MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W246495123

Getting "Front and Center" on Security Policies: Leading Institutions Have Dusted Them off, Put Them Online, and Made Them the Blueprint of a New "Resiliency" Vision

2005· article· en· W246495123 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lauren Bielski

Notice bibliographique

RevueABA banking journal · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueInformation and Cyber Security
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBlueprintVendorBusinessComputer securityPublic relationsPolitical scienceEngineeringMarketingComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Any security expert worth his hefty price tag will you: the only truly protected bank is one adopting a layered approach. This means that all the operational elements of infrastructure-including network, web applications, databases, and servers-receive equal attention in lockdown and maintenance. Before an organization can get that far, though, it needs a security policy to clarify its thinking and set the budget and agenda. It's a simple idea but one that has not always been successfully adopted in the past. Happily all that seems to be changing. Rob Miller, vice-president of marketing with M-Tech, an infrastructure change management vendor based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, says that relatively recent developments (including this year's acts of nature, memories of semi-recent power outages or fading but still legendary acts of cyber hooligans) have only heightened the concern over the security issues which had become of great import in 2001. One positive ripple effect of almost biblical woes faced by the nation and elsewhere: Security policy is now front-and-center, either getting revised among best practitioners or adopted in finally useful ways among the rest. But it's not really over til the fat client sings, so to speak. Because banks are more distributed (and exposed), the once uncomplicated act of policy development is both harder to do (as a testable exercise) and more necessary given how complicated today's business environment actually is. Everybody has one, right? Policy's official story has always been this: the industry's heavily regulated nature has long made security policies existent and extant. (That is to say, everybody had good security policy because the regulators insisted on it.) Yet off the record comments still indicate that dusty paper on a shelf syndrome is still the norm, several years after the disturbing events of 9/11 might have dictated otherwise. Among the show and tell crowd, paper-based policy keeps them compliant, but doesn't let them achieve higher proficiencies. The dates on the material will change and so will some of the content, says Rob Dyson, associate partner of Accenture's security practice, Dallas. [Preparedness] really runs the gamut out there, says Dyson. top 50 institutions, he explains, the budgets, extensive staff, and huge base of supporting vendors are all guided by an industrial strength policy that is distributed on the intranet. Others in the vast middle market, struggle to give a less than ideal policy more than nominal play. Another source agreed that good policy still appeared in an uneven distribution in the financial services industry. Sometimes we see things that are pretty shocking, he said. What policy can do M-Tech customer Charlie Dixon, vice-president technology, with $6 billion assets Riggs Bank, Washington, D.C., says his bank, for one, has stepped up many facets of its policy since 2001, prior to the bank's much publicized Bank Secrecy Act troubles. has also made numerous tech purchases, including use of an incident tracking system and adoption of M-Tech's password management technology--decisions partially guided by needs that policy revealed. We take policy seriously here, Dixon explained. It is relevant, it is regularly updated, and it is referred to during application development, for Policy makes a difference in matters large and small. At Riggs, we just don't harden our servers, Dixon explains, referring to the process of placing a dedicated security device at the service and application layer. We secure the desktops so that instant messaging, say, or non-authorized use of e-mail doesn't put the organization at risk for information leaks. As Dixon alluded to in his comments above, a good security policy serves as one mechanism, along with the policies and practices of human resources, to control how business users behave when they use their laptops, desktops, and Blackberries, for instance. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,037
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,123

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,024
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0140,023
Communication savante0,0340,049
Science ouverte0,0020,012
Intégrité de la recherche0,0150,032
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0370,024

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,287
Écart entre enseignants0,252 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueABA banking journalMême sujetInformation and Cyber SecurityTravaux en français237 207