Skip to main content

Risk management for IT (CRAMM Lite)

Meerkats are one of the more risk aware animals. One or more meerkats stand sentry (lookout) while others are foraging or playing, to warn them of approaching dangers. When a predator is spotted, the meerkat performing as sentry gives a warning bark, and other members of the gang will run and hide in one of the many bolt holes they have spread across their territory. The sentry meerkat is the first to reappear from the burrow and search for predators, constantly barking to keep the others underground. If there is no threat, the sentry meerkat stops signaling and the others feel safe to emerge. Thus in the spirit of the Meerkat's I present CRAMM Lite.
CRAMM provides a staged and disciplined approach embracing both technical (e.g. IT hardware and software) and non-technical (e.g. physical and human) aspects of security. In order to assess these components, CRAMM is divided into three stages:
  • Asset identification and valuation
  • Threat and vulnerability assessment
  • Countermeasure selection and recommendatio
The full blown CRAMM methodology is too cumbersome to use for ad-hoc assessment as those encountered in major incident reporting or small projects. CRAMM Lite forms part of a greater impact analysis (Risk, Outage and Classification). In CRAMM Lite the asset, process or resources involved are measured from a risk perceptive. Three areas are assessed. Each area has a maximum score of 4 and the grading is the score of all areas represented as a percentage.
  • Impact - CIA(Confidentiality, integrity and availability) are scored.
  • Vulnerability - Loss(C), error(I) and failure(A) are scored.
  • Counter measures - Countermeasures already in place and those that will be implemented in the future are scored.
Example:
The impact is rated as 4 – Critical – Confidentiality = Secure, Integrity = Very high, Availability = Mandatory. The impact is rated as 4 – High loss probability, High error probability, High failure probability. Counter measures is rated as 2 – Service provider due diligence. The score is thus 10 out of a max of 12 = 84%.

CRAMM Lite is used in the Major Incident Process.  Read about this process here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Madge Networks, the token-ring company, went titsup

There I was shooting the breeze with an old mate. The conversation turned to why Madge Networks which I wrote about here went titsup. My analysis is that Madge Networks had a solution and decided to go out and find a problem. They deferred to more incorrect strategic technology choices. The truth of the matter is that when something goes titsup, its not because of one reason only, but a myriad of them all contributing to the negative consequence. There are the immediate or visual ones, which are underpinned by intermediate ones and finally after digging right down, there are the root causes. There is never a singular root cause for anything but I'll present my opinion and encourage everyone else to chip in. All of them together are more likely the reason the company went titsup. As far as technology brainfarts go there is no better example than Kodak . They invented the digital camera that killed them. However, they were so focused on milking people in their leg

Flawed "ITIL aligned"​ Incident Management

Many "ITIL aligned" service desk tools have flawed incident management. The reason is that incidents are logged with a time association and some related fields to type in some gobbledygook. The expanded incident life cycle is not enforced and as a result trending and problem management is not possible. Here is a fictitious log of an incident at PFS, a financial services company, which uses CGTSD, an “ITIL-aligned” service desk tool. Here is the log of an incident record from this system: Monday, 12 August: 09:03am (Bob, the service desk guy): Alice (customer in retail banking) phoned in. Logged an issue. Unable to assist over the phone (there goes our FCR), will escalate to second line. 09:04am (Bob, the service desk guy): Escalate the incident to Charles in second line support. 09:05am (Charles, technical support): Open incident. 09:05am (Charles, technical support): Delayed incident by 1 day. Tuesday, 13 August: 10:11am (Charles, technical support): Phoned Alice.

Updated: Articles by Ron Bartels published on iot for all

  These are articles that I published during the course of the past year on one of the popular international Internet of Things publishing sites, iot for all .  These are articles that I published during the course of the past year on one of the popular international Internet of Things publishing sites, iot for all . Improving Data Center Reliability With IoT Reliability and availability are essential to data centers. IoT can enable better issue tracking and data collection, leading to greater stability. Doing the Work Right in Data Centers With Checklists Data centers are complex. Modern economies rely upon their continuous operation. IoT solutions paired with this data center checklist can help! IoT Optimi