Skip to main content

Automating Bad Process Doesn't Make It Effective

I was recently presenting to a customer who is about to embark on an RBAC and Role Management project.  They knew the technical features they wanted to implement but their main concern was focussed more on the underlying business process.

An RBAC project can cover multiple areas of a business, not just he IT Security and Administration teams.  Obviously there are technical aspects, features and metrics that need either automating or consolidating.  These can include:

#    Automatic creation of a role object (including the entitlements a role should have)
#    Automatic association of users to role objects
#    Automatic reportin of role objects, user entitlements, user exceptions
#    Automatic recertification of user entitlements and role entitlements
#    Automatic Audit analysis like Separation of Duty or compliance policies

This list is obviously non-exhaustive but gives an idea of the sorts of tasks that a piece of software can be used to automate and a manual process.

In addition there are several business related aspects that need considering also.  Introducing an RBAC security method into an organisation requires additional support and steps from a non-IT perspective.  These can include:

#    Training for line managers to request a role for access instead of an individual entitlement
#    Providing a non-technical naming standard for role objects so business leaders understand their meaning
#    Identifying who should 'own' the roles themselves, to provide goverance for role to user memberships
#    Which parts of the organisation should have priority for an initial wave of RBAC deployment
#    Who from the organisations board should sponsor and direct the project
#    If a user requests access to a role who should manage compliance exceptions and the process flow
#    what reports need creating, when they should be stored, for long and by whom?

Again, this list is only a sample, but should give a picture of the more process related issues involved in deploying an RBAC tool.  The tool itself will not fix the process if it's either broken or missing entirely.  The implement a solution of any kind, the underlying actors need to be involved, know their role and be able to follow a prescribed process in order to deal with the general management issues that arise from using roles in an access management platform.

By simply automating bad process, all we are doing is accelerating the issues the processes cause due to their lack of scope, detail and focus.

If you're walking in the wrong direction, starting to run only makes you further from your correct track.  It is better to slow down, stop, understand the underlying issues first, before starting to use a tool to automate and influence the critical access framework you're trying to develop.


Popular posts from this blog

2020: Machine Learning, Post Quantum Crypto & Zero Trust

Welcome to a digital identity project in 2020! You'll be expected to have a plan for post-quantum cryptography.  Your network will be littered with "zero trust" buzz words, that will make you suspect everyone, everything and every transaction.  Add to that, “machines” will be learning everything, from how you like your coffee, through to every network, authentication and authorisation decision. OK, are you ready?

Machine Learning I'm not going to do an entire blog on machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI).  Firstly I'm not qualified enough on the topic and secondly I want to focus on the security implications.  Needless to say, within 3 years, most organisations will have relatively experienced teams who are handling big data capture from an and identity, access management and network perspective.

That data will be being fed into ML platforms, either on-premise, or via cloud services.  Leveraging either structured or unstructured learning, data fr…

Customer Data: Convenience versus Security

Organisations in both the public and private sector are initiating programmes of work to convert previously physical or offline services, into more digital, on line and automated offerings.  This could include things like automated car tax purchase, through to insurance policy management and electricity meter reading submission and reporting.

Digitization versus Security

This move towards a more on line user experience, brings together several differing forces.  Firstly the driver for end user convenience and service improvement, against the requirements of data security and privacy.  Which should win?  There clearly needs to be a balance of security against service improvement.  Excessive and prohibitive security controls would result in a complex and often poor user experience, ultimately resulting in fewer users.  On the other hand, poorly defined security architectures, lead to data loss, with the impact for personal exposure and brand damage.

Top 5 Security Predictions for 2016

It's that time of year again, when the retrospective and predictive blogs come out of the closet, just before the Christmas festivities begin.  This time last year, the 2015 predictions were an interesting selection of both consumer and enterprise challenges, with a focus on:

Customer Identity ManagementThe start of IoT security awarenessReduced Passwords on MobileConsumer PrivacyCloud Single Sign On
In retrospect, a pretty accurate and ongoing list.  Consumer related identity (cIAM) is hot on most organisation's lips, and whilst the password hasn't died (and probably never will) there are more people using things like swipe login and finger print authentication than ever before.

But what will 2016 bring?

Mobile Payments to be Default for Consumers

2015 has seen the rise in things like Apple Pay and Samsung Pay hitting the consumer high street with venom.  Many retail outlets now provide the ability to "tap and pay" using a mobile device, with many banks also offer…