Technology Security: Do You Think There Is A Need For C ✓ Solved

Technology Security: Do you think that there is a need for c

Technology Security: Do you think that there is a need for classifying individual parts of a network? What is its importance in real-world applications? How can information asset security be enhanced by control techniques? How are the exposure and issues of logical access control explored with the help of access control software?

Protection of the IT Architecture and Assets: How are the risks of natural events mitigated through control measures of physical security? Why has business continuity been recognized as a fundamental component of management’s role in achieving good corporate governance? Do you think that displacement control can cover a variety of threats? If yes, then in what ways? If not, then why not? Do you think that use of e-Commerce can impose serious challenges on organizations? Why or why not?

Paper For Above Instructions

Classification of network parts serves as a foundational practice in modern security architecture. By delineating perimeters, core networks, DMZs, and internal segments, organizations establish distinct trust boundaries and tailor security controls to each zone's risk profile. This segmentation enables targeted access policies, minimizes blast radii in the event of a breach, and supports more precise logging and monitoring. In real-world enterprise environments, segmentation underpins threat modeling, incident response, and compliance efforts, allowing security teams to deploy deeper protections where they are most needed while reducing unnecessary friction elsewhere (Stallings, 2013). The practice also facilitates scalable security management as networks evolve toward cloud adoption and hybrid architectures. As networks grow in complexity, a well-considered classification scheme becomes essential for consistent security posture across diverse environments (ISO/IEC 27001, 2013).)

Beyond structural benefits, network classification supports risk-based decision making and helps prioritize controls based on data sensitivity and business impact. Real-world applications increasingly demand flexible, policy-driven approaches such as micro-segmentation in cloud ecosystems, where automated policy enforcement and continuous verification are critical. In regulated sectors like finance and healthcare, segmentation aligns with data-handling requirements, privacy protections, and auditable traceability. Therefore, network classification is not merely a design preference; it is a practical necessity for achieving resilient, compliant, and cost-effective security operations (NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, 2020; ISO/IEC 27001, 2013).)

Information asset security can be enhanced through layered control techniques that protect confidentiality, integrity, and availability. A multi-layered approach combines access control, encryption, monitoring, and asset management to create defenses that compensate for gaps in any single measure. Formal ISMS structures, such as ISO 27001, provide governance, risk assessment, and continuous improvement mechanisms, while concrete technical mappings from NIST controls offer actionable guidance for implementing protections. Regular asset inventories, data classification, and robust change management reduce data leakage risk and enable timely detection of anomalous activity, all of which contribute to stronger overall information security postures (ISO/IEC 27001, 2013; NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, 2020).)

In practice, control techniques are implemented through policy-based enforcement, encryption at rest and in transit, secure configuration baselines, and ongoing monitoring. Access governance tools enable ongoing attestation of user privileges, while cryptographic protections safeguard information even if a system is breached. The synergy between technical controls and organizational measures—such as security training, incident response planning, and third-party risk management—drives resilience and compliance with standards like ISO 27002 and ISO 22301. Effective programs combine technical rigor with governance discipline to maintain trust and business continuity in the face of evolving threats (Whitman & Mattord, 2019; ISO/IEC 27002, 2013; ISO 22301, 2012).)

Logical access control exposes include privilege creep, over-privileged accounts, and inconsistent entitlements across systems. Access control software, including identity and access management (IAM) platforms, can reveal these issues through dashboards, audit trails, and policy simulations. Poorly defined roles, default accounts, and weak authentication schemes worsen the risk of unauthorized access. Regular entitlement reviews, separation of duties, and strict least-privilege enforcement are essential to reduce exposure and improve assurance in multi-domain environments (Sandhu, Coyne, Feinstein, & Youman, 1996; NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, 2020).)

Access control software also enables enforcement of RBAC and ABAC models, centralized policy management, and auditable activity logs. However, effective deployment requires careful alignment with business processes, inventories of resources and users, and cross-system synchronization to prevent policy drift. Automation supports timely revocation of access when personnel change roles or leave the organization, while multifactor authentication and context-aware checks strengthen resilience against credential theft. Model-based access control remains a core foundation for secure, scalable implementations, as highlighted in the literature on RBAC and modern access control paradigms (Sandhu et al., 1996; Whitman & Mattord, 2019).)

Natural events pose physical threats to IT assets, including floods, earthquakes, and extreme temperatures. Mitigation relies on layered physical security controls: careful site selection, robust building design, reinforced enclosures, access controls, surveillance, and environmental controls such as fire suppression and climate control. Redundancy, offsite backups, and geographic distribution further reduce vulnerability by providing recovery options when a site is incapacitated. International standards encourage organizations to embed these measures within an overarching resilience strategy. Effective physical security and environmental controls are essential components of business continuity planning and disaster recovery (ISO 22301, 2012; NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, 2020).)

Business continuity has become central to governance because it directly ties to organizational resilience, regulatory expectations, and stakeholder confidence. A formal BCM program ensures that critical processes can continue or rapidly resume after disruptions, safeguarding revenue, reputation, and customer trust. Boards increasingly require evidence of risk management maturity, incident coordination, and tested recovery plans. Standards such as ISO 22301 formalize roles, governance structures, and performance metrics, aligning operational risk management with strategic objectives and helping organizations meet fiduciary duties (ISO 22301, 2012; NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, 2020).)

Effective governance of continuity also demands executive sponsorship, clear ownership of business impact analyses, and regular exercising of response procedures. Distributing control across business units, IT, facilities, and procurement creates a holistic, cross-functional approach that improves organizational learning. While the initial investment can be high, the long-term benefits include reduced downtime costs, improved customer confidence, and a stronger competitive position during crises. The literature emphasizes leadership commitment and ongoing assurance activities as the backbone of successful BCM programs (Whitman & Mattord, 2019; ISO 22301, 2012).)

Displacement control, interpreted as the strategic use of controls to displace threats across domains, can cover several threat categories, including cyber, physical, and supply-chain disruptions. By relocating risk to more controllable environments or by spreading assets and functions across multiple sites and suppliers, organizations can reduce single points of failure. This approach aligns with resilience thinking and diversification strategies advocated by security management literature (Stallings, 2013; NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, 2020).)

However, displacement control cannot address all risk types. Some threats are systemic or existential (e.g., global cyber events, large-scale natural disasters) and require complementary controls such as redundancy, agile response, and robust governance. Dependency on third parties introduces additional risk, including vendor conflicts and data sovereignty concerns. A balanced strategy combines displacement with prevention, detection, and response capabilities to reduce overall risk exposure (ISO 22301, 2012; Sandhu et al., 1996).)

To mitigate these challenges, organizations should implement end-to-end security controls across the e-commerce lifecycle: secure software development, tokenization, encryption, robust authentication, continuous monitoring, and incident response planning. Vendor risk management and third-party assessments help ensure partners meet minimum security standards. Education and awareness for employees and customers reduce social engineering risks. The literature emphasizes a coordinated governance approach, aligning business goals with security controls, regulatory compliance, and operational resilience (Whitman & Mattord, 2019; NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, 2020).)

Overall, classification, access controls, physical security, BCM, and e-commerce security require integrated governance and continuous improvement. By combining network classification, robust access controls, robust physical safeguards, and proactive business continuity planning, organizations can achieve resilient operations even in the face of evolving threats. The integration of standards-based frameworks—ISO, NIST, and industry best practices—supports measurable improvements, regulatory alignment, and sustained trust among customers and stakeholders (ISO/IEC 27001, 2013; NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, 2020; ISO 22301, 2012; PCI DSS Council, 2022).)

References

  1. Stallings, W. (2013). Network Security Essentials (5th ed.). Pearson.
  2. Anderson, R. (2020). Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems. Wiley.
  3. ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements. ISO/IEC.
  4. ISO/IEC 27002:2013 Information technology — Security techniques — Code of practice for information security controls. ISO/IEC.
  5. ISO 22301:2012 Societal security — Business continuity management systems — Requirements. ISO.
  6. NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5: Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations. (2020). National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  7. NIST SP 800-37 Rev. 2: Guide for Applying the Risk Management Framework to Federal Information Systems. (2018). National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  8. Sandhu, R. S., Coyne, E. J., Feinstein, H. L., Youman, C. E. (1996). Role-Based Access Control Models. IEEE Computer.
  9. Whitman, M. E., Mattord, H. J. (2019). Principles of Information Security. Cengage.
  10. PCI Security Standards Council. (2022). PCI Data Security Standard (PCI DSS). PCI Security Standards Council.

Related Assignments