The policy document is the continuation of analysis and identification of the risks regarding the current security policies and set up. It is also found from the analysis of the current system that there have been various risks related to the system that are still needed to be addressed or solved. The policies were needed to be modified, and various new steps are taken to address the related risks.
The policy demonstrated the AUP or Acceptable Use Policy. It also includes the lines of the ISO27000 family. It also links the BYOD, or the “Bring Your Device Policy” to the AUP. The integrity, confidentiality and the availability of the challenges information assets are analyzed here.
The BYOD program involves the students and parents to bring their mobile devices supporting the learning and teaching tasks. For the program, the mobile device indicates the student-owned device like the laptop, iPod touch, suitable phone and tablet. It must be reminded that the personal gaming devices are not permitted in the program.
This risk analysis policy has documented the authority of University of Hertfordshire for conducting the investigations and taking actions as needed to analyze the risks in the university. It intends to mitigate the measures for reducing, eliminating and managing the risks. The document specifies when and how the risk analysis could be done and who have been behind those responsibilities. Further, the policy determines how the risks could be identified for remediating it. It is conducted keeping the authority of the Chief Security Officer.
This policy applies to every data and systems on the organizational network operated or owned by the university. The policy is efficient since the date issues never expire till it gets superseded by any other policy. However various risks analysis is particular to the system, the entire risk to the organization is needed to be considered. Moreover, the general risk analysis of the university functions is evaluated periodically like the risks to the network.
Risk: The chance of an undesirable outcome along with the harm that could occur.
Risk assessment: This is the analysis of every possible risk with the implemented and non-implemented solutions for managing, eliminating and reducing the risks.
Threat: It could be accidental, deliberate or result from any nature.
The staff members must perform the risk analysis. They must be familiar with the security and technology. The leader here must be the security officer. The technical support staff and the business owners must supply the information of risk assessment.
The method is defined by the process of risk assessment. The process must be upgraded as needed. This is because of the outcomes of incidents and audits.
The management of the university should define the scopes of risk analysis and develop the risk analysis team to guide the process.
As the procedure is not defined, the team must determine them.
The system must be evaluated by determining if the system is critical to the business process of organization and recognizing the security needs and data classification.
The threats must be listed as the exploitation of the vulnerability.
The vulnerabilities must be identified.
Evaluate the security controls.
The identification of probabilities.
The impact of the quality damage.
The risk levels must be determined.
In the effort to the parents, guardians and students to take part in the BYOD program, the responsibilities and conditions added must be accepted as stated in the BYOD linked to the AUP as shown below. They must first read, then sign and return from this document.
References
Blaisdell, J., Kelly, M., Lang, M., Muldoon, K. and Toner, J., 2014. Embracing “Bring Your Own Device”: Balancing the Risks of Security Breaches. Impact of Emerging Digital Technologies on Leadership in Global Business, p.113.
Bruder, P., 2014. Gadgets go to school: The benefits and risks of BYOD (bring your own device). The Education Digest, 80(3), p.15.
Cavusoglu, H., Cavusoglu, H., Son, J.Y. and Benbasat, I., 2015. Institutional pressures in security management: Direct and indirect influences on organizational investment in information security control resources. Information & management, 52(4), pp.385-400.
Crossler, R.E., Johnston, A.C., Lowry, P.B., Hu, Q., Warkentin, M. and Baskerville, R., 2013. Future directions for behavioral information security research. computers & security, 32, pp.90-101.
Fielder, A., Panaousis, E., Malacaria, P., Hankin, C. and Smeraldi, F., 2014, June. Game theory meets information security management. In IFIP International Information Security Conference (pp. 15-29). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Gamundani, A.M. and Uuzombala, K.N., 2016. A review of organizational information security acceptable use policy implementation. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, 14(9), p.474.
Gkamas, V., Paraskevas, M. and Varvarigos, E., 2016, August. Design of a Secure BYOD Policy for the Greek School Network: A Case Study. In Computational Science and Engineering (CSE) and IEEE Intl Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing (EUC) and 15th Intl Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications for Business Engineering (DCABES), 2016 IEEE Intl Conference on (pp. 557-560). IEEE.
Hallett, J. and Aspinall, D., 2017, May. Capturing Policies for BYOD. In IFIP International Conference on ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection (pp. 310-323). Springer, Cham.
Hinkes, A., 2014. BYOD policies: a litigation perspective. Retrieved, 6(10), p.2014.
Ifinedo, P., 2014. Information systems security policy compliance: An empirical study of the effects of socialisation, influence, and cognition. Information & Management, 51(1), pp.69-79.
Kulkarni, G., Shelke, R., Palwe, R., Solanke, V., Belsare, S. and Mohite, S., 2014, April. Mobile cloud computing-bring your own device. In Communication Systems and Network Technologies (CSNT), 2014 Fourth International Conference on (pp. 565-568). IEEE.
Layton, T.P., 2016. Information Security: Design, implementation, measurement, and compliance. CRC Press.
Narain Singh, A., Gupta, M.P. and Ojha, A., 2014. Identifying factors of “organizational information security management”. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(5), pp.644-667.
Nazareth, D.L. and Choi, J., 2015. A system dynamics model for information security management. Information & Management, 52(1), pp.123-134.
Peltier, T.R., 2016. Information Security Policies, Procedures, and Standards: guidelines for effective information security management. CRC Press.
Rhodes-Ousley, M., 2013. Information security: the complete reference. McGraw Hill Education.
Safa, N.S., Sookhak, M., Von Solms, R., Furnell, S., Ghani, N.A. and Herawan, T., 2015. Information security conscious care behaviour formation in organizations. Computers & Security, 53, pp.65-78.
Sellers, M.R., 2016. Future Privacy and Security Controls. Attack prevention.
Siponen, M., Mahmood, M.A. and Pahnila, S., 2014. Employees’ adherence to information security policies: An exploratory field study. Information & management, 51(2), pp.217-224.
Siponen, M., Mahmood, M.A. and Pahnila, S., 2014. Employees’ adherence to information security policies: An exploratory field study. Information & management, 51(2), pp.217-224.
Tu, Z. and Yuan, Y., 2014. Critical success factors analysis on effective information security management: A literature review.
Von Solms, R. and Van Niekerk, J., 2013. From information security to cyber security. computers & security, 38, pp.97-102.