08 March 2010

Quants: Fear and Loathing in Computer Code...

The Operational and Systemic risk is still lurking in the zero's and one's masking itself in the mathematical blur of algorithms designed by the "Quants". Is "SkyNet" just a few lines of computer code away from creating an incident that no insider can reverse?

Jeremy Grant and Michael Mackenzie of FT are establishing an argument discussed on this blog soon after the economic meltdown began to take place:

Not long after lunchtime one day on the New York Stock Exchange three years ago, unusual things started to happen. Hundreds of thousands of “buy” and “sell” messages began flooding in, signalling for orders to be made and simultaneously cancelled.

The volume of messages sent in was so large that the traffic coming into the NYSE from thousands of other trading firms slowed, acting as a drag on the trading of 975 shares on the board.

The case was made public only last month when the disciplinary board of the NYSE fined Credit Suisse for failing adequately to supervise an “algorithm” developed and run by its proprietary trading arm – the desk that trades using the bank’s own money rather than clients’ funds.

Algorithms have become a common feature of trading, not only in shares but in derivatives such as options and futures. Essentially software programs, they decide when, how and where to trade certain financial instruments without the need for any human intervention. But in the Credit Suisse case the NYSE found that the incoming messages referred to orders that, although previously generated by the algorithm, were never actually sent “due to an unforeseen programming issue”.

It was a close call for the NYSE. Asked if the exchange could have been shut down as it was bombarded with false trades, an exchange official says: “If you had multiplied this many times you’d have had a problem on your hands.”


The Operational Risks associated with the software computer code and the development of the trading algorithms is at the center of the still untouched regulation of how financial products are designed. Once the SEC get's educated on a market practice that is creating substantial systemic risk then the wheels of monitoring and potential "Cramdown" begins to take place.


The difficulty is that responsibility for risk controls does not lie entirely with exchanges and trading platforms. Much of it rests instead with brokers, which increasingly provide access to such venues under an arrangement known as “sponsored access” whereby any trading firm that is not a member of an exchange can “piggyback” on a broker’s membership to gain direct access to an exchange. Until recently, before the SEC clamped down on the practice, traders were able to use a form of this process – “naked access” – to gain access to exchanges without brokers conducting pre-trade risk checks to ensure their algorithms were functioning properly.


In the latest books written by "Reporters" on the so called "Quant risk" going on within the ranks of trading firms across the globe, the focus is on the people themselves more than the systems. Comparing poker players to bridge players is only a small part of the issue at hand with regard to a quantitative traders point of view and mathematical orientation.

Imagine for a moment the complexity of the software systems that now control the trading mechanisms across the world. From Hong Kong to Wall Street, London to Tokyo, the software is written to accomplish tasks that the human is not capable of executing in the multi-split seconds that it takes for buyers to match sellers. One only has to spend a few weeks or a month inside the software coding life cycle management process within the walls of a JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs or Credit Suisse to better understand the Operational Risks that exist for the market as a whole.

The sheer complexity of the systems software code alone is enough to give an uneducated eTrader worry over whether the portfolio they are managing with their retirement nest egg is going to get destroyed by the likes a a super "Cyber Algorithm" designed to out smart and out think that last strategy from the previous nights episode of MSNBC's "Jim Kramer."

The next economic crisis will not be a war of who had toxic assets in their asset portfolio's. It will be a single line of computer code that initiated a sequence of risk mitigation strategies to hedge against another previously executed trade the month before. And because of the error that creates this cyber incident, the market detects a new "Fear Factor" on the horizon.

How about a little Deja Vu:

All of us have been watching the gyrations of Wall Street and the stock market in recent days. With the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman, the "rescue" of the failing Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac, and the bail-out of AIG, many people wonder, "Have investors completely lost their minds?" Well, the answer may be, "Sometimes". Here's how we might look at anxious investing during a time of market volatility, uncertainty, bad news, and fear.

How does the anxious investor think? Let's consider two possible investors--- one who is reasonably optimistic and the other who is pessimistic.

02 March 2010

ID Risk Management: Dubai Investigation Links to Workplace Violence...

What is your name? Where do you live? What is your phone number? Where were you born? What is your social security number? What is your passport number? Where was it issued? What evidence do you have that this is all true? Your identity is at stake and Operational Risk Management is on the line.

These questions and more are asked of us on a regular basis to establish our true identity. The entity asking these questions is considering you to be granted access, access to what? It could be to establish an account at a banking institution, get a drivers license or become a member of a trusted community of people. Or it could be a country deciding whether to grant you a visa to visit or work for a period of time.

SOCA is in the midst of interviewing people who had their identity stolen. This investigation is about a form of ID Theft that goes beyond the international scandal associated with the Dubai homicide incident. The Washington Post reports:

Agents from Britain's Serious Organized Crime Agency are in Israel investigating the use of forged British passports by people who Dubai officials allege were part of an assassination squad run by Israel's Mossad spy agency. The 27 members of the group used European or Australian passports -- some forged -- to enter Dubai, officials say. In several cases, the names and other information on the passports matched those of Israeli citizens who hold dual nationality and who claim that their identities were "borrowed" by those involved in the operation.

Two SOCA agents will interview the 10 British-Israelis who were affected and issue them new passports, a British Embassy spokesman said. According to Israeli news reports, Australian investigators are planning a similar visit. The European Union last week condemned the use of forged travel documents in the killing of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, without mentioning Israel specifically.


Whether you are the UAE, admitting people into your country or a Global 500 company allowing someone access to your corporate facilities, digital assets or place of business; you must have ways to effectively validate who people say they are, and who they really are. Even if you asked all of the questions above in the early stages of the company hiring process, would you really have the entire picture? This changes over time and events in a persons life. Identity Management and the use of both "known to many" and "known to few" attributes about who you are and who you know, is a reality in today's blur of global commerce.

When a country has a breach of security admitting people, who are not who they purport to be, is it any different in the context of a Defense Industrial Base company headquartered in Chicago, IL or an Investment Banking firm in Geneva, Suisse? What are different are the motives and the outcomes from the fraudulent acts.

What are the current arguments and the leading reasons why our policies, methods and tools associated with Identity Management are in a state of chaos in the United States? The FTC's latest report gives you a better idea of the breadth of the privacy problem trying to be solved:


The Federal Trade Commission released a report listing top complaints consumers filed with the agency in 2009. It shows that while identity theft remains the top complaint category, identity theft complaints declined 5 percentage points from 2008.

The report breaks out complaint data on a state-by-state basis and also contains data about the 50 metropolitan areas reporting the highest per capita incidence of fraud and other complaints. In addition, the 50 metropolitan areas reporting the highest incidence of identity theft are noted.

The top complaint was Identity Theft, which accounted for 21% of all complaints for the year.

A complete list of complaints can be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/sentinel/reports/sentinel-annual-reports/sentinel-cy2009.pdf.


What is interesting is that the same people who are coming to work every day with their TWIC or CAC cards are also victims of ID Theft as consumers. The same individuals who walk into the SCIF or the bank vault may very well be people who have active investigations going on regarding their identity being used to perpetrate crimes or other fraudulent motivations. So what are some of the most important issues on the Identity Management horizon?

In all of the breaches, all of the incidents there is a root cause for the failure in the people, process, systems or external factor that opened up the vulnerability for the attacker to exploit and obtain their objective. It's called Continuous Monitoring. This issue is found in all places in Appendix G of the US NIST sp800-37 that illustrates the reason why continuous monitoring is critical especially in information systems:

Private Sector companies have a duty to invest in resources, policy refinement and new methods or tools to keep continuous monitoring as vigilant as possible:

"Conducting a thorough point-in-time assessment of the deployed security controls is a necessary but not sufficient condition to demonstrate security due diligence. A well designed and well-managed continuous monitoring program can effectively transform an otherwise static security control assessment and risk determination process into a dynamic process that provides essential, near real-time security status-related information to organizational officials in order to take appropriate risk mitigation actions and make cost-effective, risk-based decisions regarding the operation"


Whether you are the United Arab Emirates or the University of Alabama-Huntsville the Identity Management problem is much the same. David Swink at Psychology Today has this to say on the other growing virus named "Workplace Violence" that is invading corporate America:


In the aftermath of school and workplace attacks, it is often discovered that there were warning signs that the perpetrator was moving down a path toward violence. In some circumstances, people reported the troubling behavior and the information was not forwarded to the people who could prevent an attack. Sometimes the troubling behavior didn't reach a threshold, in the judgment of the person receiving the report, that something needed to be done. There is often confusion about what information can or cannot be shared under privacy laws like FERPA or HIPPA.

Threatening behavior may come to the attention of multiple departments within an organization that generally don't share information with each other. Without clear policies, procedures, and training, large organizations may find it challenging to channel widely dispersed information about potential threats to a central reporting entity.

With a single report of threatening behavior, the situation may not look that bad, but when the other "dots" are connected, a clear image emerges that this person is someone that needs to be assessed and managed in order to prevent violence.


Much of what we know about our employees is found in their HR files, background reports (if ever done) and what co-workers say about their behaviors in the workplace. Corporate Security, Risk Management, General Counsel, Information Technology, Public Relations and even the EAP (Employee Assistance Program) executive managers shall create, maintain and continuously operate a Corporate Intelligence Unit and Threat Assessment Team. Without it, the consequences of not knowing a persons true identity or current state of mind could cost you more than the loss of life. It could cost you your global reputation.

23 February 2010

NIS: Homeland Security & Economic Espionage...

The National Intelligence Strategy (NIS) of the United States was published in August of 2009.

The tone at the top of your enterprise will go a long way if you ever end up in litigation associated with the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 or even the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. As a CxO with the ultimate responsibility for the resilience of your organization, pay attention. The internal threats to your global 500 company and the Operational Risks associated with the following Mission Objectives are the focus of this posting:

  • MO4: Integrate Counterintelligence
  • MO5: Enhance Cybersecurity

The U.S. NIS spells out these two mission objectives and for good reason. One may be obvious and we have all heard it before. 80+% of the nations critical infrastructure is owned and operated by the private sector. The reason why the Energy, Financial, and other heavy R & D sectors are being subjected to more attacks by insiders is because these assets are the most valuable in the eyes of the enemy.

The other reason that these two areas are called out in the National Intelligence Strategy is because these are the country's greatest vulnerabilities. So what can a private sector Board of Directors be doing these days to address the two mission objectives that have the greatest nexus with being vigilant and creating the correct "Tone at the Top":

  • Implement Human Factors Analysis and Risk Assessments on employees, partners, suppliers and 3rd parties.
  • Revitalize, Energize and Capitalize on redesigned policy governance, integrity management and a sound legal framework.
  • Create an aggressive corporate executive intelligence and anti-fraud program that is integrated into a robust risk management ecosystem.
  • Develop wellsprings of knowledge that engages people in a dialogue focused on intellectual property, valuable corporate assets and their nexus with national security.

The preparation for enterprise disasters has been going on in the Operational Risk environment for years. Even in the most sophisticated companies, these efforts have included the implementation of IT related disaster recovery programs and plans (DRP) as mandated by rules and laws regarding Business Continuity and Continuity of Operations. When and how often these are exercised is another matter.

The crisis management plan is sitting on the shelf next to the DRP or even might be another tab in the same three ring binder. And who knows, perhaps some Director of BCP has even convinced senior management on the use of an EOC portal. This are all fundamentals, baseline and items for every organization to have soon after establishing themselves in business.

What is still being left out, not considered a priority are the two items highlighted above from the United States National Intelligence Strategy, MO4 and MO5. These two items are an Operational Risk Management priority by the Board of Directors in each global 500 company. Why?

USAO/Southern District New York, 11 Feb 10: Mr. Aleynikov was indicted today on charges related to his theft of proprietary computer code concerning a high-frequency trading platform from his former employer, Goldman Sachs. Aleynikov was previously arrested and is expected to be arraigned in Manhattan federal court at a later date.

Beginning at approximately 5:20 p.m. on June 5, 2009 –Aleynikov s last day working at Goldman Sachs — Aleynikov , from his desk at Goldman Sachs, transferred substantial portions of Goldman Sachs’s proprietary computer code for its trading platform to an outside computer server in Germany. Aleynikov encrypted the files and transferred them over the Internet without informing Goldman Sachs. After transferring the files, Aleynikov deleted the program he used to encrypt the files and deleted his computer’s “bash history,” which records the most recent commands executed on his computer.

In addition, throughout his employment at Goldman Sachs, Aleynikov transferred thousands of computer code files related to the firm’s proprietary trading program from the firm’s computers to his home computers, without the knowledge or authorization of Goldman Sachs. Aleynikov did this by e-mailing the code files from his Goldman Sachs e-mail account to his personal e-mail account, and storing versions of the code files on his home computers, laptop computer, a flash drive, and other storage devices.


The theft of trade secrets, economic espionage and the movement of data that may have business oriented implications may also have national security impacts. Whether it's going to a competitor or into the hands of foreign entities is not the priority issue. Let's be very specific on this point.

If the vital secret, intellectual property or other data is copied, then how do you know if it's missing from your organization? Sensitive, classified or otherwise proprietary information that is copied and then sold or given to competitors, adversaries of our enemies requires a whole new mind set and a whole new approach to deter, detect, defend and document this behavior in the enterprise.

Aleynikov, 40, is charged with one count of theft of trade secrets, one count of transportation of stolen property in foreign commerce, and one count of unauthorized computer access. If convicted on these charges, Aleynikov faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison.

The case associated with competitive intelligence where intellectual property is being transferred to another U.S. company may be just as harmful to the economic fabric of our country. What is more alarming and perhaps the final questions on Operational Risk Management is this:

  1. What do we know?
  2. When did we know it?
  3. What are we going to do about it?

The Board of Directors will be asking these after the crisis is unfolding. The law enforcement investigators will be asking these soon after the immediate incident. The final and perhaps the most painful of all the people who will asking these questions are the lawyers during your deposition and in the court room. Those questions and more will be asked from the front lines of the Goldman Sachs trading pit battlefield to the highly polished tables inside the corporate Board Room.

Revisit the Mission Objectives (MO) in your organization that pertain to MO4 and MO5. It may mean the difference to your corporate shareholders, or to all the citizens of the United States of America.

15 February 2010

Risk Appetite: Board of Directors Engage...

New management and faces around the Bank of America Board room are taking a new approach to Operational Risk Management. Compliance and other Operational Risk functions are being separated. Most importantly and perhaps a lesson for those institutions that are on the ropes, B of A is pushing the risk management debate from the Board Room to the associates on the front lines.

A Message from Brian Moynihan

Protect Our Company

To my Bank of America teammates:

Bank of America is in the business of taking risk and our goal is to make every good loan and transaction we can within our company’s overall risk appetite. Yet our recent performance demonstrates the need for enhancements. Our management, board and regulators have determined that our risk management practices must improve.

So we have updated our risk framework — or how we manage risk at Bank of America — with the following:

Risk Appetite - The senior team will recommend, and the Board of Directors will approve, an annual risk appetite that establishes how much we are willing to take as a company.


Debate - We’re requiring all associates to openly debate risk related issues…and we’re escalating issues and taking action based on those debates.


Roles - We’ve clarified risk management roles and responsibilities, and all associates will fall into one of three groups, each with specific accountabilities: Line of Business associates, Governance and Control associates (those in Global Risk and our other support groups) or Corporate Audit associates.


Governance - We strengthened the way we oversee risk with new committees at the board and management levels.


Operational Risk - We separated compliance and operational risk functions to have more targeted and focused attention on both.
For those of you who work in a line of business, your job is to serve the clients’ financial needs and to protect the company. You may take only those risk that are within our company’s overall risk appetite as established by the Board of Directors. Senior management will determine the risk appetite for your line of business and will communicate that to you. You will be assessed on your risk-taking results.


Managing risk within the confines of the corporate enterprise goes beyond the awareness building of risk appetite with front line associates. It requires getting the Board of Directors spending more time on the front lines and embedded in the business lines to better understand the operational risks that exist in that particular business. As an example, it would seem that in a rush to reduce expenses, call center operations are being moved offshore to India. Offshoring in itself brings to bear a whole new set of risk issues, especially when you are talking about "Call Center Operations."

Interacting with customers on the telephone subjects the caller and the service provider to the exchange of Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Utilizing new technologies to validate the geographic location of callers is available and the use of more sophisticated means for verifying the caller is who they say they are is being implemented with other technologies. Yet what about the people working in the call centers themselves. Whenever you have an outsourced provider in another country taking calls from US consumers and exchanging PII there are several other operational risks on the table.

Fraud associated with call centers is on the rise and is being facilitated by transnational criminal organizations. There are two primary types of fraud scenarios being perpetuated with call centers:

  • The use of phishing e-mails provides credentials for a criminal fraudster to log-in to your online banking account. However, because of certain online controls and security measures, the fraudster may need to make contact with call center for something as easy as a password reset to further their scheme.
  • In another use of a form of phishing e-mail, a consumer is asked to phone a fake 800 number that is routed to a fraudulent call center operation, where the banking customer is then asked for PII, mothers maiden name or other security credentials under the guise of an account problem or other account related issue.


Bank of America and other call center operations have integrated analytics with call centers that are specific to only the online banking inquiries. In addition, these integrated call centers should be utilizing the depth of data that exists for consumers from public records, credit and real estate records. Integrating the use of "Visual Analytics" and intelligence-led investigations can provide the institution with the insight and decision advantage to stem the growth of call center fraud across a myriad of industries beyond banking. RSA FraudAction Research Lab has this to say on the subject at hand:

Since the beginning of the year, RSA has uncovered several one-stop-shop call centers in the fraud underground that provide fraudsters with all the tools they need to commit fraud over the phone. These “tools” include:

  • “Professional callers”: fluent in numerous languages, both male and female
  • Caller-ID spoofing
  • Service availability during American and Western European business hours.
These comprehensive criminal services, to which we will refer as “fraudster call centers,” have proliferated in the underground economy over the past year.


As the likes of B of A and other organizations rely on the human factor on the other end of the telephone the operational risk factors increase dramatically. What would be an interesting question to the Board of Directors is this: When was the last time you visited your call center in "XYZ Country" and sat on the line with one of their offshore operators listening to consumer calls from the United States? This could be an eye opening exercise in better understanding Operational Risk Management on the front lines.

08 February 2010

Adaptive CxO: Utilizing a Decision Advantage...

How fast can you and your organization adapt? 5 minutes. 5 hours. Or 5 days. An adaptive enterprise that is capable of rapidly adapting to a continuously changing "Operational Risk Ecosystem" within minutes or hours, will have the highest likelihood to survive. Days could mean the end of the relationship with customers, employees and your vital supply chain. Corporate obituaries are all too common soon after a significant business disruption. Whether physical, cyber or both the adaptive enterprise is not only resilient but also possesses the most sought after business risk asset, an effective "Decision Advantage."

This past weekend, the Wasington, DC region has been crippled and brought to it's knees by "Mother Nature". Not an earthquake, nor tornado or even fires or floods (yet) but a tremendous amount of frozen precipitation.

Parts of the eastern United States remain largely paralysed for a third day after some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades.

Transport links in Washington DC and nearby states have been severely disrupted and hundreds of thousands of people are still without power.

Federal government offices and most schools are shut after the authorities advised people to stay indoors.

Weather forecasts are warning of fresh blizzards due on Tuesday.

The storm has disrupted transport from West Virginia to southern New Jersey.

Some parts of Washington experienced up to 32in (81cm) of snow, one of the heaviest snowfalls in decades.


The ability for a metro area, enterprise or even household to adapt and recover will be directly in correlation with the amount of practice, training and prediction excellence. Time and resources utilized by many to anticipate, drill, enhance skills and tweak the intelligence feeds will make all the difference in the outcomes. Many will survive and some will perish. It's in most cases directly proportional to the investment in the preparedness for all threats and all hazards. This is the core of the true Operational Risk professional.

And while your financial institution, defense industrial base firm or telecom or energy company was being tested in the "Continuity of Operations" plans this past few days in the National Capital Region (NCR), as the CxO for your enterprise, what grade would you give yourself in terms of business resilience?

On the Digital battlefield the corporate enterprise is getting a much better understanding of the economics of a data breach:

PGP and the Ponemon Institute have just announced results of the fifth annual U.S. Cost of a Data Breach Study. The overarching conclusion is that breaches are getting more expensive.

Data breaches cost U.S. companies $204 per compromised customer Relevant Products/Services record in 2009. That compares to $202 in 2008. Despite an overall drop in the number of reported breaches -- the Identity Theft Resource Center reports 498 in 2009 vs 657 in 2008 -- the average total per-incident cost in 2009 was $6.75 million. In 2008, that number was $6.65 million.

"In the five years we have conducted this study, we have continued to see an increase in the cost to businesses for suffering a data Relevant Products/Services breach," said Dr. Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute. "With a variety of threat vectors to contend with, companies must proactively implement policies and technologies that mitigate the risk of facing a costly breach."


The Cyber Economics of losing laptops, internal data exfiltration and the effectiveness of industrial espionage make the "Brain" of any enterprise vulnerable to the loss of vital information and trade secrets. One of the the latest spy cases is now at the sentencing stage:


An elderly Chinese-born engineer convicted of economic espionage for hoarding sensitive documents that included space shuttle details faces sentencing Monday, and prosecutors are seeking a 20-year term.

A judge found Dongfan "Greg" Chung, 74, guilty in July of six federal counts of economic espionage and other charges for keeping 300,000 pages of sensitive papers in his home. The documents also included information about the fueling system for a booster rocket.

Despite Chung's age, prosecutors have requested a 20-year sentence, in part to send a message to other would-be spies.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Staples noted in sentencing papers that Chung amassed a personal wealth of more than $3 million while betraying his adopted country.

"The (People's Republic of China) is bent on stealing sensitive information from the United States and shows no sign of relenting," Staples wrote. "Only strong sentences offer any hope of dissuading others from helping the PRC get that technology."


In a continuously evolving "Operational Risk Ecosystem" the corporate executive making decisions must be able to command a "DecisionAdvantage." Utilizing the latest technologies, networks and resilient designs for critical cyber infrastructure and combining this with the correct software is only the beginning. Again, you must ask the question. How long does it take your enterprise to adapt?

Whether the executive makes the phone call to keep employees working from previously designated remote sites; sends the "All Hands" text message to be on the look out (BOLO) for foreign nationals with US visas taking home work on sensitive projects or enabling the corporate networks to withstand the latest DDOS attack does not matter. What ultimately will be a CxO's best opportunity to survive or perish will be the "DecisionAdvantage."

05 February 2010

Legal Risk: Early Case Assessment...

After a few days at LegalTech New York this week, it's now confirmed that a very small percentage of small to medium enterprises (SME) are truly ready for the Operational Risk of litigation. How can a General Counsel achieve a defensible standard of care in this vast sea of software, technology and vendors that are trying to address the modern day business problem called "Electronic Stored Information?" (ESI)

Yet the likes of Bank of America and the Attorney General of New York are well aware of the importance of the "Meet-and-Confer" process as the allegations of fraud look for the "Digital Smoking Gun". Let the metadata wars begin:

Legal action has begun against Bank of America and its former bosses, accusing them of duping investors and taxpayers during the takeover of Merrill Lynch.

The defendants are accused of intentionally withholding details of huge losses Merrill was suffering.

New York state officials have filed the action against the bank, former chief executive Kenneth Lewis and former chief financial officer Joseph Price.


Principle 12 to the Sedona Principles states: Absent party agreement or court order specifying the form or forms of production, production should be made in the form or forms in which the information is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form, taking into account the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party where appropriate or necessary in light of the nature of the information and the needs of the case. Sedona Principles 2d Principle 12

The issues faced by legal counsel at large Fortune 50 organizations are no different with the Small to Medium Enterprise when it comes to the "Meet-and-Confer." Making the decisions on what is relevant and the scope of eDiscovery is increasingly about the economics of litigation. Law firms are trying to reduce their costs and impact of billable hours with their clients and General Counsels are making sure that internal IT records management tasks are a top priority.

What many vendors are advocating in process and tools at LegalTech is the idea of Early Case Assessment (ECA). In other words, the Plaintiff is going to have to show their hand early and without slight of hand. These interviews with the Hon. James Holderman explains:

Editor: Doesn't that pretty much move in the direction of requiring the plaintiff to provide specific facts about the basis for the complaint? How can the discoverable "ESI" to be preserved and produced be determined unless the plaintiff comes forward with the specific facts on which its case is based?

Holderman: It cannot be done, and that is why the plaintiff needs to cooperate by divulging that information at the outset. Hiding the ball is a concept from the last century that can't be a part of present-day litigation. This is reflected in the Supreme Court's decisions in Iqbal and Twombly . Discovery is expensive and let's get the information out early. What is the benefit of bare-bones pleadings when the expense of e-discovery is so great? If the plaintiff has information then let's see whether the plaintiff has a sufficient basis for going forward to withstand a motion for summary judgment.


Where is the information you seek? In more places than you may realize as the investigation, forensics collection and rules of evidence are engaged. The risk of sanctions is real. The analysis of custodians Blackberry e-mails, BBM's and just plain text messages will be overwhelming as the Attorney General builds the case for fraud. The US Treasury, Federal Reserve and other government agencies will also be producing Terabytes of data for inquiry.

Regardless of the General Counsel's approaches at Bank of America or Merrill, the key risk items that they should have been addressing long before this trial with outside counsel are some of the following topics, again from LegalTech:

  • Cloud-based email and records management provides a new approach for cost-effectively managing law firm content
  • Securely archive information assets and maintain compliance with all regulatory standards, including the FRCP
  • Meaning Based Computing to enable automatic categorization of ESI for the application of retention policies
  • Sophisticated retention policies that enable non-critical data to be purged appropriately
  • The ability to easily and transparently retrieve archived data, prepare the data for potential future legal holds or preservation, and to rapidly respond to a litigation and investigation pertaining to the firm
  • How has legal changed the way we think about back-up?
  • What does "inaccessible" mean in discovery?
  • How can you implement a reasonable, defensible information management strategy that reduces risk?
As a law firm you always have to look at the fine print. B of A's procedures with outside counsel are available for review online:

These Procedures shall constitute the written engagement, or contract, of the firm for any matter for which it is engaged on behalf of Bank of America, and shall govern the terms of the engagement. These Procedures are applicable to all law firms and attorneys providing legal services to Bank of America. Law firms retained by Bank of America should ensure that a copy of these Procedures is provided to all attorneys, paralegals, administrative, clerical or other assistants assigned to a particular matter before work begins on any matter.

12 January 2010

Systems Engineering: Adaptive Processes...

The Operational Risks associated with the insider threat of fraud, terrorism, intellectual property theft and economic espionage are a moving target. This variation, deviation and migration from traditional methods of criminal activity has much to do with our systems orientation and reliance on trusted information. Until you miss one step in a process or misspell someone's name.

Systems Engineering as a discipline has it's roots in understanding the business problem before designing a remedy or tool to solve the issue at hand. Whether the engineering is business oriented or software focused the combined "Convergent Engineering" has the goal of being adaptive, flexible and on a trajectory for an integrated discipline.

Adaptive Systems have the opportunity to assist in the mitigation of risks yet software information systems continue to plague us because they are still not being developed in concert with the changing business processes. This operational risk has been in existence since the emergence of computers. The solution to this problem and the "Holy Grail" is to engineer the business or government and it's supporting software as a single, integrated system. Convergent engineering involves modeling and designing the business directly in software. This has been advocated and written about since the 1990's by David A. Taylor, "Business Engineerig with Object Technology" and others advocating concurrent engineering.

The failure of processes during our Global War on Terror is an operational risk that all too often is in the audit, testing and scenario exercises. The Washington Post highlights the breakdown in the Christmas Day 2009 "Under Pants" Bombing attempt on NW 253:

Back in November, it was a day or two after the initial Visa Viper report was received at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) before analysts there realized the correct spelling of Abdulmutallab's name, based on data from other agencies. With the error corrected, he was listed, along with about 400,000 others, on the Terrorist Identities Datamark Environment (TIDE). That is a list of people, along with relevant information about them, who are suspected of, or known to be associated with, terrorist activities outside the United States.

At that time, NCTC analysts who worked on TIDE entries processed only nominations from the State Department, the CIA and other collection agencies. They checked the TIDE list to see if a name was on it, but they did not search other databases for more information. The NCTC also determined what further action, if any, was necessary, such as moving a person's name to the next level, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center.

Meanwhile, back at the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, State Department officials -- "out of curiosity" -- did check to see whether Abdulmutallab had a visa for entry into the United States, according to a department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter is under investigation. But because the misspelled name was used, the fact that Abdulmutallab had a multi-entrance, two-year tourist visa obtained in June 2008 was not sent to the NCTC or to other intelligence agencies.

As Crowley put it last week, "The initial search to determine if there was a visa did not -- one did not show, expressly because of this misspelling."

"This is a critical lesson learned," Crowley said. "The steps that we've put in the process beginning immediately after December 25 will, in fact, make sure that future reports do have visa information in them, so that this is . . . inserted into the process right from the outset."


The process is now adapting to the exposure of a vulnerability that could be exploited by the attacker to the system as it was designed. Could the same be said for the unfortunate incident soon thereafter on FOB Chapman in Afghanistan five days later. This breakdown again by the Washington Post brings this point into focus on the "Process Failure."


Those at the scene on Dec. 30 had been trying to strike a balance between respect for their informant -- best demonstrated, in the regional tradition, by direct personal contact -- and caution, illustrated by the attentiveness of the security guards, according to CIA officials.

But more than a dozen current and former government officials interviewed for this article said they could not account in full for what they called a breach of operational security at the base in Afghanistan's Khost province. Advance pat-downs and other precautions are common in an age of suicide bombers, and meetings are kept small and remote. None of these sources would agree to be identified by name, in many cases because of their former or current work as covert operatives.


The continuous diligence in the discipline of Operational Risk Management calls for an "All Threats & All Hazards" vigilance. However, in both of the previously mentioned cases all of the attention to process and protocols would not have overcome the larger factor of human psychology and human emotions. These Human Factors will continue to be the systems engineers worst nightmare and the single vulnerability that will never be totally mitigated.

Whether signs and red flags are missed in government or the private sector, the threat to our workplace, institutions and livelihood is at stake. ABB, a Swiss global infrastructure company is dealing with a workplace violence incident in St. Louis, MO USA and is now asking themselves "Who Knew What When":

The man widely identified as the gunman in a fatal shooting spree at a St. Louis industrial plant was described as an amicable family man and good neighbor, who would rake an elder's leaves and bring him holiday treats.

But 51-year-old Timothy Hendron of Webster Groves, a St. Louis suburb, was unhappy at work, according to those who knew him even casually, and embroiled in a pension dispute with his company that was being litigated this week in U.S. District Court in Kansas City.

Police said the gunman showed up at ABB Group's plant in north St. Louis around 6:30 a.m. Thursday and opened fire, killing three people and wounding five before apparently killing himself. Frightened co-workers scrambled into closets and to the snow-covered roof for safety.

He was found dead inside the plant from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.


Systems engineering for business or government must continue to explore the human factors. Adaptive processes and software that has been designed with "Adaptive" abilities will continue to challenge even the smartest and most capable Operational Risk Managers for years to come.

05 January 2010

Deja Vu: Operational Risk in Decade Past...

The WWW is dynamic and the operational risks you take while navigating it's vast depth and breadth is part of the process. Who or what should you trust? As an example, at this very moment when you search Google for Operational Risk Management it returns this blog as the number #1 top link. Perhaps that is how you arrived here at this blog on Operational Risk.

You trusted Google that when you clicked on the link that you would find relevant information on your desired topic. Or perhaps you navigated to this site devoted to Operational Risk Management because one of the almost 1,000 postings since 2003 covered your question, topic or issue. In both cases, the information returned may have relevancy but only after careful examination of the words, concepts, ideas and arguments do you make the decision on whether to "Bookmark" this site.

And for the many that have bookmarked us or added us as your RSS Feed then we know who you are. Our mutual quest for the relevancy of "Operational Risk Management" in the current world we live in will continue. With each new incident, accident, or breach our purpose is further defined and more extensively documented.

As we encounter 2010 and the next decade we promise to provide the content you require and the relevancy to your role in the profession. Let's go back in time for a minute and see if any of our previous posts over the past 7 years have a point today:

28 October 2003

More banks hit by email fraud


U.S. Issues Saudi Alert Saying Terrorists Targeting Airlines


24 February 2004


Greenspan: Curb Fannie, Freddie Growth


24 June 2005

Negative Stock Price Reaction to Announcements of Operational Loss Events...


31 December 2006

Remember His Name: The Long War Ahead...


24 May 2007

Hedge Funds: Crystal Ball on Regulation...


11 October 2007

Fear: The Elements of Prediction...


31 March 2008

Volatility: Enemy #1...


08 May 2008

Legal Ecosystem: Survival of the Fittest...


22 September 2008

Decision Advantage: OPS Risk Intel...


25 April 2009

Human Factors: Early-Warning System...


17 August 2009

Business Resilience: Beyond Readiness...


Are you having a deja vu moment? A flashback to the future. Why is it that "lessons learned" are continuously ignored? Forgotten. Lost. History and the knowledge of that history can save you. Some use log analysis of their precious computing resources, firewalls and IDS/IPS systems to learn from the past. Others don't remember that last time they fell down the stairs, slipped on the ice or banged their head. Even those individuals who have been on the other side of the desk when the "Boss" is making their position "Extremely Clear" about their performance measures are subject to having a deja vu moment.

Operational Risk is a daily and continuous 24x7x365 process. A way of life. Not an event or a meeting at the end of the quarter. Each person and stakeholder at your organization or institution is responsible for it and should live each day embracing it. We like to say, Operational Risk Management saves lives, protects corporate assets and enables global enterprise business resilience. That's something everyone can remember, practice and strive for every waking moment and in every situation.

What do you think?

31 December 2009

NSPD-54: The Risk of Privacy...

It has been six days since one of the latest attempts to compromise the "Air Domain" and attack the United States. Aviation, homeland security and transportation, intelligence and law enforcement officials are burning the midnight oil but this is standard operating procedure. Operational Risk Management is in the cross hairs of the core conversation associated with the threat and the likelihood of a similar incident happening again. The Washington Post is now reporting:

President Barack Obama said he would meet the heads of U.S. intelligence agencies on Tuesday to discuss ways of preventing a repeat of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on December 25.

Obama said in a statement he expected to receive assessments from several intelligence agencies Thursday evening and would review them during the weekend. He ordered the assessments after criticizing what he called the systemic failure that allowed the accused bomber to board the plane in Amsterdam.


So what does this incident have to do with NSPD-54? What is the nexus between information collection, analysis and action to defend our cyber infrastructure while simultaneously defending the public from other threats to the homeland?

NSPD-54 known as the CNCI (Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative) attempts to unify agencies' fragmented approach to federal cybersecurity by reworking and expanding existing programs and developing new security programs that are better at reducing the risk that networks can be hacked.

The initiative's budget officially has been kept secret, but some cyber analysts estimated it to be $40 billion, spread over several years. According to the Washington Post, Bush's single-largest request for funds in the fiscal 2009 intelligence budget was for CNCI, although specific figures were not released.


Monitoring your information whether Personal or not is a National Priority and the telecom companies are collaborating with the correct US agencies to make sure that privacy is at the forefront of the conversation. The risk of too much privacy will continue to be one of our greatest vulnerabilities and the bad guys know this.

The "Risk of Privacy" and Einstein 2 or 3 will be at the top of the agenda for Howard Schmidt and his new role as Cyber Space Coordinator. The industry groups are pleased that he understands the private sector and the fact that he has served in previous administrations may assist in his ability to build important bridges across deep chasms of relationships.

There are some that would say that the reason why the "Dots are not Connected" sooner, faster or more efficiently is because we are drowning in too much information to analyze. The automation of collection is the easy part. The filtering and pushing relevancy through the digital cheese cloth to get the most vital intelligence assets is a bit harder to accomplish. The human analysis and applying "Gray Matter" to the problem set and understanding the current "State-of-Play" is the ultimate challenge.

Beyond this, the average "John Q" citizen has probably never heard of 28CFR Part 23. The privacy assurance mechanism put into place in the 90's pertaining to the fusion of criminal intelligence. Perhaps this is the single greatest impediment we face to insuring our safety, security and threats from transnational eCrime syndicates, non-state actors and even the most sophisticated Nation States.

It is recognized that certain criminal activities including but not limited to loan sharking, drug trafficking, trafficking in stolen property, gambling, extortion, smuggling, bribery, and corruption of public officials often involve some degree of regular coordination and permanent organization involving a large number of participants over a broad geographical area. The exposure of such ongoing networks of criminal activity can be aided by the pooling of information about such activities. However, because the collection and exchange of intelligence data necessary to support control of serious criminal activity may represent potential threats to the privacy of individuals to whom such data relates, policy guidelines for Federally funded projects are required.

Fortunately for most, the opportunity exists for our government to "Connect The Dot's", prevent the next significant or systemic intelligence failure with the use of the correct technologies. After all, the human factors will continue to compromise our ability to achieve the level of "Predictive Analytics" and the intelligence we seek.

19 December 2009

Operational Risk: Where Men Win Glory...

As the blizzard of snow descends on the Nations Capital of the United States today, almost everything has come to a halt. The quiet calm of +16" of white fluffy snow a week before Christmas puts Emergency Operation Commands into action and "All Hands" are on deck.

Three people have died in Virginia as a major snowstorm slams the East Coast on the weekend before Christmas, said Virginia's emergency management department.

One person died late Friday and two others died Saturday in a pounding storm. More heavy snow was expected in the state.

The foul weather prompted an emergency declaration in the nation's capital, stranded hundreds of motorists, brought havoc at airports, caused power outages, and threatened to keep hordes of Christmas shoppers indoors.

The storm is blanketing the mid-Atlantic region and the heavily populated Interstate 95 corridor, and 10 to 20 inches of snow were predicted for swaths of the region.

The National Weather Service issued a blizzard warning for the D.C. area. Snowfall accumulations from 12 and 22 inches along with 40-mph wind gusts were "expected to create whiteout conditions later this afternoon."



Simultaneously, the mechanism of defending the country and our most valued democratic nations states is in full swing with the logistics of war. Men and women, Moms and Dads, Brothers and Sisters, or Sons and Daughters are being deployed to Afghanistan. Their Christmas will not be with their family, but with their fellow patriots.

"Who among mortal men are you, good friend? Since never before have I seen you in the fighting where men win glory, yet now you have come striding far out in front of all others in your great heart..."
--Homer, The Iliad

The September 11, 2006 issue of Sports Illustrated has a young soldier sitting in the base of a tree on a hillside on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Remember His Name is the cover story. Pat Tillman walked away from his $3.6M contract in the National Football League (NFL) in May of 2002 to join the US Army. On April 22, 2004 Pat lost his life to friendly fire, as a result of a complete failure of Operational Risk Management.

Jon Krakauer's book "Where Men Win Glory" The Odyssey of Pat Tillman was published in 2009.

This time around we can only pray that "Operational Risk Management" (ORM) is being practiced and with diligence. The SOCOM operator under extreme stress requires controls and training in order to perform effectively. ORM is all about loss events and the pursuit of reducing or eliminating those events whether they be measured in dollars or human lives.

As 2010 approaches, Operational Risk Management will be ever so more important to our commanders in Afghanistan, corporate CEO's and our Public Safety officials. Each has a role in mitigating the risk to people, vital assets and our national security. And maybe more importantly, they should remember Pat Tillman.

10 December 2009

Legal Doctrine: Intelligence - led Threat Assessment...

Corporate Threat Assessment is gaining new momentum as "Operational Risk Management" professionals utilize new business processes and tools to preempt human malfeasance. Whether it is the disgruntled employee who has just been separated from the company or the college student who acts against his math teacher for grades; the question remains: How could this have been prevented?
The Washington Post reports:

A disgruntled 20-year-old student walked into a classroom at the Northern Virginia Community College campus in Woodbridge on Tuesday afternoon and fired at least two shots from a high-powered rifle at his math teacher, authorities said.

The teacher saw the gun, yelled for her 25 students to duck and then hit the floor.

"We heard a boom," one of the students said later. "I thought to myself, did a computer explode?"

The student's shots missed. He put the gun down, sat on a chair in a fourth-floor hallway and calmly waited for police.

Jason M. Hamilton of Baneberry Circle in the Manassas area was charged with attempted murder and discharging a firearm in school zone. He was being held without bail, and police officers said they wanted to question him about a motive.

The legal machine is at work to determine the multitude of reasons why this incident occurred and to collect the evidence in the case. The investigation into "Who Knew What When" will be spinning up almost simultaneously as the plaintiff lawyers determine what opportunities might exist for a law suit. Several areas of questioning for Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA) will include:

1. What evidence is there of a Duty to Care: Did NOVA provide training for professors to alert an internal "Threat Assessment Team" whenever they witnessed or found evidence of specific pre-incident indicators?

2. What evidence is there of a Duty to Warn: Did NOVA warn fellow employees to keep an eye out for any students carrying long slender bags into campus buildings or to monitor parking lots for suspicious activity?

3. What evidence is there of a Duty to Act: Did NOVA provide notice to security employees on the student who was absent during the term for over three weeks ?

4. What evidence is there of a Duty to Supervise: Did NOVA professors report any strange behavior, statements, or even the fact that the student had been absent almost a month?

Human behavioral studies regarding workplace safety suggest, that one in five people come to the institution every day with a serious problem going on in their personal life. This has a dramatic effect not only on workplace performance but also the potential for bad behavior. This bad behavior could be acted out physically or quietly and in stealth mode. In either case, the company, it's employees and the reputation of the institution are at stake. What is your Corporate Threat Assessment Team working on today to preempt the next incident?

As the investigators evaluate the digital evidence in the case such as e-mails, Facebook Wall postings or other information found on a PDA, laptop or home computer the "Smoking Gun" may be uncovered. And when it becomes public, the game changing events will begin to unfold. Many companies feel that having a formal internal "Threat Assessment Team" sends the wrong message to the employees that "Big Brother" is watching. This could not be further from the true state of mind by many employees today. Knowing that a team is proactively addressing the one in five employees everyday in the workplace should provide more peace of mind than the thought of an invasion of privacy.

So what are the typical channels that an employee will use to communicate their grievance or threat?

  • Letter - 2%
  • Phone message - 5%
  • Social Networking site - 7%
  • Text message - 9%
  • e-Mail - 22%
  • Verbal threat - 46%

Source: Laurence Barton, Ph.D. - Current Study to be completed in February, 2010

If this trend continues then over half of the communicated threat will be via a digitally based medium. What is your organization doing today to monitor communications for specific threats to your employees, suppliers or partners? The modification of Acceptable Use Policy and the other legal policy regarding the workplace monitoring of e-mail is not a new phenomenon in many organizations, notably those in the Defense Industrial Base (DIB.)

Recent changes in the privacy settings of Facebook makes much of the information placed in these 350 million profiles public information and therefore, capable of being viewed and analyzed by a proactive threat management team. Here is the analysis from the EFF:

The Ugly: Information That You Used to Control Is Now Treated as "Publicly Available," and You Can't Opt Out of The "Sharing" of Your Information with Facebook Apps

Looking even closer at the new Facebook privacy changes, things get downright ugly when it comes to controlling who gets to see personal information such as your list of friends. Under the new regime, Facebook treats that information — along with your name, profile picture, current city, gender, networks, and the pages that you are a "fan" of — as "publicly available information" or "PAI." Before, users were allowed to restrict access to much of that information. Now, however, those privacy options have been eliminated. For example, although you used to have the ability to prevent everyone but your friends from seeing your friends list, that old privacy setting — shown below — has now been removed completely from the privacy settings page.


There are legal cases pending and there will be more to come about whether the mining of public data for profiling people is against the law. In most cases, it will be dependent on who is doing the collecting and for what reasons. Yet the most sophisticated systems for doing analytics or the latest matrix or mosaic methodology will not be able to provide a fail safe for the corporate enterprise. This is precisely why the earlier mentioned employer "Duties" are so vital to day to day operational risk management. The actions you take before, during and after an incident will be the most vital to your legal and reputations survival.

TWO computer programmers who worked for convicted fraudster Bernie Madoff were charged with bribery by the US Securities and Exchange Commission today.

Jerome O'Hara and George Perez allegedly took bribes to create false documents and trading records for Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC for more than 15 years, according to the SEC's complaint.

"Without the help of O'Hara and Perez, the Madoff fraud would not have been possible," George S Canellos, director of the SEC's New York regional office, said.

"They used their special computer skills to create sophisticated, credible and entirely phony trading records that were critical to the success of Madoff's scheme for so many years."

Operational Risk Management requires a vigilance of monitoring digital information inside and outside the workplace. Those institutions who combine the correct legal doctrine, business processes and technology will prevail in the vast chaos of litigation and human threats within the workplace.

04 December 2009

Lying in Wait: Cyber Pearl Harbor...

The Operational Risks associated with the corporate battle against "Conficker" are still a true threat to our cyber infrastructure and maybe more than we could have ever imagined. Is this "Botnet" lying in wait for some future 4th Generation Warfare master plan?

Speaking at an end of year wrap, F-Secure chief research officer, Mikko Hypponen, said 2009 was an exceptional year in IT security.

“We never see huge malware outbreaks anymore — except this year we did,” he said “Conficker peaked with over 10 million infected computers around the world and at the end of 2009 is still in millions of computers.

“This was very advanced malware using several tricks we have never before seen. [It was] a massive botnet not being used by the malware operators for anything useful and we still don’t the real story behind Conficker and that makes it one of the biggest mysteries in the history of malware.”

DHS CyberStorm III is scheduled for September 2010 and will leverage the lessons learned from I and II. What are some of the major "Wake-up Calls" in the CSII Final report:

  • Finding 1: Value of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Established Relationships.
  • Finding 2: Physical and Cyber Interdependencies. Cyber events have consequences outside the cyber response community, and non-cyber events can impact cyber functionality.
  • Finding 3: Importance of Reliable and Tested Crisis Communication Tools.
  • Finding 4: Clarification of Roles and Responsibilities.
  • Finding 5: Increased Non-Crisis Interaction.
  • Finding 6: Policies and Procedures Critical to Information Flow.
  • Finding 7: Public Affairs Influence During Large Scale Cyber Incidents.
  • Finding 8: Greater Familiarity with Information Sharing Processes.
  • Source: CyberStorm II Final Report - Page 3-4 - July 2009
The Homeland Security Department's third large-scale cybersecurity drill in September 2010 will test the national cyber response plan currently being developed by the Obama administration, said industry and government participants in the simulation exercise during a conference on Tuesday.

Cyber Storm III will build upon the lessons learned in the two previous exercises that took place in February 2006 and March 2008, and provide the first opportunity to assess the White House strategy for responding to a cyberattack with nationwide impact.


You are not going to hear very many people talking about "Conficker" being the beginning of a "Cyber Pearl Harbor" sneak attack and for good reason. SEE FINDING 2.

Physical and cyber attacks are rarely mutually exclusive. Physical attacks impact cyber infrastructure and cyber disruptions can have acute physical impact. This is why an "All Threats and All Hazards" approach has been adopted by many, including this blogger.

The 20+ page report from DHS took thirteen months to produce. Exercise in March 2008 and report in July 2009.

Yet the realistic future scenario is not too much of a stretch to imagine. At some point after the "Conficker" malicious code is put into action, a "Stall" warning light comes on at US-CERT. The Internet is the mechanism for the delivery of a lethal payload never before experienced in any previous tests, or real events. William Jackson has this to say:

"Dec. 7 is the anniversary of the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor that crippled the U.S. Pacific fleet and brought this country into World War II. What have we learned in the 68 years since that world-changing day?

The threat in our age is less to ships and aircraft than to the technology that controls so many aspects of our lives. Many observers have warned that our defenses are not adequate to protect our nation’s critical infrastructure, and the phrase Electronic or Digital Pearl Harbor has been commonly used to describe a surprise cyber attack that could cripple our military and commercial capabilities. Dire as these warnings are, we should take them with a grain of salt.

Although cyber threats are real, the chances of a Digital Pearl Harbor remain small. This is due not so much to the success of our cyber defenses, which in many places remain inadequate, but to the realities of warfare and networking."

Perhaps there really is an "E-Qaida" as Brian Krebs of the Washington Post has alluded to in his Security Fix column. An insurgency from non-state actors and not China as many would say is our largest cyber enemy from a non-nations state. If this is true and the "E-Qaida" are out there, then you can quickly make the leap to counter insurgency, irregular warfare and other metaphors in the wars of Iraq and with the drug cartels of Latin America. Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) insurgencies can't be compared to traditional insurgency models in that they do not intend merely to replace the existing government. The target is the state itself.

Physical weapons are not the only tools of the insurgents. Recently, the internet and satellite television have increased the opportunities for insurgent groups to recruit, communicate, and wage war to win the opinions of their target populations whether they are the local populace, foreign governments or the world public at large. In 4GW environments, physical weapons may be counterproductive to the cause of the insurgents. The prodigious use of propaganda may be all that is needed to achieve their goals. Source: FMFM 3-25
So if you are reading this now, is it working?

29 October 2009

Legal Risk: The Art of Compliance...

Risk Management is on the mind's of Corporate Directors and in some interesting places according to a recent poll by PWC and Corporate Board Member Magazine:

How has your personal risk as a director changed in the past 12 months?

Increased 69%
No change 30%
Decreased 1%

Some risks are tough to name...

What keeps you up at night?

Unknown risks 59%

...while others are identifiable.

Do you think regulators are more likely to investigate your company?

Yes 71%

Do you think there'll be an increase in shareholder suits?

Yes 65%

If 71% of the directors surveyed think that regulators are more likely to investigate the company where does that feeling come from? Is it the fact that the SEC and others such as the FTC, OCC and others are gearing up to facilitate greater oversight than in past years? Is it the lack of internal focus on creating a systemic Risk Management Framework? Could it be the amount of toxic assets that are still on the balance sheet? The answer is yes, yes, and yes.

So what can Directors do to make sure that management and the company are ready when the "Feds" come to town? The answer may well lie in the ability to show a history and evidence of doing the right thing and doing it with extreme diligence.

For good or bad—okay, mainly for bad, most respondents agree—the government as boardroom-player-cum-active-investor will be around for a foreseeable spell.

Regulation will rise...

Do you think there will be a big increase in regulation?

Yes 91%
No 2%

Of that 91%, 54% “strongly agree” with the premise that there’ll be more regulation, 37% “agree.”

...and spread.

Do you think other companies will have to adopt rules that the government has imposed on those receiving financial help?

Yes 54%
No 20%

Nearly 45% of the respondents say no amount of government control, whether more or less than what we got, could have prevented the severity of the economic crisis.

No to Uncle Sam as paymaster

Respondents are against the feds’ having a say in setting executive pay.

Are government limits on executive compensation justified?

No 88%

Should the government impose further limitations on pay?

No 97%

Should comp be left to the board?

Yes 76%


The only hope for "Achieving A Defensible Standard of Care" in your institution could be what Siemens and other wrongdoers have discovered. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on "Compliance" might be a good thing when the time comes to differentiate yourself in the marketplace and negotiate with the government. Especially if you are a global enterprise doing business in countries that don't exactly have the best reputation with transparency and the rule of law. Here is what Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Siemens AG, Gerhard Cromme had to say on their efforts to date:

Wherever wrongdoing was proved beyond a doubt, we immediately took the necessary actions. Wherever there were systemic weaknesses, we identified them and corrected them. Where the necessary resources were lacking, we provided them. These demanding efforts have paid off: Today Siemens has a clear, transparent structure that no longer allows any gray areas with respect to responsibility. At the same time, these structures make Siemens more efficient, more cost-effective, and thus more competitive. The authorities took into consideration our unflinching desire to do whatever was necessary for a fresh start in determining the size of the penalties and the duration of the proceedings.


Operational Risk encompasses the actions taken by Siemens that includes the new centralized systems for payments, disbursements and other accounting functions that were previously in business units outside of Germany. This consolidation and integration of systems was not easy but represents that a discovery in the vulnerability of controls with a decentralized system warranted the investment in a new way of doing business.

Only time will tell whether any companies Board of Directors efforts to spend more resources on "The Art of Compliance" will make a difference to the regulators, investigators and litigators. One could probably bet that over time it will make a difference. But only if the "Tone at the Top" is commensurate with the actions being asked of the employees and stakeholders, doing the day-to-day tasks running the risk operations of the enterprise.

01 October 2009

Remote Digital Forensics: Complacency Risk...

Operational Risk Management commands a spectrum of disciplines within the global corporate enterprise. While convergence of responsibility, accountability and resources is taking place the internal threats continue to flourish. Why? How could a Chief Security Officer (CSO) not be aware of a specific threat to the institution by unknown subjects half way around the world? The transnational organized crime syndicates that target our weakest organizations know that they don't share information between departments, business units or even shared services within the enterprise. Does your CSO get a briefing from the CISO or CIO / INFOSEC staff on what the latest threats mean to you, such as cyber heists using ACH fraud?

This complacency is an internal threat that continues to amaze many and reinforces what few people truly understand about risk management. The adversaries utilize asymmetric strategy against unsophisticated targets to perpetuate their crimes and overall threats to people, processes, systems and deposit accounts. They are the modern day equivalents of "Bonnie & Clyde", Al Capone with a dash of Al Gonzales all rolled up into a massive threat that is increasing exponentially:

Two Romanian Citizens Extradited to the United States to Face Charges Related to Alleged Phishing Scheme

A phishing scheme uses the Internet to target large numbers of unwary individuals, using fraud and deceit to obtain private personal and financial information such as names, addresses, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and Social Security numbers. Phishing schemes often work by sending out large numbers of counterfeit e-mail messages, which are made to appear as if they originated from legitimate banks, financial institutions, or other companies.

The investigation leading to the indictment stemmed from a citizen’s complaint concerning a fraudulent e-mail message made to appear as if it originated from Connecticut-based People’s Bank. In fact, the e-mail message directed victims to a computer in Minnesota that had been compromised, or “hacked,” and used to host a counterfeit People’s Bank Internet site. During the course of the investigation, it was determined that the defendants had allegedly engaged in similar phishing schemes against many other financial institutions and companies, including Citibank, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Comerica Bank, Wells Fargo & Co., eBay, and PayPal.


Risk Management 101 talks to the X and Y axis with X representing the frequency of risk and Y representing the severity (impact) of the risk. So using the four quadrant model, the lower right box is where low risk times high frequency incidents occur. In the upper left box is where high risk times low frequency incidents occur. Got it.

As a CSO in your organization, where do you spend your time, resources and personnel in terms of their training, awareness and work efforts? Think about it for a minute. Most of you would probably say, "Well we focus on the High Frequency times High Risk incidents, the upper right box of the Risk Management model." Practice and prepare for the incidents that happen often and you will have employees who have no clue on what to do the day that something from that upper left box impacts your organization. The HIGH RISK x LOW FREQUENCY incidents are where you remain most vulnerable.

Arlington Man Sentenced 36 Months for $40 Million Ponzi Scheme

ALEXANDRIA, VA—Preston David Pinkett II, age 70, of Arlington, Va., was sentenced to 36 months in prison for engaging in a massive Ponzi scheme that raised more than $40 million in fraudulent payments from investors. Pinkett was also sentenced to three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $18,774,989 in restitution.


The two years that most frauds are conducted before they are discovered tells most risk managers that even effective accounting and audit controls can't catch these white collar criminals before it's too late. The high risk low frequency incidents are the greatest impact on your institution and yet little or no resources, training or attention is paid to these threats to your reputation and economic livelihood.

Now let's take this step further into what practices you have with exiting employees from your business. Are you conducting exit interviews? Are you examining all of the employee's digital assets for the presence of anti-forensics or the ex-filtration or theft of sensitive, proprietary trade secrets or intellectual property from the corporation? Both of these steps are necessary regardless of the person leaving and the circumstances why they are leaving your institution.

The utilization of "Remote Digital Forensics" and other centralized shared services such as this can provide your Business Units and even suppliers with capabilities that they don't need to staff internally. The technologies and resources exist today to address the stealth of fraud, the crisis stemming from industrial espionage or the disgruntled employee stalking those who they perceive as the reason for their dismissal.

An effective internal approach to high tech and advanced Operational Risk Management as it pertains to the rapidly changing landscape of smart, educated and daring people shall include a robust intelligence and audit capacity. Without it, the transnational eCrime syndicates or the internal employee threat will prey on your vulnerabilities of complacency, lack of training and apathetic approach to the design, configuration or implementation of your systems.