like the DAO? The developers of the DAO believed they could eliminate human error or manipulation of investor funds by placing decision-making power into the hands of an automated system and a crowdsourced process. Fueled by ether, the DAO was designed to allow investors to send money from anywhere in the world anonymously. The DAO would then provide those owners tokens, allowing them voting rights on possible projects.
The DAO launched in late April 2016 thanks to a month-long crowdsale of tokens that raised more than $150 million in funds.2 At the time, the launch was the largest crowdfunding fundraising campaign of all time.
Criticisms of the DAO
By May 2016, the DAO held a massive percentage of all ether tokens that had been issued up to that point (up to 14%, according to reporting by The Economist).3 At roughly the same time, however, a paper was published which addressed several potential security vulnerabilities, cautioning investors from voting on future investment projects until those issues had been resolved.
Later, in June 2016, hackers attacked the DAO based on these vulnerabilities. The hackers gained access to 3.6 million ETH, worth about $50 million at the time.4 This prompted a massive and contentious argument among DAO investors, with some individuals suggesting various ways of addressing the hack and others calling for the DAO to be permanently disbanded. This incident also figured prominently in the hard forking of ethereum that took place shortly thereafter.
According to IEEE Spectrum, the DAO was vulnerable to programming errors and attack vectors.5 The fact that the organization was charting new territory in terms of regulation and corporate law likely did not make the process any easier. The ramifications of the structure of the organization were potentially numerous: investors were concerned that they would be held liable for actions taken by the DAO as a broader organization.
The DAO operated in murky territory about whether or not it was selling securities, as well. Further, there were long-standing issues regarding the way that the DAO would function in the real world. Investors and contractors alike needed to convert ETH into fiat currencies, and this could have impacted the value of ether.
Following the contentious argument over the DAO's future and the massive hacking incident of earlier in the summer, in September 2016, several prominent digital currency exchanges de-listed the DAO token, marking the effective end for the DAO as it was initially envisioned.67
In July 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a report, which determined that the DAO sold securities in the form of tokens on the ethereum blockchain, violating portions of US securities law.8
Future of the DAO
What does the future hold for the DAO? The DAO as originally envisioned had not returned as of mid-2020. Nonetheless, interest in decentralized autonomous organizations as a broader group continues to grow. In 2021, The Maker Foundation, an icon in the crypto industry as the original champion of DAO, announced that it was officially turning operations over to MakerDAO (creator of the DAI stablecoin) and would dissolve by the end of the year.9
While there are many lingering concerns and potential issues regarding legality, security, and structure, some analysts and investors believe that this type of organization will eventually come to prominence, perhaps even replacing traditionally structured businesses.
Dash
The popular digital currency Dash is an example of a decentralized autonomous organization because of the way it is governed and the way its budgeting system is structured. It may only be a matter of time before additional DAOs enter the field.
Investing in cryptocurrencies and other Initial Coin Offerings ("ICOs") is highly risky and speculative, and this article is not a recommendation by Investopedia or the writer to invest in cryptocurrencies or other ICOs. Since each individual's situation is unique, a qualified professional should always be consulted before making any financial decisions. Investopedia makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or timeliness of the information contained herein. As of the date that this article was written, the author owns cryptocurrencies.
A decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), sometimes called a decentralized autonomous corporation (DAC),[a] is an organization represented by rules encoded as a computer program that is transparent, controlled by the organization members and not influenced by a central government, in other words they are member-owned communities without centralized leadership.[1][2] A DAO's financial transaction record and program rules are maintained on a blockchain.[3][4][5] The precise legal status of this type of business organization is unclear.[6]
A well-known example, intended for venture capital funding, was The DAO, which amassed $150 million in crowdfunding in May 2016, and was hacked and drained of US$50 million in cryptocurrency weeks later.[7] The hack was reversed in the following weeks, and the money restored, via a hard fork of the Ethereum blockchain. Most Ethereum miners and clients switched to the new fork while the original chain became Ethereum Classic.
Background
Decentralized autonomous organizations are typified by the use of blockchain technology to provide a secure digital ledger to track digital interactions across the internet, hardened against forgery by trusted timestamping and dissemination of a distributed database.[3][4][8] This approach eliminates the need to involve a mutually acceptable trusted third party in any decentralized digital interaction or cryptocurrency transaction.[4] The costs of a blockchain-enabled transaction and of the associated data reporting may be substantially offset by the elimination of both the trusted third party and of the need for repetitive recording of contract exchanges in different records. For example, the blockchain data could, in principle and if regulatory structures permit it, replace public documents such as deeds and titles.[3]: 42 [4] In theory, a blockchain approach allows multiple cloud computing users to enter a loosely coupled peer-to-peersmart contract collaboration.[3]: 42 [9]
Vitalik Buterin proposed that after a DAO is launched, it might be organized to run without human managerial interactivity, provided the smart contracts are supported by a Turing-complete platform. Ethereum, built on a blockchain and launched in 2015, has been described as meeting that Turing threshold, thus enabling such DAOs.[3][10][11] Decentralized autonomous organizations aim to be open platforms through which individuals control their identities and their personal data.[12]
Governance
DAO governance is coordinated using tokens or NFTs that grant voting powers. Admission to a DAO is limited to people who have a confirmed ownership of these governance tokens in a cryptocurrency wallet, and membership may be exchanged. Governance is conducted through a series of proposals that members vote on through the blockchain, and the possession of more governance tokens often translates to greater voting power. Contributions from members towards the organizational goals of a DAO can sometimes be tracked and internally compensated. Inactive holders of governance tokens can be a major obstacle for DAO governance,[5] which has led to implementations of allowing voting power to be delegated to other parties.
Issues
Social
Inactive or non-voting shareholders in DAOs often disrupt the organization's possible functionality.[5]
Legal status, liability, and regulation
The precise legal status of this type of business organization is generally unclear,[8] and may vary by jurisdiction. On July 1, 2021, Wyoming became the first US state to recognize DAOs as a legal entity.[13] American CryptoFed DAO became the first business entity so recognized.[14] Some previous approaches to blockchain based companies have been regarded by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as illegal offers of unregistered securities.[6][15] Although often of uncertain legal standing, a DAO may functionally be a corporation without legal status as a corporation: a general partnership.[16] Known participants, or those at the interface between a DAO and regulated financial systems, may be targets of regulatory enforcement or civil actions only if they are out of compliance with the law.[16]
Security
A DAO's code is difficult to alter once the system is up and running, including bug fixes that would be otherwise trivial in centralized code. Corrections to a DAO require writing new code and agreement to migrate all the funds. Although the code is visible to all, it is hard to repair, thus leaving known security holes open to exploitation unless a moratorium is called to enable bug fixing.[17]
In 2016, a specific DAO, "The DAO", set a record for the largest crowdfunding campaign to date.[18][19] Researchers pointed out multiple problems with The DAO's code. The DAO's operational procedure allowed investors to withdraw at will any money that had not yet been committed to a project; the funds could thus deplete quickly.[5] Although safeguards aimed to prevent gaming shareholders' votes to win investments,[6] there were a "number of security vulnerabilities".[20] These enabled an attempted large withdrawal of funds from The DAO to be initiated in mid-June 2016.[21][22] On July 20, 2016, the Ethereum blockchain was forked to bail out the original contract.
DAOs can be subject to coups or hostile takeovers that upend its voting structures especially if the voting power is based upon the number of tokens one owns. An example of this occurred in 2022, when Build Finance DAO suffered a coup in which one person amassed enough tokens to get a vote passed, then voted to give themselves full control of the DAO, then, using this power, they drained all of the money from the DAO.[23]
^Depending on English dialect, it may also be spelled decentralised autonomous organisation. The terms decentralized autonomous company, distributed autonomous organization, etc., have also been used.
^ Jump up to:abcdeVigna, P.; Casey, M. J. (27 January 2015). The Age of Cryptocurrency: How Bitcoin and the Blockchain Are Challenging the Global Economic Order. St. Martin's Press. ISBN9781250065636.
^ Jump up to:abWright, A; De Filippi, P. (10 March 2015). "Decentralized Blockchain Technology and the Rise of Lex Cryptographia". SSRN2580664.
^Norta, A. (18 August 2015). "Creation of Smart-Contracting Collaborations for Decentralized Autonomous Organizations". Perspectives in Business Informatics Research. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Vol. 229. pp. 3–17.
^Deegan, P. (2014). "Chapter 14—The Relational Matrix: The Free and Emergent Organizations of Digital Groups and Identities". In Clippinger, J. H.; Bollier, D. (eds.). From Bitcoin to Burning Man and Beyond: The Quest for Identity and Autonomy in a Digital Society. Amherst, Massachusetts: Institute for Institutional Innovation. pp. 160–176. ISBN978-1-937146-58-0. creating an operational and autonomous Trust Framework [that can i]ntegrate with a secure discovery service in the form of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization ...
In 2021, the global IoT market has reached $17.5 billion of total value.
Consumers are rapidly using Smart Home technology, which accounts for 97% of global sales. Smart House technologies have the fastest growth compared to other categories, fueled by home upgrades during the COVID-19 epidemic.
The Internet of Things industry is diverse in terms of both application and brand. The IoT market is shaped by pure players (like PTC) as well as huge consolidated organizations with diverse goods and services.
The introduction of 5G communication standard is a game changer for speedy connectivity between IoT devices. Using edge computing instead of cloud computing speeds up procedures by collecting and analyzing data at the IoT device level.
Automation utilizing IoT also benefits industrial use cases, resulting in a new trend: the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). But as IoT use grows, so do cybersecurity dangers, as these devices become targets for hackers.
Blockchain has proven to have a significant impact on the Internet of Things by increasing safety and enabling the integration of more devices. The improvements in IoT device security speed up the adoption of this breakthrough invention and bring up new opportunities for businesses.
As of today, few IoT systems utilize the blockchain to transfer data. Blockchain technology allows for immutable and decentralized data transfer and both IoT and blockchain need conscious and non-intentional risk management.
For these reasons, blockchain technology can address several of the IoT cybersecurity needs, including integrity, secure communication, and resilience: it might bring additional security qualities like availability and accessibility to a secure micropayment system.
The ideal blockchain implementation in the IoT space must have no or minimal transaction costs, significant growth potential, and a scalable identity management procedure.
However, traditional blockchain does not address all IoT security concerns: personal data confidentiality and protection need additional encryption.
That’s where IoTeX stands out.
IoTeX
IoTeX was founded in 2017 by Raullen Chai, Qevan Guo, and Jing Sun. and deployed in February 2018.
IoTeX is a full-stack platform that enables trustworthy data from trusteddevices to be used in trusted DApps.
It employs permissioned or permissionless blockchains, enhancing privacy with quick consensus and immediate finality.
IoTeX believes no one blockchain solution can meet all IoT needs. For this reason, they established specific platforms that will communicate with defined IoT devices, following the idea of separation of tasks.
Indeed, the specified level of IoT structures can only be managed by a certain level of blockchain complexity.
The IoTeX platform is composed of many technology layers:
Roll-DPoS consensus with more than 60 decentralized delegates
Secure Hardware: tamper-proof devices using Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) that work flawlessly with IoTeX
Real-World Data Oracles: turn real-world events into verified data for IoTeX DApps
Decentralized identity framework that allows users/devices to control their data and credentials
IoTeX Rootchain and Subchains — Fast Consensus with Instant Finality
IoTeX has a public permissionless root chain as well as many subchains.
Subchains may be permissioned or permissionless blockchains that allow smart contracts.
The root chain is a public blockchain that focuses on scalability, resilience, privacy-preserving functionalities, and subchain orchestration: it has been deployed to transmit value and data across subchains, supervise the different subchains along with settlement and anchor payments for them.
To ease transaction ordering, the IoTeX root chain employs the UTXO concept.
A subchain, on the other hand, is a blockchain that can be either private o public that uses the root chain to communicate with other subchains.
A subchain's key characteristics are flexibility and extensibility as they are needed to meet the diverse IoT applications. To function, a subchain is typically managed by operators with a strong stake in the root chain.
Additionally, the system lets users choose one or more delegated operators to act for them, with or without a bond. To seal new blocks, the delegator acts like a light client on the root chain, and like a full node on the subchain.
Consensus mechanism
IoTex root chainconsensus delivers immutable blocks in real-time and it employs the so-called Roll-DPoS (randomized delegated proof of stake): token holders vote for their delegates, who are then ranked according to the number of votes they get.
The delegates who received the most votes are known as the “consensus delegates” for the present epoch (1 hour). A randomization method then selects a sub-committee to preserve the agreement and generate new blocks for each new epoch.
Block finality is critical for IoTeX cross-blockchain communications. These interactions are based on simplified payment verification (SPV), a mechanism that allows a lightweight node to authenticate a transaction using a Merkle tree and block headers without downloading the complete blockchain. IoTeX employs two-way pegging (TWP) to allow token transfers to and from subchains.
Secure Hardware
A core idea of the project is to have and provide final users with trusted devices for the data collection.
Hardware to be considered secured and tamper-proof needs to embed a Trusted Execution Environment, which are extremely secure and segregated enclaves that operate in parallel with a device’s/main machine’s system.
A TEE protects the confidentiality and integrity of all data and processes inside it.
IoTex’s goal is to make the first decentralized machines that can participate in the Internet of Trusted Things autonomously. In this regard, the company made the first hardware device that can’t be manipulated: the Pebble Tracker.
Pebble tracker
The Pebble Tracker has a TEE and a lot of sensors (GPS, climate, motion, and light) to get information from the real world and turn it into verifiable, blockchain-ready data. In addition to minting digital assets, smart contracts can be used to do things like train machine learning models and make crowdsourced climate indices bringing verifiable and trusted.
Decentralized Identity
Decentralized Identity (DID) is the “root of self-sovereignty” for the IoTeX platform. Unlike other blockchain networks, IoTeX has created a DID system for both individuals and machines. People and devices may interact directly using IoTeX since their IDs are interoperable and standardized. IoTeX DID also enables people and devices to own/control their data and identity over the IoTeX network.
The Industrial Internet Consortium is currently standardizing IoTeX’s DID technology and Identity & Access Management (IAM) architecture (IIC). It can link various application layers and enable user-centric data exchange across global IoT ecosystems with billions of IoT devices and millions of users.
Data oracles
Data oracles are required for smart contracts to access off-chain data. For the blockchain sector, IoTeX is constructing the world’s first data oracles that concentrate on verified real-world data from trustworthy devices, making IoTeX the first mover in this direction.
Real-world data on IoTeX will enable thousands of use cases and new on-chain assets supported by real-world data. As an approved data hub, IoTeX may now “serve” data to other blockchains like Ethereum and Polkadot.
Team
Raullen Chai, Qevan Guo, Xinxin Fan, and Jing Sun are the creators of IoTeX.
In addition to co-founding IoTeX, Raullen Chaiis a consultant at BootUP Ventures and a member of the Industrial Internet Consortium’s Industrial Distributed Ledger Task Group. He formerly served as Uber’s head of cryptocurrency research and development, as well as technical security.
Qevan Guo is also one of Hyperconnect Lab’s co-founders. He worked for Facebook as a researcher and technical director.
Xinxin Fan was a senior research engineer at the Bosch Research and Technology Center in North America prior to co-founding IoTeX. He also worked at the University of Waterloo as a research associate and project manager.
Jing Sun serves as a managing partner at Sparkland Capital. She is a limited partner at Polychain Capital and a Rippling angel investor.
The whole IoTex team is made up of about 30 people including scientists, researchers, and numerous engineers from giants such as Google, Facebook, Uber, and Bosch.
Tokenomics
The $IOTX token enables the IoTeX blockchain. IOTX provides numerous utilities to facilitate trustworthy interactions amongst stakeholders, including users, Delegates (miners), application makers, and service providers.
The IOTX token offers financial and reputational incentives to promote decentralized IoTeX Network governance/maintenance. Participants may spend, stake, or burn IOTX to access network resources. Increased demand and value of IOTX will encourage network members to maintain and extend the network.
Delegates stake IOTX to be eligible to participate in consensus, while service providers stake/spend IOTX to provide services to builders.
IOTX has a 10 billion maximum supply and is deflationary — IOTX is burnt for every new device and user registered to the IoTeX Network, rewarding long-term holders.
Following the onboarding of 1 million “Powered by IoTeX” devices, the “Burn-to-Certify” tokenomics will be enabled. Starting from that point on, builders will burn IOTX to access specific services/capabilities for each new device. As seen in the graph below, the overall supply of IOTX will drop with each additional “Powered by IoTeX” device.
Notably, these are the tokenomics that power the IoTeX blockchain, however, apps “Powered by IoTeX” may create their tokens and tokenomics based on their own incentives/rules.
Maximum Supply: 10 Billion IOTX
Total Supply: 8.8 Billion IOTX (after Burn-Drop)
900 Million IOTX (9% of max supply) will be gradually burned as 1 Million devices will be registered and confirmed on IoTeX
265 Million IOTX (2.65% of max supply) was burned in June 2020 as part of Mainnet GA activation
Circulating Supply: 9.54 Billion IOTX
MachineFi
MachineFi is a concept used to describe the combination of blockchain and Internet of Things (IoT) technology.
This concept seeks to connect the physical world with the metaverse.
MachineFi also defines a network of smart devices that communicate with one another on the blockchain via the internet. On many fronts, blockchain has developed a robust framework for enabling decentralization.
IoTeX 2.0 intends to decentralize the MachineFi sector, allowing smart device users to engage in a rising trillion-dollar economy free of the constraints imposed by centralized data providers.
The “Proof-of-Anything” idea will be launched in the MachineFi upgrade. This will let IoT devices provide on-chain proofs of real-world events such as health measurements and GPS positions.
Conclusions
Blockchain technology can meet several cybersecurity requirements for IoT devices because it is distributed and can’t be changed.
However, a single blockchain implementation that doesn’t have other ways to deal with complexity, like smart contracts, edge, and cloud computing, can’t meet all of the security requirements that IoT platforms need to meet.
Identity and Access Management is an important part of building a strong defense against intentional risks that IoTex decided to tackle from day 1.
Disclaimer
This is not, in any case, financial advice, the goal of my research will always be to dive deep into projects and study them from different angles, I do include personal opinions based on my experience with similar projects that I have recently studied.
I am and will always be open to discussion.
Follow us on Twitter:
@daolectic
Please always do your research before investing in anything.
An entity–relationship model (or ER model) describes interrelated things of interest in a specific domain of knowledge. A basic ER model is composed of entity types (which classify the things of interest) and specifies relationships that can exist between entities (instances of those entity types).
An entity–attribute-relationship diagram for an MMORPG using Chen's notation.
In software engineering, an ER model is commonly formed to represent things a business needs to remember in order to perform business processes. Consequently, the ER model becomes an abstract data model, that defines a data or information structure which can be implemented in a database, typically a relational database.
Entity–relationship modeling was developed for database and design by Peter Chen and published in a 1976 paper,[1] with variants of the idea existing previously.[2] Some ER models show super and subtype entities connected by generalization-specialization relationships,[3] and an ER model can be used also in the specification of domain-specific ontologies.
An E-R model is usually the result of systematic analysis to define and describe what is important to processes in an area of a business. It does not define the business processes; it only presents a business data schema in graphical form. It is usually drawn in a graphical form as boxes (entities) that are connected by lines (relationships) which express the associations and dependencies between entities. An ER model can also be expressed in a verbal form, for example: one building may be divided into zero or more apartments, but one apartment can only be located in one building.
Entities may be characterized not only by relationships, but also by additional properties (attributes), which include identifiers called "primary keys". Diagrams created to represent attributes as well as entities and relationships may be called entity-attribute-relationship diagrams, rather than entity–relationship models.
An ER model is typically implemented as a database. In a simple relational database implementation, each row of a table represents one instance of an entity type, and each field in a table represents an attribute type. In a relational database a relationship between entities is implemented by storing the primary key of one entity as a pointer or "foreign key" in the table of another entity.
There is a tradition for ER/data models to be built at two or three levels of abstraction. Note that the conceptual-logical-physical hierarchy below is used in other kinds of specification, and is different from the three schema approach to software engineering.
This is the highest level ER model in that it contains the least granular detail but establishes the overall scope of what is to be included within the model set. The conceptual ER model normally defines master reference data entities that are commonly used by the organization. Developing an enterprise-wide conceptual ER model is useful to support documenting the data architecture for an organization.
A conceptual ER model may be used as the foundation for one or more logical data models (see below). The purpose of the conceptual ER model is then to establish structural metadata commonality for the master data entities between the set of logical ER models. The conceptual data model may be used to form commonality relationships between ER models as a basis for data model integration.
A logical ER model does not require a conceptual ER model, especially if the scope of the logical ER model includes only the development of a distinct information system. The logical ER model contains more detail than the conceptual ER model. In addition to master data entities, operational and transactional data entities are now defined. The details of each data entity are developed and the relationships between these data entities are established. The logical ER model is however developed independently of the specific database management system into which it can be implemented.
One or more physical ER models may be developed from each logical ER model. The physical ER model is normally developed to be instantiated as a database. Therefore, each physical ER model must contain enough detail to produce a database and each physical ER model is technology dependent since each database management system is somewhat different.
The physical model is normally instantiated in the structural metadata of a database management system as relational database objects such as database tables, database indexes such as unique key indexes, and database constraints such as a foreign key constraint or a commonality constraint. The ER model is also normally used to design modifications to the relational database objects and to maintain the structural metadata of the database.
The first stage of information system design uses these models during the requirements analysis to describe information needs or the type of information that is to be stored in a database. The data modeling technique can be used to describe any ontology (i.e. an overview and classifications of used terms and their relationships) for a certain area of interest. In the case of the design of an information system that is based on a database, the conceptual data model is, at a later stage (usually called logical design), mapped to a logical data model, such as the relational model; this in turn is mapped to a physical model during physical design. Note that sometimes, both of these phases are referred to as "physical design."
An entity may be defined as a thing capable of an independent existence that can be uniquely identified. An entity is an abstraction from the complexities of a domain. When we speak of an entity, we normally speak of some aspect of the real world that can be distinguished from other aspects of the real world.[4]
An entity is a thing that exists either physically or logically. An entity may be a physical object such as a house or a car (they exist physically), an event such as a house sale or a car service, or a concept such as a customer transaction or order (they exist logically—as a concept). Although the term entity is the one most commonly used, following Chen we should really distinguish between an entity and an entity-type. An entity-type is a category. An entity, strictly speaking, is an instance of a given entity-type. There are usually many instances of an entity-type. Because the term entity-type is somewhat cumbersome, most people tend to use the term entity as a synonym for this term
Entities can be thought of as nouns. Examples: a computer, an employee, a song, a mathematical theorem, etc.
A relationship captures how entities are related to one another. Relationships can be thought of as verbs, linking two or more nouns. Examples: an owns relationship between a company and a computer, a supervises relationship between an employee and a department, a performs relationship between an artist and a song, a proves relationship between a mathematician and a conjecture, etc.
The model's linguistic aspect described above is utilized in the declarative database query language ERROL, which mimics natural language constructs. ERROL's semantics and implementation are based on reshaped relational algebra (RRA), a relational algebra that is adapted to the entity–relationship model and captures its linguistic aspect.
Entities and relationships can both have attributes. Examples: an employee entity might have a Social Security Number (SSN) attribute, while a proved relationship may have a date attribute.
All entities except weak entities must have a minimal set of uniquely identifying attributes which may be used as a unique/primary key.
Entity–relationship diagrams don't show single entities or single instances of relations. Rather, they show entity sets (all entities of the same entity type) and relationship sets (all relationships of the same relationship type). Examples: a particular song is an entity; the collection of all songs in a database is an entity set; the eaten relationship between a child and his lunch is a single relationship; the set of all such child-lunch relationships in a database is a relationship set. In other words, a relationship set corresponds to a relation in mathematics, while a relationship corresponds to a member of the relation.
Chen proposed the following "rules of thumb" for mapping natural language descriptions into ER diagrams: "English, Chinese and ER diagrams" by Peter Chen.
In Chen's original paper he gives an example of a relationship and its roles. He describes a relationship "marriage" and its two roles "husband" and "wife".
A person plays the role of husband in a marriage (relationship) and another person plays the role of wife in the (same) marriage. These words are nouns. That is no surprise; naming things requires a noun.
Chen's terminology has also been applied to earlier ideas. The lines, arrows and crow's-feet of some diagrams owes more to the earlier Bachman diagrams than to Chen's relationship diagrams.
Another common extension to Chen's model is to "name" relationships and roles as verbs or phrases.
Role naming
It has also become prevalent to name roles with phrases such as is the owner of and is owned by. Correct nouns in this case are owner and possession. Thus person plays the role of owner and car plays the role of possession rather than person plays the role of, is the owner of, etc.
The use of nouns has direct benefit when generating physical implementations from semantic models. When a person has two relationships with car then it is possible to generate names such as owner_person and driver_person, which are immediately meaningful.[5]
Cardinalities
Modifications to the original specification can be beneficial. Chen described look-across cardinalities. As an aside, the Barker–Ellis notation, used in Oracle Designer, uses same-side for minimum cardinality (analogous to optionality) and role, but look-across for maximum cardinality (the crows foot).[clarification needed]
In Merise,[6] Elmasri & Navathe[7] and others[8] there is a preference for same-side for roles and both minimum and maximum cardinalities. Recent researchers (Feinerer,[9] Dullea et al.[10]) have shown that this is more coherent when applied to n-ary relationships of order greater than 2.
In Dullea et al. one reads "A 'look across' notation such as used in the UML does not effectively represent the semantics of participation constraints imposed on relationships where the degree is higher than binary."
In Feinerer it says "Problems arise if we operate under the look-across semantics as used for UML associations. Hartmann[11] investigates this situation and shows how and why different transformations fail." (Although the "reduction" mentioned is spurious as the two diagrams 3.4 and 3.5 are in fact the same) and also "As we will see on the next few pages, the look-across interpretation introduces several difficulties that prevent the extension of simple mechanisms from binary to n-ary associations."
Various methods of representing the same one to many relationship. In each case, the diagram shows the relationship between a person and a place of birth: each person must have been born at one, and only one, location, but each location may have had zero or more people born at it.
Two related entities shown using Crow's Foot notation. In this example, an optional relationship is shown between Artist and Song; the symbols closest to the song entity represents "zero, one, or many", whereas a song has "one and only one" Artist. The former is therefore read as, an Artist (can) perform(s) "zero, one, or many" song(s).
Chen's notation for entity–relationship modeling uses rectangles to represent entity sets, and diamonds to represent relationships appropriate for first-class objects: they can have attributes and relationships of their own. If an entity set participates in a relationship set, they are connected with a line.
Attributes are drawn as ovals and are connected with a line to exactly one entity or relationship set.
Cardinality constraints are expressed as follows:
a double line indicates a participation constraint, totality or surjectivity: all entities in the entity set must participate in at least one relationship in the relationship set;
an arrow from entity set to relationship set indicates a key constraint, i.e. injectivity: each entity of the entity set can participate in at most one relationship in the relationship set;
a thick line indicates both, i.e. bijectivity: each entity in the entity set is involved in exactly one relationship.
an underlined name of an attribute indicates that it is a key: two different entities or relationships with this attribute always have different values for this attribute.
Attributes are often omitted as they can clutter up a diagram; other diagram techniques often list entity attributes within the rectangles drawn for entity sets.
Crow's foot notation, the beginning of which dates back to an article by Gordon Everest (1976),[12] is used in Barker's notation, Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method (SSADM) and information technology engineering. Crow's foot diagrams represent entities as boxes, and relationships as lines between the boxes. Different shapes at the ends of these lines represent the relative cardinality of the relationship.
Crow's foot notation was used in the consultancy practice CACI. Many of the consultants at CACI (including Richard Barker) subsequently moved to Oracle UK, where they developed the early versions of Oracle's CASE tools, introducing the notation to a wider audience.
With this notation, relationships cannot have attributes. Where necessary, relationships are promoted to entities in their own right: for example, if it is necessary to capture where and when an artist performed a song, a new entity "performance" is introduced (with attributes reflecting the time and place), and the relationship of an artist to a song becomes an indirect relationship via the performance (artist-performs-performance, performance-features-song).
Three symbols are used to represent cardinality:
the ring represents "zero"
the dash represents "one"
the crow's foot represents "many" or "infinite"
These symbols are used in pairs to represent the four types of cardinality that an entity may have in a relationship. The inner component of the notation represents the minimum, and the outer component represents the maximum.
ring and dash → minimum zero, maximum one (optional)
dash and dash → minimum one, maximum one (mandatory)
ring and crow's foot → minimum zero, maximum many (optional)
dash and crow's foot → minimum one, maximum many (mandatory)
Model usability issues
This section needs expansion with: fan trap causes. You can help by adding to it. (February 2018)
In using a modeled database, users can encounter two well known issues where the returned results mean something other than the results assumed by the query author.
The first is the 'fan trap'. It occurs with a (master) table that links to multiple tables in a one-to-many relationship. The issue derives its name from the way the model looks when it's drawn in an entity–relationship diagram: the linked tables 'fan out' from the master table. This type of model looks similar to a star schema, a type of model used in data warehouses. When trying to calculate sums over aggregates using standard SQL over the master table, unexpected (and incorrect) results may occur. The solution is to either adjust the model or the SQL. This issue occurs mostly in databases for decision support systems, and software that queries such systems sometimes includes specific methods for handling this issue.
The second issue is a 'chasm trap'. A chasm trap occurs when a model suggests the existence of a relationship between entity types, but the pathway does not exist between certain entity occurrences. For example, a Building has one-or-more Rooms, that hold zero-or-more Computers. One would expect to be able to query the model to see all the Computers in the Building. However, Computers not currently assigned to a Room (because they are under repair or somewhere else) are not shown on the list. Another relation between Building and Computers is needed to capture all the computers in the building. This last modelling issue is the result of a failure to capture all the relationships that exist in the real world in the model. See Entity-Relationship Modelling 2 for details.
Entity–relationships and semantic modeling
Semantic model
A semantic model is a model of concepts, it is sometimes called a "platform independent model". It is an intensional model. At least since Carnap, it is well known that:[13]
"...the full meaning of a concept is constituted by two aspects, its intension and its extension. The first part comprises the embedding of a concept in the world of concepts as a whole, i.e. the totality of all relations to other concepts. The second part establishes the referential meaning of the concept, i.e. its counterpart in the real or in a possible world".
Extension model
An extensional model is one that maps to the elements of a particular methodology or technology, and is thus a "platform specific model". The UML specification explicitly states that associations in class models are extensional and this is in fact self-evident by considering the extensive array of additional "adornments" provided by the specification over and above those provided by any of the prior candidate "semantic modelling languages"."UML as a Data Modeling Notation, Part 2"
Entity–relationship origins
Peter Chen, the father of ER modeling said in his seminal paper:
"The entity-relationship model adopts the more natural view that the real world consists of entities and relationships. It incorporates some of the important semantic information about the real world." [1]
In his original 1976 article Chen explicitly contrasts entity–relationship diagrams with record modelling techniques:
"The data structure diagram is a representation of the organization of records and is not an exact representation of entities and relationships."
Chen is in accord with philosophical traditions from the time of the Ancient Greek philosophers: Plato and Aristotle.[19] Plato himself associates knowledge with the apprehension of unchanging Forms (namely, archetypes or abstract representations of the many types of things, and properties) and their relationships to one another.
Limitations
An ER model is primarily conceptual, an ontology that expresses predicates in a domain of knowledge.
ER models are readily used to represent relational database structures (after Codd and Date) but not so often to represent other kinds of data structure (data warehouses, document stores etc.)
Some ER model notations include symbols to show super-sub-type relationships and mutual exclusion between relationships; some don't.
An ER model does not show an entity's life history (how its attributes and/or relationships change over time in response to events). For many systems, such state changes are nontrivial and important enough to warrant explicit specification.
Some[who?] have extended ER modeling with constructs to represent state changes, an approach supported by the original author;[20] an example is Anchor Modeling.
Others model state changes separately, using state transition diagrams or some other process modeling technique.
Many other kinds of diagram are drawn to model other aspects of systems, including the 14 diagram types offered by UML.[21]
Today, even where ER modeling could be useful, it is uncommon because many use tools that support similar kinds of model, notably class diagrams for OO programming and data models for relational database management systems. Some of these tools can generate code from diagrams and reverse-engineer diagrams from code.
In a survey, Brodie and Liu[22] could not find a single instance of entity–relationship modeling inside a sample of ten Fortune 100 companies. Badia and Lemire[23] blame this lack of use on the lack of guidance but also on the lack of benefits, such as lack of support for data integration.
For modelling temporal databases, numerous ER extensions have been considered.[24] Similarly, the ER model was found unsuitable for multidimensional databases (used in OLAP applications); no dominant conceptual model has emerged in this field yet, although they generally revolve around the concept of OLAP cube (also known as data cube within the field).[25]
^A.P.G. Brown, "Modelling a Real-World System and Designing a Schema to Represent It", in Douque and Nijssen (eds.), Data Base Description, North-Holland, 1975, ISBN0-7204-2833-5.
^G. Everest, "BASIC DATA STRUCTURE MODELS EXPLAINED WITH A COMMON EXAMPLE", in Computing Systems 1976, Proceedings Fifth Texas Conference on Computing Systems, Austin,TX, 1976 October 18–19, pages 39-46. (Long Beach, CA: IEEE Computer Society Publications Office).
"One thing we ought to have clear in our minds at the outset of a modelling endeavour is whether we are intent on describing a portion of "reality" (some human enterprise) or a data processing activity."
^Abrial in "Data Semantics" : "... the so called "logical" definition and manipulation of data are still influenced (sometimes unconsciously) by the "physical" storage and retrieval mechanisms currently available on computer systems."
^Stamper: "They pretend to describe entity types, but the vocabulary is from data processing: fields, data items, values. Naming rules don't reflect the conventions we use for naming people and things; they reflect instead techniques for locating records in files."
^In Jackson's words: "The developer begins by creating a model of the reality with which the system is concerned, the reality that furnishes its [the system's] subject matter ..."
^Elmasri, Navathe: "The ER model concepts are designed to be closer to the user’s perception of data and are not meant to describe the way in which data will be stored in the computer."
^Paolo Rocchi, Janus-Faced Probability, Springer, 2014, p. 62.
^Gregersen, Heidi; Jensen, Christian S. (1999). "Temporal Entity-Relationship models—a survey". IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. 11 (3): 464–497. CiteSeerX10.1.1.1.2497. doi:10.1109/69.774104.
Of late, the terms “metaverse” and “Web 3″ have been used interchangeably. While they both point to a vision of a better, future internet, it’s important the two concepts not be conflated or become a source of division around ideologies of how we want to continue building the internet.
The metaverse – which gets its name from the 1992 sci-fi novel “Snow Crash” – is more of a vision than a concrete reality. Many people imagine it to be a 3D immersive world that is synchronous, persistent and unlimited in concurrent users. It is a digitally native place where we will spend the majority of our time to work, learn, play, entertain, etc.Annie Zhang is the host of the “Hello Metaverse” podcast where she explores the cultural and societal implications of its developments. She has been building next-generation social products at various consumer companies.
The metaverse feels vague and speculative because it is; it hasn’t really taken form yet. While some technologists want to anchor the vision along the lines of Meta’s Ready Player One-esque keynote presentation, the reality is the metaverse will require everyone’s input and participation to truly take form. It should encompass the confluence of different iterative efforts and technological advancements and have no discrete end.
Web 3, on the other hand, is a far more specific paradigm that provides clear solutions to specific shortcomings of the Web 2 internet. It is a reaction to the walled-garden ecosystems that platforms like Facebook and YouTube created, which caused people to have their data extracted, privacy breached and ability to control the content they create oppressed. Web 3 subverts that model because it directly addresses the issues of ownership and control.
By building on the blockchain, data is open and distributed and collectively owned by peer-to-peer networks. As a result, users own their data, peer-to-peer transactions can bypass middlemen and data lives on the blockchain as a public good that anyone can contribute to and monetize.
We’ve seen incredible new consumer behaviors emerge already from Web 3 initiatives, such as creators being able to sell their content as non-fungible tokens (NFT), play-to-earn games that have helped people make a livelihood playing games and a community-organized investing collective (ConstitutionDAO) mobilizing enough capital to bid for the U.S. Constitution at a Sotheby’s auction.
While Web 3 is a powerful tool to transform how we can manage data, governance and exchange money, the slowness of clearing blockchain transactions limits the settings and use cases in which it makes sense to be applied. Although a purely decentralized model of the internet sounds enticing, there is impracticality to it. So, while it could be argued that Web 3 is a critical building block for the metaverse, it is only one component of a greater sum.0 seconds of 6 minutes, 29 secondsVolume 90%
By acknowledging that Web 3 and decentralization are simply a building block for the metaverse, it opens up opportunities for other types of contributors rather than antagonizing them.
When Meta (formerly Facebook) announced its heavily AR/VR-centric metaverse vision, there was an outcry that Big Tech will dominate the metaverse and therefore force platforms to operate as a closed ecosystem once again.
What people missed is the innovation and focus Meta was pushing for was largely on hardware and a 3D user consumption and input interface that, quite frankly, does not exist today. Facebook is trying to solve the immersion problem, and it’s an important one. Think about it. Many of us have spent the last two years on Zoom and have become worn out. How will we feel about wearing a VR headset all day?
If we anticipate spending more and more time in the virtual world enjoyably, we need the virtual interfaces that are more immersive, natural and expressive. Meta’s developments in AR/VR and motion sensing technologies do not undermine the work of Web 3 and decentralization. In fact, the best-case scenario is that people start building Web 3 applications within the emergent 3D form factors of AR/VR and holographic projections.
Another sensationalized opinion is that Web 3 will make Web 2 obsolete. Again, it’s hard to imagine such a reality. Despite certain shortcomings of Web 2, there are still many products that operate more effectively without using the blockchain. Platforms like Discord or Twitch help people communicate and broadcast at scale and in real time. Companies like Uber or DoorDash effectively queue up demand and match it with supply.
Like it or not, centralization works. OpenSea, currently the largest NFT marketplace, is fundamentally a centralized marketplace that simply facilitates transactions on the blockchain. Coinbase is another example of a centralized exchange that enables transactions of cryptocurrencies. In both cases, these intermediaries take service fees on transactions just like any other Web 2 marketplace.
While these hybrid products do not align perfectly to the decentralization ideology, they are critical “bridging products” that help greater adoption of Web 3 elements by appealing to the mainstream. In a similar way that Snap Stories was a popular teen product but struggled with adoption with older users, Meta’s adoption of Stories helped it become a mainstream product for all demographics.
When new technologies and paradigms emerge, it can often be seen as a revolution. But what we see throughout history is that they tend to build on top of existing foundations from past eras. Email is still a huge part of our day to day lives, and yet it was a protocol invented in the Web 1 era of the internet.
Jon Lai, a GP at investment firm a16z, has a grounded perspective on the development path to the metaverse in this episode of “Hello Metaverse.” “There’s a lot of building yet to be done. The blockchain, play-to-earn, different types of jobs, virtual economics, all of that are like stepping stones [as well as] UGC [user-generated content] platforms and scaling content creation … it won’t be this shining product launch from some company who just says, ‘Hey! We’ve been working on this for 10 years and boom, here’s the metaverse’. It’s going to be the cumulative sum of a bunch of different companies working in completely different spaces on completely different products.”
This is all to say, we need to focus on the interplay between different operating models and how they can work together to create better realities for people rather than focus on their differences and “choosing a side.” While the latest development of Web 3 and efforts to make use cases of the blockchain mainstream is a huge leap forward in our progress in making a better internet, it’s simply one component and it should not neglect other complementary initiatives.
This article appeared first on December 21st 2021 https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2021/12/21/web-3-and-the-metaverse-are-not-the-same/
Information Security Attributes: or qualities, i.e., Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability (CIA). Information Systems are composed in three main portions, hardware, software and communications with the purpose to help identify and apply information security industry standards, as mechanisms of protection and prevention, at three levels or layers: physical, personal and organizational. Essentially, procedures or policies are implemented to tell administrators, users and operators how to use products to ensure information security within the organizations.[10]
Various definitions of information security are suggested below, summarized from different sources:
“Preservation of confidentiality, integrity and availability of information. Note: In addition, other properties, such as authenticity, accountability, non-repudiation and reliability can also be involved.” (ISO/IEC 27000:2009)[11]
“The protection of information and information systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in order to provide confidentiality, integrity, and availability.” (CNSS, 2010)[12]
“Ensures that only authorized users (confidentiality) have access to accurate and complete information (integrity) when required (availability).” (ISACA, 2008)[13]
“Information Security is the process of protecting the intellectual property of an organisation.” (Pipkin, 2000)[14]
“…information security is a risk management discipline, whose job is to manage the cost of information risk to the business.” (McDermott and Geer, 2001)[15]
“A well-informed sense of assurance that information risks and controls are in balance.” (Anderson, J., 2003)[16]
“Information security is the protection of information and minimizes the risk of exposing information to unauthorized parties.” (Venter and Eloff, 2003)[17]
“Information Security is a multidisciplinary area of study and professional activity which is concerned with the development and implementation of security mechanisms of all available types (technical, organizational, human-oriented and legal) in order to keep information in all its locations (within and outside the organization’s perimeter) and, consequently, information systems, where information is created, processed, stored, transmitted and destroyed, free from threats.[18] Threats to information and information systems may be categorized and a corresponding security goal may be defined for each category of threats.[19] A set of security goals, identified as a result of a threat analysis, should be revised periodically to ensure its adequacy and conformance with the evolving environment.[20] The currently relevant set of security goals may include: confidentiality, integrity, availability, privacy, authenticity & trustworthiness, non-repudiation, accountability and auditability.” (Cherdantseva and Hilton, 2013)[10]
Information and information resource security using telecommunication system or devices means protecting information, information systems or books from unauthorized access, damage, theft, or destruction (Kurose and Ross, 2010).[21]
Overview
At the core of information security is information assurance, the act of maintaining the confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA) of information, ensuring that information is not compromised in any way when critical issues arise.[22] These issues include but are not limited to natural disasters, computer/server malfunction, and physical theft. While paper-based business operations are still prevalent, requiring their own set of information security practices, enterprise digital initiatives are increasingly being emphasized,[23][24] with information assurance now typically being dealt with by information technology (IT) security specialists. These specialists apply information security to technology (most often some form of computer system). It is worthwhile to note that a computer does not necessarily mean a home desktop.[25] A computer is any device with a processor and some memory. Such devices can range from non-networked standalone devices as simple as calculators, to networked mobile computing devices such as smartphones and tablet computers.[26] IT security specialists are almost always found in any major enterprise/establishment due to the nature and value of the data within larger businesses.[27] They are responsible for keeping all of the technology within the company secure from malicious cyber attacks that often attempt to acquire critical private information or gain control of the internal systems.[28][29]
The field of information security has grown and evolved significantly in recent years.[30] It offers many areas for specialization, including securing networks and allied infrastructure, securing applications and databases, security testing, information systems auditing, business continuity planning, electronic record discovery, and digital forensics.[citation needed] Information security professionals are very stable in their employment.[31] As of 2013 more than 80 percent of professionals had no change in employer or employment over a period of a year, and the number of professionals is projected to continuously grow more than 11 percent annually from 2014 to 2019.[32]
Threats
Information security threats come in many different forms.[33][34] Some of the most common threats today are software attacks, theft of intellectual property, theft of identity, theft of equipment or information, sabotage, and information extortion.[35][36] Most people have experienced software attacks of some sort. Viruses,[37]worms, phishing attacks, and Trojan horses are a few common examples of software attacks. The theft of intellectual property has also been an extensive issue for many businesses in the information technology (IT) field.[38]Identity theft is the attempt to act as someone else usually to obtain that person’s personal information or to take advantage of their access to vital information through social engineering.[39][40] Theft of equipment or information is becoming more prevalent today due to the fact that most devices today are mobile,[41] are prone to theft and have also become far more desirable as the amount of data capacity increases. Sabotage usually consists of the destruction of an organization’s website in an attempt to cause loss of confidence on the part of its customers.[42] Information extortion consists of theft of a company’s property or information as an attempt to receive a payment in exchange for returning the information or property back to its owner, as with ransomware.[43] There are many ways to help protect yourself from some of these attacks but one of the most functional precautions is conduct periodical user awareness.[44] The number one threat to any organisation are users or internal employees, they are also called insider threats.[45]
Governments, military, corporations, financial institutions, hospitals, non-profit organisations, and private businesses amass a great deal of confidential information about their employees, customers, products, research, and financial status.[46] Should confidential information about a business’ customers or finances or new product line fall into the hands of a competitor or a black hat hacker, a business and its customers could suffer widespread, irreparable financial loss, as well as damage to the company’s reputation.[47] From a business perspective, information security must be balanced against cost; the Gordon-Loeb Model provides a mathematical economic approach for addressing this concern.[48]
For the individual, information security has a significant effect on privacy, which is viewed very differently in various cultures.[49]
Responses to threats
Possible responses to a security threat or risk are:[50]
reduce/mitigate – implement safeguards and countermeasures to eliminate vulnerabilities or block threats
assign/transfer – place the cost of the threat onto another entity or organization such as purchasing insurance or outsourcing
accept – evaluate if the cost of the countermeasure outweighs the possible cost of loss due to the threat[51]
History
Since the early days of communication, diplomats and military commanders understood that it was necessary to provide some mechanism to protect the confidentiality of correspondence and to have some means of detecting tampering.[52]Julius Caesar is credited with the invention of the Caesar cipher c. 50 B.C., which was created in order to prevent his secret messages from being read should a message fall into the wrong hands.[53] However, for the most part protection was achieved through the application of procedural handling controls.[54][55] Sensitive information was marked up to indicate that it should be protected and transported by trusted persons, guarded and stored in a secure environment or strong box.[56] As postal services expanded, governments created official organizations to intercept, decipher, read, and reseal letters (e.g., the U.K.’s Secret Office, founded in 1653[57]).
In the mid-nineteenth century more complex classification systems were developed to allow governments to manage their information according to the degree of sensitivity.[58] For example, the British Government codified this, to some extent, with the publication of the Official Secrets Act in 1889.[59] Section 1 of the law concerned espionage and unlawful disclosures of information, while Section 2 dealt with breaches of official trust.[60] A public interest defense was soon added to defend disclosures in the interest of the state.[61] A similar law was passed in India in 1889, The Indian Official Secrets Act, which was associated with the British colonial era and used to crack down on newspapers that opposed the Raj’s policies.[62] A newer version was passed in 1923 that extended to all matters of confidential or secret information for governance.[63] By the time of the First World War, multi-tier classification systems were used to communicate information to and from various fronts, which encouraged greater use of code making and breaking sections in diplomatic and military headquarters.[64] Encoding became more sophisticated between the wars as machines were employed to scramble and unscramble information.[65]
The establishment of computer security inaugurated the history of information security. The need for such appeared during World War II.[66] The volume of information shared by the Allied countries during the Second World War necessitated formal alignment of classification systems and procedural controls.[67] An arcane range of markings evolved to indicate who could handle documents (usually officers rather than enlisted troops) and where they should be stored as increasingly complex safes and storage facilities were developed.[68] The Enigma Machine, which was employed by the Germans to encrypt the data of warfare and was successfully decrypted by Alan Turing, can be regarded as a striking example of creating and using secured information.[69] Procedures evolved to ensure documents were destroyed properly, and it was the failure to follow these procedures which led to some of the greatest intelligence coups of the war (e.g., the capture of U-570[69]).
In 1973, important elements of ARPANET security were found by internet pioneer Robert Metcalfe to have many flaws such as the: “vulnerability of password structure and formats; lack of safety procedures for dial-up connections; and nonexistent user identification and authorizations”, aside from the lack of controls and safeguards to keep data safe from unauthorized access. Hackers had effortless access to ARPANET, as phone numbers were known by the public.[71] Due to these problems, coupled with the constant violation of computer security, as well as the exponential increase in the number of hosts and users of the system, “network security” was often alluded to as “network insecurity”.[71]
The end of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first century saw rapid advancements in telecommunications, computing hardware and software, and data encryption.[72] The availability of smaller, more powerful, and less expensive computing equipment made electronic data processing within the reach of small business and home users.[73] The establishment of Transfer Control Protocol/Internetwork Protocol (TCP/IP) in the early 1980s enabled different types of computers to communicate.[74] These computers quickly became interconnected through the internet.[75]
The rapid growth and widespread use of electronic data processing and electronic business conducted through the internet, along with numerous occurrences of international terrorism, fueled the need for better methods of protecting the computers and the information they store, process, and transmit.[76] The academic disciplines of computer security and information assurance emerged along with numerous professional organizations, all sharing the common goals of ensuring the security and reliability of information systems.[citation needed]
The CIA triad of confidentiality, integrity, and availability is at the heart of information security.[77] (The members of the classic InfoSec triad—confidentiality, integrity, and availability—are interchangeably referred to in the literature as security attributes, properties, security goals, fundamental aspects, information criteria, critical information characteristics and basic building blocks.)[78] However, debate continues about whether or not this CIA triad is sufficient to address rapidly changing technology and business requirements, with recommendations to consider expanding on the intersections between availability and confidentiality, as well as the relationship between security and privacy.[22] Other principles such as “accountability” have sometimes been proposed; it has been pointed out that issues such as non-repudiation do not fit well within the three core concepts.[79]
The triad seems to have first been mentioned in a NIST publication in 1977.[80]
In 1992 and revised in 2002, the OECD‘s Guidelines for the Security of Information Systems and Networks[81] proposed the nine generally accepted principles: awareness, responsibility, response, ethics, democracy, risk assessment, security design and implementation, security management, and reassessment.[82] Building upon those, in 2004 the NIST‘s Engineering Principles for Information Technology Security[79] proposed 33 principles. From each of these derived guidelines and practices.
In information security, confidentiality “is the property, that information is not made available or disclosed to unauthorized individuals, entities, or processes.”[88] While similar to “privacy,” the two words aren’t interchangeable. Rather, confidentiality is a component of privacy that implements to protect our data from unauthorized viewers.[89] Examples of confidentiality of electronic data being compromised include laptop theft, password theft, or sensitive emails being sent to the incorrect individuals.[90]
Integrity
In IT security, data integrity means maintaining and assuring the accuracy and completeness of data over its entire lifecycle.[91] This means that data cannot be modified in an unauthorized or undetected manner.[92] This is not the same thing as referential integrity in databases, although it can be viewed as a special case of consistency as understood in the classic ACID model of transaction processing.[93] Information security systems typically incorporate controls to ensure their own integrity, in particular protecting the kernel or core functions against both deliberate and accidental threats.[94] Multi-purpose and multi-user computer systems aim to compartmentalize the data and processing such that no user or process can adversely impact another: the controls may not succeed however, as we see in incidents such as malware infections, hacks, data theft, fraud, and privacy breaches.[95]
More broadly, integrity is an information security principle that involves human/social, process, and commercial integrity, as well as data integrity. As such it touches on aspects such as credibility, consistency, truthfulness, completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and assurance.[96]
Availability
For any information system to serve its purpose, the information must be available when it is needed.[97] This means the computing systems used to store and process the information, the security controls used to protect it, and the communication channels used to access it must be functioning correctly.[98]High availability systems aim to remain available at all times, preventing service disruptions due to power outages, hardware failures, and system upgrades.[99] Ensuring availability also involves preventing denial-of-service attacks, such as a flood of incoming messages to the target system, essentially forcing it to shut down.[100]
In the realm of information security, availability can often be viewed as one of the most important parts of a successful information security program.[citation needed] Ultimately end-users need to be able to perform job functions; by ensuring availability an organization is able to perform to the standards that an organization’s stakeholders expect.[101] This can involve topics such as proxy configurations, outside web access, the ability to access shared drives and the ability to send emails.[102] Executives oftentimes do not understand the technical side of information security and look at availability as an easy fix, but this often requires collaboration from many different organizational teams, such as network operations, development operations, incident response, and policy/change management.[103] A successful information security team involves many different key roles to mesh and align for the CIA triad to be provided effectively.[104]
Non-repudiation
In law, non-repudiation implies one’s intention to fulfill their obligations to a contract. It also implies that one party of a transaction cannot deny having received a transaction, nor can the other party deny having sent a transaction.[105]
It is important to note that while technology such as cryptographic systems can assist in non-repudiation efforts, the concept is at its core a legal concept transcending the realm of technology.[106] It is not, for instance, sufficient to show that the message matches a digital signature signed with the sender’s private key, and thus only the sender could have sent the message, and nobody else could have altered it in transit (data integrity).[107] The alleged sender could in return demonstrate that the digital signature algorithm is vulnerable or flawed, or allege or prove that his signing key has been compromised.[108] The fault for these violations may or may not lie with the sender, and such assertions may or may not relieve the sender of liability, but the assertion would invalidate the claim that the signature necessarily proves authenticity and integrity. As such, the sender may repudiate the message (because authenticity and integrity are pre-requisites for non-repudiation).[109]
Broadly speaking, risk is the likelihood that something bad will happen that causes harm to an informational asset (or the loss of the asset).[110] A vulnerability is a weakness that could be used to endanger or cause harm to an informational asset. A threat is anything (man-made or act of nature) that has the potential to cause harm.[111] The likelihood that a threat will use a vulnerability to cause harm creates a risk. When a threat does use a vulnerability to inflict harm, it has an impact.[112] In the context of information security, the impact is a loss of availability, integrity, and confidentiality, and possibly other losses (lost income, loss of life, loss of real property).[113]
The Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA) Review Manual 2006 defines risk management as “the process of identifying vulnerabilities and threats to the information resources used by an organization in achieving business objectives, and deciding what countermeasures,[114] if any, to take in reducing risk to an acceptable level, based on the value of the information resource to the organization.”[115]
There are two things in this definition that may need some clarification. First, the process of risk management is an ongoing, iterative process. It must be repeated indefinitely. The business environment is constantly changing and new threats and vulnerabilities emerge every day.[116] Second, the choice of countermeasures (controls) used to manage risks must strike a balance between productivity, cost, effectiveness of the countermeasure, and the value of the informational asset being protected.[117] Furthermore, these processes have limitations as security breaches are generally rare and emerge in a specific context which may not be easily duplicated.[118] Thus, any process and countermeasure should itself be evaluated for vulnerabilities.[119] It is not possible to identify all risks, nor is it possible to eliminate all risk. The remaining risk is called “residual risk.[120]“
A risk assessment is carried out by a team of people who have knowledge of specific areas of the business.[121] Membership of the team may vary over time as different parts of the business are assessed.[122] The assessment may use a subjective qualitative analysis based on informed opinion, or where reliable dollar figures and historical information is available, the analysis may use quantitative analysis.
Research has shown that the most vulnerable point in most information systems is the human user, operator, designer, or other human.[123] The ISO/IEC 27002:2005 Code of practice for information security management recommends the following be examined during a risk assessment:
Calculate the impact that each threat would have on each asset. Use qualitative analysis or quantitative analysis.[129]
Identify, select and implement appropriate controls. Provide a proportional response. Consider productivity, cost effectiveness, and value of the asset.[130]
Evaluate the effectiveness of the control measures. Ensure the controls provide the required cost effective protection without discernible loss of productivity.[131]
For any given risk, management can choose to accept the risk based upon the relative low value of the asset, the relative low frequency of occurrence, and the relative low impact on the business.[132] Or, leadership may choose to mitigate the risk by selecting and implementing appropriate control measures to reduce the risk. In some cases, the risk can be transferred to another business by buying insurance or outsourcing to another business.[133] The reality of some risks may be disputed. In such cases leadership may choose to deny the risk.[134]
Selecting and implementing proper security controls will initially help an organization bring down risk to acceptable levels.[135] Control selection should follow and should be based on the risk assessment.[136] Controls can vary in nature, but fundamentally they are ways of protecting the confidentiality, integrity or availability of information. ISO/IEC 27001 has defined controls in different areas.[137] Organizations can implement additional controls according to requirement of the organization.[138]ISO/IEC 27002 offers a guideline for organizational information security standards.[139]
Administrative
Administrative controls (also called procedural controls) consist of approved written policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines. Administrative controls form the framework for running the business and managing people.[140] They inform people on how the business is to be run and how day-to-day operations are to be conducted. Laws and regulations created by government bodies are also a type of administrative control because they inform the business.[141] Some industry sectors have policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines that must be followed – the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard[142] (PCI DSS) required by Visa and MasterCard is such an example. Other examples of administrative controls include the corporate security policy, password policy, hiring policies, and disciplinary policies.[143]
Administrative controls form the basis for the selection and implementation of logical and physical controls. Logical and physical controls are manifestations of administrative controls, which are of paramount importance.[140]
Logical
Logical controls (also called technical controls) use software and data to monitor and control access to information and computing systems.[citation needed] Passwords, network and host-based firewalls, network intrusion detection systems, access control lists, and data encryption are examples of logical controls.[144]
An important logical control that is frequently overlooked is the principle of least privilege, which requires that an individual, program or system process not be granted any more access privileges than are necessary to perform the task.[145] A blatant example of the failure to adhere to the principle of least privilege is logging into Windows as user Administrator to read email and surf the web. Violations of this principle can also occur when an individual collects additional access privileges over time.[146] This happens when employees’ job duties change, employees are promoted to a new position, or employees are transferred to another department.[147] The access privileges required by their new duties are frequently added onto their already existing access privileges, which may no longer be necessary or appropriate.[148]
Physical
Physical controls monitor and control the environment of the work place and computing facilities.[149] They also monitor and control access to and from such facilities and include doors, locks, heating and air conditioning, smoke and fire alarms, fire suppression systems, cameras, barricades, fencing, security guards, cable locks, etc. Separating the network and workplace into functional areas are also physical controls.[150]
An important physical control that is frequently overlooked is separation of duties, which ensures that an individual can not complete a critical task by himself.[151] For example, an employee who submits a request for reimbursement should not also be able to authorize payment or print the check.[152] An applications programmer should not also be the server administrator or the database administrator; these roles and responsibilities must be separated from one another.[153]
Information security must protect information throughout its lifespan, from the initial creation of the information on through to the final disposal of the information.[154] The information must be protected while in motion and while at rest. During its lifetime, information may pass through many different information processing systems and through many different parts of information processing systems.[155] There are many different ways the information and information systems can be threatened. To fully protect the information during its lifetime, each component of the information processing system must have its own protection mechanisms.[156] The building up, layering on, and overlapping of security measures is called “defense in depth.”[157] In contrast to a metal chain, which is famously only as strong as its weakest link, the defense in depth strategy aims at a structure where, should one defensive measure fail, other measures will continue to provide protection.[158]
Recall the earlier discussion about administrative controls, logical controls, and physical controls. The three types of controls can be used to form the basis upon which to build a defense in depth strategy.[140] With this approach, defense in depth can be conceptualized as three distinct layers or planes laid one on top of the other.[159] Additional insight into defense in depth can be gained by thinking of it as forming the layers of an onion, with data at the core of the onion, people the next outer layer of the onion, and network security, host-based security, and application security forming the outermost layers of the onion.[160] Both perspectives are equally valid, and each provides valuable insight into the implementation of a good defense in depth strategy.[161]
An important aspect of information security and risk management is recognizing the value of information and defining appropriate procedures and protection requirements for the information.[162] Not all information is equal and so not all information requires the same degree of protection.[163] This requires information to be assigned a security classification.[164] The first step in information classification is to identify a member of senior management as the owner of the particular information to be classified. Next, develop a classification policy.[165] The policy should describe the different classification labels, define the criteria for information to be assigned a particular label, and list the required security controls for each classification.[166]
Some factors that influence which classification information should be assigned include how much value that information has to the organization, how old the information is and whether or not the information has become obsolete.[167] Laws and other regulatory requirements are also important considerations when classifying information.[168] The Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) and its Business Model for Information Security also serves as a tool for security professionals to examine security from a systems perspective, creating an environment where security can be managed holistically, allowing actual risks to be addressed.[169]
The type of information security classification labels selected and used will depend on the nature of the organization, with examples being:[166]
In the business sector, labels such as: Public, Sensitive, Private, Confidential.
In the government sector, labels such as: Unclassified, Unofficial, Protected, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, and their non-English equivalents.[170]
In cross-sectoral formations, the Traffic Light Protocol, which consists of: White, Green, Amber, and Red.
All employees in the organization, as well as business partners, must be trained on the classification schema and understand the required security controls and handling procedures for each classification.[171] The classification of a particular information asset that has been assigned should be reviewed periodically to ensure the classification is still appropriate for the information and to ensure the security controls required by the classification are in place and are followed in their right procedures.[172]
Access control
Access to protected information must be restricted to people who are authorized to access the information.[173] The computer programs, and in many cases the computers that process the information, must also be authorized.[174] This requires that mechanisms be in place to control the access to protected information.[174] The sophistication of the access control mechanisms should be in parity with the value of the information being protected; the more sensitive or valuable the information the stronger the control mechanisms need to be.[175] The foundation on which access control mechanisms are built start with identification and authentication.[176]
Identification is an assertion of who someone is or what something is. If a person makes the statement “Hello, my name is John Doe” they are making a claim of who they are.[178] However, their claim may or may not be true. Before John Doe can be granted access to protected information it will be necessary to verify that the person claiming to be John Doe really is John Doe.[179] Typically the claim is in the form of a username. By entering that username you are claiming “I am the person the username belongs to”.[180]
Authentication
Authentication is the act of verifying a claim of identity. When John Doe goes into a bank to make a withdrawal, he tells the bank teller he is John Doe, a claim of identity.[181] The bank teller asks to see a photo ID, so he hands the teller his driver’s license.[182] The bank teller checks the license to make sure it has John Doe printed on it and compares the photograph on the license against the person claiming to be John Doe.[183] If the photo and name match the person, then the teller has authenticated that John Doe is who he claimed to be. Similarly, by entering the correct password, the user is providing evidence that he/she is the person the username belongs to.[184]
There are three different types of information that can be used for authentication:[185][186]
Strong authentication requires providing more than one type of authentication information (two-factor authentication).[192] The username is the most common form of identification on computer systems today and the password is the most common form of authentication.[193] Usernames and passwords have served their purpose, but they are increasingly inadequate.[194] Usernames and passwords are slowly being replaced or supplemented with more sophisticated authentication mechanisms such as Time-based One-time Password algorithms.[195]
Authorization
After a person, program or computer has successfully been identified and authenticated then it must be determined what informational resources they are permitted to access and what actions they will be allowed to perform (run, view, create, delete, or change).[196] This is called authorization. Authorization to access information and other computing services begins with administrative policies and procedures.[197] The policies prescribe what information and computing services can be accessed, by whom, and under what conditions. The access control mechanisms are then configured to enforce these policies.[198] Different computing systems are equipped with different kinds of access control mechanisms. Some may even offer a choice of different access control mechanisms.[199] The access control mechanism a system offers will be based upon one of three approaches to access control, or it may be derived from a combination of the three approaches.[90]
The non-discretionary approach consolidates all access control under a centralized administration.[200] The access to information and other resources is usually based on the individuals function (role) in the organization or the tasks the individual must perform.[201][202] The discretionary approach gives the creator or owner of the information resource the ability to control access to those resources.[200] In the mandatory access control approach, access is granted or denied basing upon the security classification assigned to the information resource.[173]
To be effective, policies and other security controls must be enforceable and upheld. Effective policies ensure that people are held accountable for their actions.[205] The U.S. Treasury‘s guidelines for systems processing sensitive or proprietary information, for example, states that all failed and successful authentication and access attempts must be logged, and all access to information must leave some type of audit trail.[206]
Also, the need-to-know principle needs to be in effect when talking about access control. This principle gives access rights to a person to perform their job functions.[207] This principle is used in the government when dealing with difference clearances.[208] Even though two employees in different departments have a top-secret clearance, they must have a need-to-know in order for information to be exchanged. Within the need-to-know principle, network administrators grant the employee the least amount of privilege to prevent employees from accessing more than what they are supposed to.[209] Need-to-know helps to enforce the confidentiality-integrity-availability triad. Need-to-know directly impacts the confidential area of the triad.[210]
Information security uses cryptography to transform usable information into a form that renders it unusable by anyone other than an authorized user; this process is called encryption.[211] Information that has been encrypted (rendered unusable) can be transformed back into its original usable form by an authorized user who possesses the cryptographic key, through the process of decryption.[212] Cryptography is used in information security to protect information from unauthorized or accidental disclosure while the information is in transit (either electronically or physically) and while information is in storage.[90]
Cryptography provides information security with other useful applications as well, including improved authentication methods, message digests, digital signatures, non-repudiation, and encrypted network communications.[213] Older, less secure applications such as Telnet and File Transfer Protocol (FTP) are slowly being replaced with more secure applications such as Secure Shell (SSH) that use encrypted network communications.[214] Wireless communications can be encrypted using protocols such as WPA/WPA2 or the older (and less secure) WEP. Wired communications (such as ITU‑TG.hn) are secured using AES for encryption and X.1035 for authentication and key exchange.[215] Software applications such as GnuPG or PGP can be used to encrypt data files and email.[216]
Cryptography can introduce security problems when it is not implemented correctly.[217] Cryptographic solutions need to be implemented using industry-accepted solutions that have undergone rigorous peer review by independent experts in cryptography.[218] The length and strength of the encryption key is also an important consideration.[219] A key that is weak or too short will produce weak encryption.[219] The keys used for encryption and decryption must be protected with the same degree of rigor as any other confidential information.[220] They must be protected from unauthorized disclosure and destruction, and they must be available when needed.[221]Public key infrastructure (PKI) solutions address many of the problems that surround key management.[90]
Process
The terms “reasonable and prudent person”, “due care“, and “due diligence” have been used in the fields of finance, securities, and law for many years. In recent years these terms have found their way into the fields of computing and information security.[125] U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines now make it possible to hold corporate officers liable for failing to exercise due care and due diligence in the management of their information systems.[222]
In the business world, stockholders, customers, business partners, and governments have the expectation that corporate officers will run the business in accordance with accepted business practices and in compliance with laws and other regulatory requirements. This is often described as the “reasonable and prudent person” rule. A prudent person takes due care to ensure that everything necessary is done to operate the business by sound business principles and in a legal, ethical manner. A prudent person is also diligent (mindful, attentive, ongoing) in their due care of the business.
In the field of information security, Harris[223] offers the following definitions of due care and due diligence:
“Due care are steps that are taken to show that a company has taken responsibility for the activities that take place within the corporation and has taken the necessary steps to help protect the company, its resources, and employees[224].” And, [Due diligence are the] “continual activities that make sure the protection mechanisms are continually maintained and operational.”[225]
Attention should be made to two important points in these definitions.[226][227] First, in due care, steps are taken to show; this means that the steps can be verified, measured, or even produce tangible artifacts.[228][229] Second, in due diligence, there are continual activities; this means that people are actually doing things to monitor and maintain the protection mechanisms, and these activities are ongoing.[230]
Organizations have a responsibility with practicing duty of care when applying information security. The Duty of Care Risk Analysis Standard (DoCRA)[231] provides principles and practices for evaluating risk.[232] It considers all parties that could be affected by those risks.[233] DoCRA helps evaluate safeguards if they are appropriate in protecting others from harm while presenting a reasonable burden.[234] With increased data breach litigation, companies must balance security controls, compliance, and its mission.[235]
Roles, responsibilities, and segregation of duties defined
Addressed and enforced in policy
Adequate resources committed
Staff aware and trained
A development life cycle requirement
Planned, managed, measurable, and measured
Reviewed and audited
Incident response plans
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (January 2018)
An incident response plan (IRP) is a group of policies that dictate an organizations reaction to a cyber attack. Once an security breach has been identified the plan is initiated.[237] It is important to note that there can be legal implications to a data breach. Knowing local and federal laws is critical.[238] Every plan is unique to the needs of the organization, and it can involve skill sets that are not part of an IT team.[239] For example, a lawyer may be included in the response plan to help navigate legal implications to a data breach.[240]
As mentioned above every plan is unique but most plans will include the following:[241]
Preparation
Good preparation includes the development of an Incident Response Team (IRT).[242] Skills need to be used by this team would be, penetration testing, computer forensics, network security, etc.[243] This team should also keep track of trends in cybersecurity and modern attack strategies.[244] A training program for end users is important as well as most modern attack strategies target users on the network.[241]
Identification
This part of the incident response plan identifies if there was a security event.[245] When an end user reports information or an admin notices irregularities, an investigation is launched. An incident log is a crucial part of this step.[246] All of the members of the team should be updating this log to ensure that information flows as fast as possible.[247] If it has been identified that a security breach has occurred the next step should be activated.[248]
Containment
In this phase, the IRT works to isolate the areas that the breach took place to limit the scope of the security event.[249] During this phase it is important to preserve information forensically so it can be analyzed later in the process.[250] Containment could be as simple as physically containing a server room or as complex as segmenting a network to not allow the spread of a virus.[251]
Eradication
This is where the threat that was identified is removed from the affected systems.[252] This could include using deleting malicious files, terminating compromised accounts, or deleting other components.[253][254] Some events do not require this step, however it is important to fully understand the event before moving to this step.[255] This will help to ensure that the threat is completely removed.[251]
Recovery
This stage is where the systems are restored back to original operation.[256] This stage could include the recovery of data, changing user access information, or updating firewall rules or policies to prevent a breach in the future.[257][258] Without executing this step, the system could still be vulnerable to future security threats.[251]
Lessons Learned
In this step information that has been gathered during this process is used to make future decisions on security.[259] This step is crucial to the ensure that future events are prevented. Using this information to further train admins is critical to the process.[260] This step can also be used to process information that is distributed from other entities who have experienced a security event.[261]
Change management is a formal process for directing and controlling alterations to the information processing environment.[262][263] This includes alterations to desktop computers, the network, servers, and software.[264] The objectives of change management are to reduce the risks posed by changes to the information processing environment and improve the stability and reliability of the processing environment as changes are made.[265] It is not the objective of change management to prevent or hinder necessary changes from being implemented.[266][267]
Any change to the information processing environment introduces an element of risk.[268] Even apparently simple changes can have unexpected effects.[269] One of management’s many responsibilities is the management of risk.[270][271] Change management is a tool for managing the risks introduced by changes to the information processing environment.[272] Part of the change management process ensures that changes are not implemented at inopportune times when they may disrupt critical business processes or interfere with other changes being implemented.[273]
Not every change needs to be managed.[274][275] Some kinds of changes are a part of the everyday routine of information processing and adhere to a predefined procedure, which reduces the overall level of risk to the processing environment.[276] Creating a new user account or deploying a new desktop computer are examples of changes that do not generally require change management.[277] However, relocating user file shares, or upgrading the Email server pose a much higher level of risk to the processing environment and are not a normal everyday activity.[278] The critical first steps in change management are (a) defining change (and communicating that definition) and (b) defining the scope of the change system.[279]
Change management is usually overseen by a change review board composed of representatives from key business areas,[280] security, networking, systems administrators, database administration, application developers, desktop support, and the help desk.[281] The tasks of the change review board can be facilitated with the use of automated work flow application.[282] The responsibility of the change review board is to ensure the organization’s documented change management procedures are followed.[283] The change management process is as follows[284]
Request: Anyone can request a change.[285][286] The person making the change request may or may not be the same person that performs the analysis or implements the change.[287][288] When a request for change is received, it may undergo a preliminary review to determine if the requested change is compatible with the organizations business model and practices, and to determine the amount of resources needed to implement the change.[289]
Approve: Management runs the business and controls the allocation of resources therefore, management must approve requests for changes and assign a priority for every change.[290] Management might choose to reject a change request if the change is not compatible with the business model, industry standards or best practices.[291][292] Management might also choose to reject a change request if the change requires more resources than can be allocated for the change.[293]
Plan: Planning a change involves discovering the scope and impact of the proposed change; analyzing the complexity of the change; allocation of resources and, developing, testing, and documenting both implementation and back-out plans.[294] Need to define the criteria on which a decision to back out will be made.[295]
Test: Every change must be tested in a safe test environment, which closely reflects the actual production environment, before the change is applied to the production environment.[296] The backout plan must also be tested.[297]
Schedule: Part of the change review board’s responsibility is to assist in the scheduling of changes by reviewing the proposed implementation date for potential conflicts with other scheduled changes or critical business activities.[298]
Communicate: Once a change has been scheduled it must be communicated.[299] The communication is to give others the opportunity to remind the change review board about other changes or critical business activities that might have been overlooked when scheduling the change.[300] The communication also serves to make the help desk and users aware that a change is about to occur.[301] Another responsibility of the change review board is to ensure that scheduled changes have been properly communicated to those who will be affected by the change or otherwise have an interest in the change.[302][303]
Implement: At the appointed date and time, the changes must be implemented.[304][305] Part of the planning process was to develop an implementation plan, testing plan and, a back out plan.[306][307] If the implementation of the change should fail or, the post implementation testing fails or, other “drop dead” criteria have been met, the back out plan should be implemented.[308]
Document: All changes must be documented.[309][310] The documentation includes the initial request for change, its approval, the priority assigned to it, the implementation,[311] testing and back out plans, the results of the change review board critique, the date/time the change was implemented,[312] who implemented it, and whether the change was implemented successfully, failed or postponed.[313][314]
Post-change review: The change review board should hold a post-implementation review of changes.[315] It is particularly important to review failed and backed out changes. The review board should try to understand the problems that were encountered, and look for areas for improvement.[315]
Change management procedures that are simple to follow and easy to use can greatly reduce the overall risks created when changes are made to the information processing environment.[316] Good change management procedures improve the overall quality and success of changes as they are implemented.[317] This is accomplished through planning, peer review, documentation, and communication.[318]
ISO/IEC 20000, The Visible OPS Handbook: Implementing ITIL in 4 Practical and Auditable Steps[319] (Full book summary),[320] and ITIL all provide valuable guidance on implementing an efficient and effective change management program information security.[321]
Business continuity
Business continuity management (BCM) concerns arrangements aiming to protect an organization’s critical business functions from interruption due to incidents, or at least minimize the effects.[322][323] BCM is essential to any organization to keep technology and business in line with current threats to the continuation of business as usual.[324] The BCM should be included in an organizations risk analysis plan to ensure that all of the necessary business functions have what they need to keep going in the event of any type of threat to any business function.[325]
It encompasses:
Analysis of requirements, e.g., identifying critical business functions, dependencies and potential failure points, potential threats and hence incidents or risks of concern to the organization;[326][327]
Specification, e.g., maximum tolerable outage periods; recovery point objectives (maximum acceptable periods of data loss);[328]
Architecture and design, e.g., an appropriate combination of approaches including resilience (e.g. engineering IT systems and processes for high availability,[329] avoiding or preventing situations that might interrupt the business), incident and emergency management (e.g., evacuating premises, calling the emergency services, triage/situation[330] assessment and invoking recovery plans), recovery (e.g., rebuilding) and contingency management (generic capabilities to deal positively with whatever occurs using whatever resources are available);[331]
Implementation, e.g., configuring and scheduling backups, data transfers, etc., duplicating and strengthening critical elements; contracting with service and equipment suppliers;
Testing, e.g., business continuity exercises of various types, costs and assurance levels;[332]
Management, e.g., defining strategies, setting objectives and goals; planning and directing the work; allocating funds, people and other resources; prioritization relative to other activities; team building, leadership, control, motivation and coordination with other business functions and activities[333] (e.g., IT, facilities, human resources, risk management, information risk and security, operations); monitoring the situation, checking and updating the arrangements when things change; maturing the approach through continuous improvement, learning and appropriate investment;[citation needed]
Assurance, e.g., testing against specified requirements; measuring, analyzing, and reporting key parameters; conducting additional tests, reviews and audits for greater confidence that the arrangements will go to plan if invoked.[334]
Whereas BCM takes a broad approach to minimizing disaster-related risks by reducing both the probability and the severity of incidents, a disaster recovery plan (DRP) focuses specifically on resuming business operations as quickly as possible after a disaster.[335] A disaster recovery plan, invoked soon after a disaster occurs, lays out the steps necessary to recover critical information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure.[336] Disaster recovery planning includes establishing a planning group, performing risk assessment, establishing priorities, developing recovery strategies, preparing inventories and documentation of the plan, developing verification criteria and procedure, and lastly implementing the plan.[337]
Laws and regulations
Privacy International 2007 privacy ranking green: Protections and safeguards red: Endemic surveillance societies
Below is a partial listing of governmental laws and regulations in various parts of the world that have, had, or will have, a significant effect on data processing and information security.[338][339] Important industry sector regulations have also been included when they have a significant impact on information security.[338]
The UK Data Protection Act 1998 makes new provisions for the regulation of the processing of information relating to individuals, including the obtaining, holding, use or disclosure of such information.[340][341] The European Union Data Protection Directive (EUDPD) requires that all E.U. members adopt national regulations to standardize the protection of data privacy for citizens throughout the E.U.[342][343]
The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is an Act of the U.K. Parliament making computer crime (e.g., hacking) a criminal offense.[344] The act has become a model upon which several other countries,[345] including Canada and the Republic of Ireland, have drawn inspiration from when subsequently drafting their own information security laws.[346][347]
The E.U.’s Data Retention Directive (annulled) required internet service providers and phone companies to keep data on every electronic message sent and phone call made for between six months and two years.[348]
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C.§ 1232 g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a U.S. Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records.[349] The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.[350] Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student[350][351] in order to release any information from a student’s education record.[352]
The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) security guidelines for auditors specifies requirements for online banking security.[353]
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 requires the adoption of national standards for electronic health care transactions and national identifiers for providers, health insurance plans, and employers.[354] Additionally, it requires health care providers, insurance providers and employers to safeguard the security and privacy of health data.[355]
The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, protects the privacy and security of private financial information that financial institutions collect, hold, and process.[356]
Section 404 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) requires publicly traded companies to assess the effectiveness of their internal controls for financial reporting in annual reports they submit at the end of each fiscal year.[357] Chief information officers are responsible for the security, accuracy, and the reliability of the systems that manage and report the financial data.[358] The act also requires publicly traded companies to engage with independent auditors who must attest to, and report on, the validity of their assessments.[359]
State security breach notification laws (California and many others) require businesses, nonprofits, and state institutions to notify consumers when unencrypted “personal information” may have been compromised, lost, or stolen.[364]
The Personal Information Protection and Electronics Document Act (PIPEDA) of Canada supports and promotes electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances,[365][366] by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.[367][368][369]
Greece’s Hellenic Authority for Communication Security and Privacy (ADAE) (Law 165/2011) establishes and describes the minimum information security controls that should be deployed by every company which provides electronic communication networks and/or services in Greece in order to protect customers’ confidentiality.[370] These include both managerial and technical controls (e.g., log records should be stored for two years).[371]
Greece’s Hellenic Authority for Communication Security and Privacy (ADAE) (Law 205/2013) concentrates around the protection of the integrity and availability of the services and data offered by Greek telecommunication companies.[372] The law forces these and other related companies to build, deploy, and test appropriate business continuity plans and redundant infrastructures.[373]
Information security culture
Describing more than simply how security aware employees are, information security culture is the ideas, customs, and social behaviors of an organization that impact information security in both positive and negative ways.[374] Cultural concepts can help different segments of the organization work effectively or work against effectiveness towards information security within an organization. The way employees think and feel about security and the actions they take can have a big impact on information security in organizations. Roer & Petric (2017) identify seven core dimensions of information security culture in organizations:[375]
Attitudes: Employees’ feelings and emotions about the various activities that pertain to the organizational security of information.[376]
Behaviors: Actual or intended activities and risk-taking actions of employees that have direct or indirect impact on information security.
Cognition: Employees’ awareness, verifiable knowledge, and beliefs regarding practices, activities, and self-efficacy relation that are related to information security.
Communication: Ways employees communicate with each other, sense of belonging, support for security issues, and incident reporting.
Compliance: Adherence to organizational security policies, awareness of the existence of such policies and the ability to recall the substance of such policies.
Norms: Perceptions of security-related organizational conduct and practices that are informally deemed either normal or deviant by employees and their peers, e.g. hidden expectations regarding security behaviors and unwritten rules regarding uses of information-communication technologies.
Responsibilities: Employees’ understanding of the roles and responsibilities they have as a critical factor in sustaining or endangering the security of information, and thereby the organization.
Andersson and Reimers (2014) found that employees often do not see themselves as part of the organization Information Security “effort” and often take actions that ignore organizational information security best interests.[377] Research shows information security culture needs to be improved continuously. In Information Security Culture from Analysis to Change, authors commented, “It’s a never ending process, a cycle of evaluation and change or maintenance.” To manage the information security culture, five steps should be taken: pre-evaluation, strategic planning, operative planning, implementation, and post-evaluation.[378]
Pre-Evaluation: to identify the awareness of information security within employees and to analyze current security policy
Strategic Planning: to come up a better awareness-program, we need to set clear targets. Clustering people is helpful to achieve it
Operative Planning: create a good security culture based on internal communication, management buy-in, security awareness, and training programs
Implementation: should feature commitment of management, communication with organizational members, courses for all organizational members, and commitment of the employees[378]
Post-evaluation: to better gauge the effectiveness of the prior steps and build on continuous improvement
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a consortium of national standards institutes from 157 countries, coordinated through a secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland. ISO is the world’s largest developer of standards. ISO 15443: “Information technology – Security techniques – A framework for IT security assurance”, ISO/IEC 27002: “Information technology – Security techniques – Code of practice for information security management”, ISO-20000: “Information technology – Service management”, and ISO/IEC 27001: “Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements” are of particular interest to information security professionals.
The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. The NIST Computer Security Division develops standards, metrics, tests, and validation programs as well as publishes standards and guidelines to increase secure IT planning, implementation, management, and operation. NIST is also the custodian of the U.S. Federal Information Processing Standard publications (FIPS).
The Internet Society is a professional membership society with more than 100 organizations and over 20,000 individual members in over 180 countries. It provides leadership in addressing issues that confront the future of the internet, and it is the organizational home for the groups responsible for internet infrastructure standards, including the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). The ISOC hosts the Requests for Comments (RFCs) which includes the Official Internet Protocol Standards and the RFC-2196 Site Security Handbook.
The Information Security Forum (ISF) is a global nonprofit organization of several hundred leading organizations in financial services, manufacturing, telecommunications, consumer goods, government, and other areas. It undertakes research into information security practices and offers advice in its biannual Standard of Good Practice and more detailed advisories for members.
The Institute of Information Security Professionals (IISP) is an independent, non-profit body governed by its members, with the principal objective of advancing the professionalism of information security practitioners and thereby the professionalism of the industry as a whole. The institute developed the IISP Skills Framework. This framework describes the range of competencies expected of information security and information assurance professionals in the effective performance of their roles. It was developed through collaboration between both private and public sector organizations, world-renowned academics, and security leaders.[379]
The German Federal Office for Information Security (in German Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI)) BSI-Standards 100–1 to 100-4 are a set of recommendations including “methods, processes, procedures, approaches and measures relating to information security”.[380] The BSI-Standard 100-2 IT-Grundschutz Methodology describes how information security management can be implemented and operated. The standard includes a very specific guide, the IT Baseline Protection Catalogs (also known as IT-Grundschutz Catalogs). Before 2005, the catalogs were formerly known as “IT Baseline Protection Manual”. The Catalogs are a collection of documents useful for detecting and combating security-relevant weak points in the IT environment (IT cluster). The collection encompasses as of September 2013 over 4,400 pages with the introduction and catalogs. The IT-Grundschutz approach is aligned with to the ISO/IEC 2700x family.