Cybersecurity chief sees 'business approach' at DHS

IDG News Service - The atmosphere in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is one of chaotic energy, akin to that of a dot-com, but the new agency will need a more businesslike approach to successfully fight terrorism, according to Robert Liscouski, assistant secretary of homeland security.
Liscouski was in Framingham, Mass., yesterday to discuss the government's plans to fight cyberterrorism and protect the nation's critical infrastructure.
As the assistant secretary for homeland security for infrastructure protection in the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate (IAIP), Liscouski is responsible for overseeing programs to secure the nation's critical infrastructure and core services, including the DHS's new cybersecurity division.
Liscouski said that the DHS must first answer fundamental questions about its mission and functions such as, "What business are we in?" and "Is this the right business to be in?" Like a business, it must also define both short- and long-term objectives, be willing to experiment with different techniques on a small scale and react quickly to the emergence of new threats or further terrorist attacks.
Fit and tanned, wearing pressed slacks and a casual, short-sleeve shirt, Liscouski looked more like an executive who just wrapped up 18 holes of golf than a government employee within the leviathan DHS. With extensive experience in law enforcement and the private sector, including a stint as director of information assurance at The Coca-Cola Co., he expressed skepticism about the big-program approach favored by federal agencies.
"My motto is 'Think big, act small, scale fast,'" Liscouski said.
Such an approach will help in the battle against terrorism, where the U.S. government has to learn to "think like terrorists" in order to anticipate attacks and quickly respond to new threats and attacks, he said.
The emphasis on private-sector strategies was a recurrent theme for Liscouski throughout an hour-long question-and-answer session.
On the issue of whether the government should mandate that corporations owning critical infrastructure comply with federal security standards, Liscouski came down hard on the side of voluntary compliance with industry "best practices" instead of government oversight. He called audits for compliance with regulations "post facto" events and questioned the efficacy of recent efforts at regulation such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
Passing audits doesn't make organizations secure, he said.
Noting that 80% of the nation's critical infrastructure is in private hands, Liscouski said that the private sector "owns" the problem of securing it and should be allowed to develop its own solutions to the problem with help and guidance from the federal government.