This week, I testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs at a hearing on “Protecting America from Cyber Attacks: the Importance of Information Sharing.” It was good to see that the committee’s first hearing of the 114th Congress focuses on cybersecurity issues generally, and information sharing in particular, and I’d like to summarize the key points of my testimony.

There is no doubt that cybersecurity is an important issue for America, other nations, the private sector, and individuals. In an effort to better understand and help address the challenges we face, I regularly engage with government leaders from around the world, security-focused colleagues in the IT and Communications Sectors, companies that manage critical infrastructures, and customers of all sizes. From those interactions, I have concluded that cyber-attacks have joined terrorism and weapons of mass destruction as one of the new, asymmetric threats that puts countries, corporations, and its citizens at risk.

With global threats, global actors, and global networks, no one organization – public or private – can have full awareness of all the threats, vulnerabilities, and incidents that shed light on what must be managed. There is no doubt that sharing such information can and has protected computer users and increased the effectiveness of the security community’s response to attacks. For example, in 2009, the Conficker Working Group came together to share information and develop a coordinated response to the Conficker worm, which had infected millions of computers around the world. After the working group developed a mitigation strategy, Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (“ISACs”) were mobilized, company incident response teams were activated, government responders were engaged, and the media reported as milestones were reached and services were restored. The challenge was addressed, and quickly.

Why is it, then, that after 20 years of discussion and proof of effectiveness, information sharing efforts are viewed as insufficient? The short answer is that while there are success stories, it is often true that those with critical information are unable or unwilling to share it. They may be unable to share it due to law, regulation, or contract, all of which can create binding obligations of secrecy and expose a company to legal risk if information is shared. Even when those restrictions permit sharing pursuant to authorized exceptions, legal risks remain, as parties may disagree on the scope of the exception. There are also non-legal, non-contractual risks; for example, a company that discloses its vulnerabilities may suffer reputational risk, causing both customers and investors to become concerned. It may even suggest to hackers that security is inadequate, encouraging other attacks.

With all these challenges in mind, we believe there are six core tenets that must guide information sharing arrangements:

1. Information sharing is a tool, not an objective.

2. Information sharing has clear benefits, but poses risks that must be mitigated.

3. Privacy is a fundamental value, and must be protected when sharing information to maintain the trust of users – individual consumers, enterprises, and governments – globally.

4. Information sharing forums and processes need not follow a single structure or model, and governments should not be the interface for all sharing.

5. Government and industry policies on information sharing should take into account international implications.

6. Governments should adhere to legal processes for law enforcement and national security requests, and governments should not use computer security information sharing mechanisms to advance law enforcement and national security objectives.

Information sharing has and does work. But it works because the parties see that the benefits (better protection, detection and response) outweigh the risks. History also teaches, however, that information sharing tends to work best when those involved trust each other to respect informal and sometimes formal agreements (e.g., non-disclosure agreements) on information use and disclosure.

The two most important things Congress can do are (1) ensure that the information sharing arrangements that are working effectively are left undisturbed; and (2) encourage additional information sharing by providing protections for shared information and addressing risks posed by information sharing, including privacy risks.

You can read my full testimony here.

The post The Importance of Effective Information Sharing appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.

But, of course, the world has changed dramatically since 2002. The rise of advanced persistent threats, nation-state cyber activity, and a mobile-first, cloud-first world means that security processes created for boxed products on a three-year ship cycle are not sufficient. Put another way, with security in our DNA, the question now becomes, “how do we improve security in a mobile-first, cloud-first world with new development cadences (e.g., flighting, test-in-production) and new threats (e.g., national state APTs)?” In my view, while a level of centralized tools and oversight is still needed, it is simply not sufficient.

Trustworthy Computing remains a critical component of Microsoft’s promise to our customers. To be the company our customers need, we must be able to maintain the proven processes while adapting to this new world. Last week’s changes acknowledge that our mission remains critical and will help us be even more impactful in the years ahead by simplifying the way we work, increasing agility, driving greater accountability, and creating support models that are more lean and efficient.

By consolidating work within the company, as well as altering some reporting structures, Microsoft will be able to make a number of trust-related decisions more quickly and execute plans with greater speed, whether the objective is to get innovations into the hands of our customers, improve our engineering systems, ensure compliance with legal or corporate policies, or engage with regulators around the world.

I will continue to lead the Trustworthy Computing team in our new home as part of the Cloud and Enterprise Division. Significantly, Trustworthy Computing will maintain our company-wide responsibility for centrally driven programs such as the Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) and Operational Security Assurance (OSA). But this change will also allow us to embed ourselves more fully in the engineering division most responsible for the future of cloud and security, while increasing the impact of our critical work on privacy issues by integrating those functions directly into the appropriate engineering and legal policy organizations.

Let me close by noting an important point: I was the architect of these changes. This is not about the company’s loss of focus or diminution of commitment. Rather, in my view, these changes are necessary if we are to advance the state of trust in computing. When I joined Microsoft in 2002, it was about stopping the bleeding, healing the ecosystem and, dare I say it, sometimes getting ahead of the curve. But in the future, with new deployment cadences and a mobile-first, cloud-first world, it is dangerous to rely upon past paradigms that were built for a different environment. While I am proud of our past, we need to plan for the future.

Scott Charney
Corporate Vice President
Trustworthy Computing

The post Looking Forward: Trustworthy Computing appeared first on Microsoft Security Blog.