Standards committees and other industry groups have developed and promoted several conceptual models that describe a stepwise approach to cybersecurity for industrial control systems (ICS). These models address the people, pro-cess, and technology elements of the cybersecurity response.
Before any of these recommendations can be implemented, managers must first understand and accept the risks they face and the potential consequences. An understanding of human behaviour can help.
The Kübler-Ross model (often referred to as ‘The Five Stages of Grief’), describes a progression of emotional states associated with traumatic events. This model offers an interesting way to understand (and thus better address) these industrial cybersecurity-related challenges.
Applying the Kübler-Ross grief model to cybersecurity
At first glance the Kübler-Ross grief model may appear to have little to do with how we manage the security of automation systems. However, there are parallels between it and acceptance of the growing threat of cybersecurity attacks or compromises of automation systems used in the critical infrastructure.
Stage 1: Denial
When asked about programs and levels of preparedness in the face of potential attacks or compromise, common responses heard include: “We are not a target.” “Why would anyone attack us?” or “We are not connected to the Internet.” The assumption that responsibility for cybersecurity rests exclusively with the IT department is also a form of denial.
Stage 2: Anger
When presented with these realities, it is common for managers to express anger or frustration. This is almost certain to happen in the wake of an actual attack or incident that negatively impacts critical systems. This is evident from the types of questions that responsible managers will pose to their staff. Examples include:
• Why didn’t you warn me about the risk of network connections?
• Can’t we meet the legitimate needs of the business in a secure manner?
• Why have we allowed sloppy practices such as the sharing of portable media to increase the risk to our systems?
Managers may ask questions like these even after previously refusing to heed warnings and provide the resources needed to improve the security of key systems before an incident occurs. This can in turn lead to frustration on the part of cybersecurity professionals whose advice was not taken.
While both responses are understandable, they do little or nothing to address the real problem or improve the situation. Rapid response is necessary not only to address the immediate risk, but also to protect systems in the face of evolving risk. Additional threats and vulnerabilities will emerge over time, possibly resulting in even more serious consequences.
Stage 3: Bargaining
Identifying, analysing, and selecting solutions to improve system security typically includes various types of bargaining. Internal and external discussion and dialog in this phase revolve around a fundamental assertion: “If we take certain steps now, will they increase our protection and mitigate consequences?” Of course, the difficulty is in determining exactly which steps or measures are ‘right’ or most appropriate for the situation.
This may be the most interesting and dangerous stage, as it requires steadfastness in the face of urgency. It is essential to reconcile input, opinions, and proposals from different stakeholders and advisors, each that will bring their own perceptions, biases and agendas.
The most critical need at this stage is for a well-defined and proven process for identifying and evaluating proposed solutions. The key input to this process is a clear set of constraints, expectations, and requirements. Where possible, the latter should be based on or derived from established industry standards and practices.
Stage 4: Depression
Unfortunately, threats and vulnerabilities are constantly evolving, and new attacks are reported regularly. Each new report triggers an exercise to reassess protective tools and processes, leading to further frustration and fatigue. At this stage it is common to become resigned to the inevitability of an attack or some type of cyber-related incident. This inevitability makes it essential to have a plan for response in advance.
To offset the natural discouragement, it is important to remain aware of not only successful attacks or incidents, but also the successes that others have had in mitigating threats or even preventing incidents.
Stage 5: Acceptance
Recognising the fact that virtually all computerised systems are at risk creates an environment for proper cybersecurity management. However, simple acknowledgment is not enough. It is also essential that managers understand that managing cybersecurity risk is no different than that required for any other type of risk, such as personal safety or handling hazardous materials. Many companies already have processes and procedures in these areas, and managers need to accept the need for a sustained cybersecurity response.
What this means for the asset owner
Industrial asset owners face a daunting challenge in defending and protecting the integrity of their automation systems. One of the first and perhaps most important milestones in successfully meeting this challenge is to understand and accept what can and cannot be changed.
Technical expertise is essential, but not sufficient. Experts must also have practical experience in industrial or operations environments to be most effective and avoid potential misapplication of specific solutions. They must be able to collaborate and work closely with their counterparts in other disciplines, such as automation and process safety.
Finally, members of the cybersecurity team must be able to effectively communicate with management and other non-technical personnel to help them understand the nature of the possible risks, the required response and the need for any changes in their behaviour.
For more information contact Paul Miller, ARC Advisory Group, +1 781 471 1141, pmiller@arcweb.com, www.arcweb.com
© Technews Publishing (Pty) Ltd | All Rights Reserved
printer friendly version