One of the most important components of data privacy and security is being compliant with the regulations that call for the protection of information.

Regulators want to see transparency and controllability within organizations, because that is what makes them trustworthy from a data privacy and security standpoint. Ideally, organizations will deploy systems that provide compelling evidence to support their claims that they are meeting their requirements to deliver the protection and performance needed by stakeholders.

Protecting data from theft and improper use has long been the domain of cybersecurity and IT executives. But today, this is really a concern for the entire C-suite and, in many cases, the board of directors, all of whom are well aware of the repercussions of a data breach and failing to comply with regulations.

There is simply too much at risk when companies don’t ensure a level of control and trust in how they handle data. This is the case because of several converging trends:

The ongoing growth in the volume of business data, including a huge amount of information about customers and employees — much of it personal and personally identifiable.The importance this data holds from a strategic standpoint. Companies rely on the insights they gain from analyzing market data to provide a competitive advantage.An ever-expanding threat landscape, with increasingly sophisticated and well-financed cybercriminals going after this data for profit.A disappearing enterprise “perimeter” with the increase in cloud services, remote work and mobile devices used by employees in various locations. The idea of a fixed perimeter protected by a firewall no longer applies to most organizations.

In the midst of all this is the increase in government regulations designed to hold organizations accountable for how they gather, store, share and use data. An organization that fails to comply with such regulations can face stiff fines and other penalties, as well as negative publicity and damage to its brand.

Gaining trust and control

One of the challenges with establishing control and trust with data is a lack of visibility regarding the data: where it resides, who has access to it, how it is being used, etc. Organizations need to know their level of risk and how risk can be mitigated, as well as their level of progress in enhancing data security and privacy.

Endpoint devices present a particularly high level of cyber risk, because of the challenges of managing a large and growing number of mobile devices and apps in the workplace, as well as desktops and laptops used for remote work. Many threat actors target corporate data for theft and extortion, and endpoint devices present potential entry points into an organization.

The endpoint attack surface has expanded quickly over the past few years,

thanks in large part to the growth of remote and hybrid work. For many organizations, there is a sense that the attack surface is spiraling out of control, because of the challenge of gaining visibility and control of this environment. They realize that just a single compromised endpoint could result in an attack that causes significant financial and reputational damage.

Unfortunately, few tools on the market are designed specifically to monitor and manage cyber risk on a unified basis. Organizations have had to stitch together point solutions to get by. And in many cases, they lack data that is current, accurate, comprehensive, and contextual.

In addition, many organizations lack the ability to measure and compare corporate risk scores with industry peers; quickly take action after risk is scored; set goals for vulnerability remediation; and prioritize which areas to spend limited security resources on.

In order to build trust and gain better control of data, organizations need to leverage technology that gives them the ability to know how vulnerable their critical assets are, whether they are achieving their goals to improve security posture, how they measure up against industry peers; and what they should be doing to become more secure.

Ideally, technology tools should be able to provide organizations with real-time comparisons with industry peers in areas such as systems vulnerability, outstanding patches and lateral movement risk.

From a visibility standpoint, tools should identify vulnerability and compliance gaps across all endpoints used in an organization, enabling organizations to prioritize those issues that represent the highest risk, visualize complex relationships between assets and collect real-time feedback. They should be able to track each asset by collecting comprehensive data on all endpoints in real time.

In terms of control, security tools need to help organizations greatly reduce the attack surface by managing patches, software updates and configurations. Metrics should provide a clear sense of progress over time and indicate where improvements are needed.

From a trust perspective, tools should provide a single, accurate view of risks, enabling risk scoring and dashboards that give executives a clear sense of the level of risks and how they can be mitigated.

When it comes to ensuring compliance with data privacy regulations, IT and security leaders need to establish trust and control within their organizations’ environments. That’s the only way to demonstrate to regulators — as well as to customers, employees and business partners — that they are taking data privacy seriously and taking the necessary steps.

The most effective ways to be compliant and at the same time enhance data security are to gain greater visibility into the organization’s infrastructure, including every endpoint device, evaluate the effectiveness of security solutions and make needed improvements, and compare risk metrics with those of comparable organizations.

Assess the risk of your organization with the Tanium Risk Assessment. Your customized risk report will include your risk score, proposed implementation plan, how you compare to industry peers, and more.

Data Privacy

One of the most important components of data privacy and security is being compliant with the regulations that call for the protection of information.

Regulators want to see transparency and controllability within organizations, because that is what makes them trustworthy from a data privacy and security standpoint. Ideally, organizations will deploy systems that provide compelling evidence to support their claims that they are meeting their requirements to deliver the protection and performance needed by stakeholders.

Protecting data from theft and improper use has long been the domain of cybersecurity and IT executives. But today, this is really a concern for the entire C-suite and, in many cases, the board of directors, all of whom are well aware of the repercussions of a data breach and failing to comply with regulations.

There is simply too much at risk when companies don’t ensure a level of control and trust in how they handle data. This is the case because of several converging trends:

The ongoing growth in the volume of business data, including a huge amount of information about customers and employees — much of it personal and personally identifiable.The importance this data holds from a strategic standpoint. Companies rely on the insights they gain from analyzing market data to provide a competitive advantage.An ever-expanding threat landscape, with increasingly sophisticated and well-financed cybercriminals going after this data for profit.A disappearing enterprise “perimeter” with the increase in cloud services, remote work and mobile devices used by employees in various locations. The idea of a fixed perimeter protected by a firewall no longer applies to most organizations.

In the midst of all this is the increase in government regulations designed to hold organizations accountable for how they gather, store, share and use data. An organization that fails to comply with such regulations can face stiff fines and other penalties, as well as negative publicity and damage to its brand.

Gaining trust and control

One of the challenges with establishing control and trust with data is a lack of visibility regarding the data: where it resides, who has access to it, how it is being used, etc. Organizations need to know their level of risk and how risk can be mitigated, as well as their level of progress in enhancing data security and privacy.

Endpoint devices present a particularly high level of cyber risk, because of the challenges of managing a large and growing number of mobile devices and apps in the workplace, as well as desktops and laptops used for remote work. Many threat actors target corporate data for theft and extortion, and endpoint devices present potential entry points into an organization.

The endpoint attack surface has expanded quickly over the past few years,

thanks in large part to the growth of remote and hybrid work. For many organizations, there is a sense that the attack surface is spiraling out of control, because of the challenge of gaining visibility and control of this environment. They realize that just a single compromised endpoint could result in an attack that causes significant financial and reputational damage.

Unfortunately, few tools on the market are designed specifically to monitor and manage cyber risk on a unified basis. Organizations have had to stitch together point solutions to get by. And in many cases, they lack data that is current, accurate, comprehensive, and contextual.

In addition, many organizations lack the ability to measure and compare corporate risk scores with industry peers; quickly take action after risk is scored; set goals for vulnerability remediation; and prioritize which areas to spend limited security resources on.

In order to build trust and gain better control of data, organizations need to leverage technology that gives them the ability to know how vulnerable their critical assets are, whether they are achieving their goals to improve security posture, how they measure up against industry peers; and what they should be doing to become more secure.

Ideally, technology tools should be able to provide organizations with real-time comparisons with industry peers in areas such as systems vulnerability, outstanding patches and lateral movement risk.

From a visibility standpoint, tools should identify vulnerability and compliance gaps across all endpoints used in an organization, enabling organizations to prioritize those issues that represent the highest risk, visualize complex relationships between assets and collect real-time feedback. They should be able to track each asset by collecting comprehensive data on all endpoints in real time.

In terms of control, security tools need to help organizations greatly reduce the attack surface by managing patches, software updates and configurations. Metrics should provide a clear sense of progress over time and indicate where improvements are needed.

From a trust perspective, tools should provide a single, accurate view of risks, enabling risk scoring and dashboards that give executives a clear sense of the level of risks and how they can be mitigated.

When it comes to ensuring compliance with data privacy regulations, IT and security leaders need to establish trust and control within their organizations’ environments. That’s the only way to demonstrate to regulators — as well as to customers, employees and business partners — that they are taking data privacy seriously and taking the necessary steps.

The most effective ways to be compliant and at the same time enhance data security are to gain greater visibility into the organization’s infrastructure, including every endpoint device, evaluate the effectiveness of security solutions and make needed improvements, and compare risk metrics with those of comparable organizations.

Assess the risk of your organization with the Tanium Risk Assessment. Your customized risk report will include your risk score, proposed implementation plan, how you compare to industry peers, and more.

Data Privacy

Comedian John Oliver quipped that cryptocurrency is “everything you don’t understand about money combined with everything you don’t understand about technology.”  He missed another area of notorious confusion: the law.  The great regulatory bureaucracy has awakened to the significance of blockchain-enabled technology, led by the SEC. 

The government is certain that cryptocurrency must be regulated, but it is faced with a knotty question: What kind of asset is cryptocurrency?  Security?  Commodity?  Currency?  Something else?  Meanwhile, technologists and entrepreneurs are creating new applications that affect the answer. 

The new engine of innovation that the crypto markets looks a lot like the corporate stock shares we are familiar with, except with fewer intermediaries and less (you guessed it) regulation.  Ventures can mint tokens that are representative of the underlying technology, thereby funding business activities with a mechanism directly tied to those activities.  This drives innovation because innovators are free to embark on funding efforts without third party involvement, and the market is able to reward success and punish failure with minimal interference.

The resemblance to stocks has not gone unnoticed by the SEC.  In fact, the capacity of cryptocurrency to act as an investment vehicle is the hinge upon which the future of the crypto industry will turn.  Such vehicles are regulated as securities in federal law.  So, we return to the nuanced question of what kind of asset are crypto currencies?

Currency, security, or commodity

The obvious answer is cryptocurrencies are currencies!  It’s there in the name.  BitCoin started the whole industry by proposing to create a digital currency to stand alongside fiat currencies as a medium of exchange.  But cryptocurrencies have expanded far beyond this notion, and even in the case of a straight crypto coin like BitCoin, the asset doesn’t behave like currency.

The next bucket into which crypto assets might fall is commodities.  Commodities are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).  These include assets like gold, oil, and wheat—in general, a commodity is any asset that is an item of value, and the financial activity around it is based on the changing supply and demand for that item.  Strangely, for a non-physical entity, BitCoin and its relatives share some characteristics with this asset class:  Because blockchain transactions are permanent entries in the global ledger, they can be traded and valued something like a commodity. 

The final traditional asset class to consider is securities.  The Howey test (based on a case from the 1940s that established the SEC’s area of authority) is a standard test for determining whether something is a security.  The three distinguishing characteristics of securities are:

A. The investment of money

B. Common enterprise

C. Reasonable expectation of profits derived from efforts of others

The first two characteristics are fairly easy to establish in the case of most digital assets.  ‘C’ however is more difficult to determine, and this is where we return to the observation that crypto assets act a lot like shares, which is precisely what ‘C’ is driving at. 

The universe of digital assets has a wide range of nuanced differences, bearing characteristics of all three asset classes—currency, commodity, and security—in varying helpings. 

We can start to get an understanding of how the SEC is thinking about these questions by looking at what SEC chair Gary Gensler said about BitCoin being a different animal from the rest. He has said on a couple occasions that BitCoin, and only BitCoin, is a commodity. 

This has been backed up with action.  In May, the SEC doubled its crypto enforcement arm and renamed it to “Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit”.   It opened a probe with Coinbase and has initiated an insider trading case that incorporates a securities charge, which would bring at least some crypto projects under the SEC’s jurisdiction.

These moves were criticized by CFTC commissioner Caroline Pham who said they were a “striking example of ‘regulation by enforcement,’”  a critique that suggests both that the CFTC is interested in finding its footing in regulating the space and that clarity in the field is lacking.

Why classification matters

The general consensus is that by being classed as securities, the crypto industry will be more heavily regulated, but it also stand to grow more expansively as it matures.  As a commodity, crypto would be less regulated, but also more limited in terms of growth. 

Stepping back, it seems pretty clear that crypto-enabled digital assets are a new kind of thing, bearing characteristics of each asset category depending on the project.  For example, some projects are explicitly invoking the stock fundraising model with “initial coin offerings” (ICO), the crypto equivalent of the traditional IPO.  This is why the SEC has a spotlight on ICOs.

It is likely that we’ll start to see litmus tests that determine what camp crypto projects fall into, with securities demanding the most rigorous vetting.  All of this will of course increase the overhead in running these projects, slowing innovation in the short term.  In the long term, approval at the federal levels will bring greater adoption and more investment into the space.

In the middle term, we’ll see a convergence of traditional stock markets and crypto exchanges—something that is already happening.  The FTX crypto exchange recently included stocks, while Webull, a more traditional exchange, includes crypto. 

The ongoing battle

Perhaps the most central battle in the larger war is that between the SEC and Ripple.  Ripple created the XRP coin, designed for blockchain-based payments.  The SEC and Ripple have been locked in an epic legal struggle since December of 0221, when the SEC sued Ripple for raising over a $1 billion via sales of their token, alleging it is an unregistered security.

It’s such a precedent-setting battle on unknown terrain, that hitherto unconsidered issues are arising.  For example, on July 30, 2022 a third party entered the fray claiming cryptographic keys should be redacted from the proceedings, similar to how bank accounts are handled.

The SEC action put a big dent in XRP value and caused it to be delisted from US exchanges like Coinbase.  It also sent a shiver through the entire industry.  The truth is both sides have a point: The streamlined fundraising, married closely to the actual technological medium hold astonishing promise for innovation, but it has great potential for abuse. 

A even-handed approach that avoids forcing crypto assets into existing categories and frameworks is required.  Not only do we want to avoid throwing a wet blanket on the entrepreneurial promise, but blockchains are decentralized global networks, and we don’t want to force them into the shadows but welcome them into the fold in a way that preserves their unique characteristics and gives adequate protection to investors and users.

One size does not fit all in software projects.  A small open-source project looking to fund itself should not be treated with the same instrument as a big enterprise effort.  Hopefully, in addition to a suitable blending of categories, a sensible scaling of laws can be devised, to allow for the space to innovate with agility that is so essential to software projects of all kinds.

Blockchain, Regulation