The problem is a clear-cut conflict of interest when you have a professional services firm doing both financial auditing and network security reviews for the same company. It's a known fact that auditing firms make more money off of financial audits than network services, and I believe there are a few public cases where security reviews have been skewed/glossed over/spun in a manner not to piss the customer off, particularly when they are paying BIG BUCKS for the financial audit part of the contract. With respects, I for one would not want the same Big Whatever Firm doing my network security reviews if they were also doing my finances. It comes down to the question of do you want the truth, or the illusion of the truth? rf
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 23:38:04 -0500 (EST) To: Patrick Greenwell <patrick@cybernothing.org> Cc: David Lesher <wb8foz@nrk.com>, nanog list <nanog@merit.edu> Subject: Network security: The auditors point of view
On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
I have no personal knowledge of the DOI's infrastructure, and unless you do, I think we're all left to speculate as to whether or not the "home page server" of the DOI had access to the Indian trust data. My speculation would be that it does if it's Internet connected...
The great thing about our government is public oversight. It may be embarrassing to the managers involved, but Interior's computer security is detailed in several places.
Information Security: Weak Controls Place Interior's Financial and Other Data at Risk. July 3 2001.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01615.pdf
DoI responds: "While this audit, as well as previous audits, have identified areas where NBC-Denver can improve its management controls, none of these audits has ever shown that the integrity of the financial data has ever been compromised. Our on-going operations have provided our customers accurate financial information and timely delivery of services."