Fly the Plane is how Dr. Timothy Chester, Vice President of Information Technology, The University of Georgia, characterizes his philosophy and approach to cybersecurity readiness. Dr. Chester spoke at length about a proactive approach to information security management anchored on strategic planning, senior leadership commitment, strong teamwork, sophisticated intelligence monitoring, and robust training and testing practices. His candor and reflection made for a most interesting conversation.

To access and download the entire podcast summary with discussion highlights --

https://www.dchatte.com/episode-11-fly-the-plane-a-cios-approach-to-cybersecurity-readiness/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Connect with Host Dr. Dave Chatterjee and Subscribe to the Podcast

Please subscribe to the podcast so you don't miss any new episodes! And please leave the show a rating if you like what you hear. New episodes release every two weeks.

Connect with Dr. Chatterjee on these platforms:

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dchatte/

Website: https://dchatte.com/

Cybersecurity Readiness Book: https://www.amazon.com/Cybersecurity-Readiness-Holistic-High-Performance-Approach/dp/1071837338

Welcome to the Cybersecurity Readiness Podcast

series with Dr. Dave Chatterjee. Dr. Chatterjee is the author of

A Holistic and High-Performance

Approach by Sage publishing. He has been studying cybersecurity

for over a decade, authored and edited scholarly papers,

delivered talks, conducted webinars, consulted with

companies, and served on a cybersecurity SWAT team with

chief information security officers. Dr. Chatterjee is an

Associate Professor of Management Information Systems

at the Terry College of Business, the University of

Georgia and Visiting Professor at Duke University's Pratt

School of Engineering.

Hello, everyone. Welcome to this

episode of the Cybersecurity Readiness Podcast. Today I have

the honor of having Dr. Timothy Chester, Vice President of

Information Technology and Chief Information Officer at the

University of Georgia as our guest. A seasoned C level

executive, Dr. Chester has over two decades experiences in state

supported and private higher education institutions. He has

led large-scale business transformation efforts through

on-time, on-budget ERP implementations, driving

increased revenue and improved student outcome through improved

use of data and analytics. He's an expert practitioner in

developing improved information security programs for large

geographically distributed enterprises, with 50,000 plus

users, virtually eliminating data disclosures. Tim is also

highly regarded for leading IT turnarounds, increasing IT's

reputation as a trusted and respected partner in the pursuit

of strategic goals. Last but not the least, Dr. Chester is a

noted author with over a dozen publications in the field.

Welcome to the podcast Tim.

Dave, let me say first, I'm just delighted

to have the chance to be here with you today. And and I've

really enjoyed reading through your book. I've not finished it

yet. But I think you've done a very masterful job of making a

complex subject accessible to a wide, wide audience of business

professionals. And you should be commended for that, and I offer

you my congratulations, and thank you so much for sharing a

copy with me.

Thank you

You know, I think we stress, well, we use a

phrase in my organization quite a bit; in fact, it's part of our

strategic plan. And that phrase is Fly the Plane. And what this

relates back to is an exercise that I learned a long time ago

when I was a graduate studies student at Texas a&m University

30 years ago; was a little bored on the side and had a little

cash to spend. And so I worked towards a pilot's license and

did a lot of single engine plane flying over the farmlands in the

plains of Central Texas. And you learn very early in pilot

training to always fly the plane. And what that means is

that if you are not constantly anticipating and thinking

through what's fixing to happen and what could happen, frankly

the plan will fly you; you'll have a burst of wind that might

come from from a heat thermal that knocks you off course a

little bit you'll have to course correct to kind of get back

there and if you're not proactive, anticipating way the

things will go on, the plane will fly you and you'll react,

and what you'll find over time is that you will react in more

and more stronger ways which creates a negative reaction that

again you have to react to and frankly that's how disasters

happen in flying a plane. So , we have stressed that in our

organization quite a bit and when we say fly the plane what

we simply mean is through strong teamwork and strategic planning

and foresight we try to think through constantly the types of

scenarios that we could be facing. And we tried to plan for

the the little bitty factors that probably aren't a high

probability of occurring but it could be high impact if they do

occur; so, if you log into the website or you go to the website

for UGA's IT organization to see that flying a plane is a real

stated part of our strategic plan, whether we're planning for

the network performance, network load associated with class

registration or thinking through the possibilities of a

ransomware attack on the University.

That's a interest very interesting

metaphor, I love it, flying the plane; you know, it tells me

about the importance of being very prepared, being pro-active,

knowing or rehearsing how best to deal with different

scenarios; so you can't afford to be caught. blindsided; and

talking about can't afford to be caught blindsided, what are some

cybersecurity blind spots? And how do you cope with them?

Right. Well, you and I, both teach

business process management at the University. It's a strong

set of competencies and skills that I think serve our graduates

really, really well. And part of that is what we call root cause

analysis, right? And the thinking is that surface

explanations and surface understandings tend to not be

comprehensive enough. And we as human beings tend to look for

explanations that would suggest that we didn't necessarily have

a lot of power to deal with something, something really,

really, really bad happens and root cause analysis forces you

to continue asking, Why did this happen? Why did that happen till

you get to a level where you have uncovered a set of

conditions in which you actually had a deliberate amount of

control, you could have done something about that. And, but

our human desire to basically live through rote repetition and

structure that's comfortable and unchanging leads us to be

creatures of habit. And again, creatures of habit who are

following the habits and following the rote behaviors

that they always engage in, typically find themselves in

circumstances sometimes where again, the plane starts flying

them and the way in which they react to that plane, you know,

become wilder and wilder swings that could lead to, to a

disaster. I have really found any guy worked in higher

education and state government as a separate vertical industry.

But I think it's true across the other verticals, whether we're

talking about finance or manufacturing, or, or our

commerce is that people are good, they care about their

employers, they want to do a good job. But we as humans,

again, are most comfortable, when structures tend to be

unchanging, and there's nothing really unexpected going on, and

we tend to assume the best and think that the worst will never

really happen. And that tends to create the environment where

really bad things can happen. Now the most serious of

information security incidents, or breaches tend to be like

plane crashes, again, if I continue to use the aeronautic

kind of metaphor here or analogy, and that planes tend to

crash not because one thing happened unexpectedly but

because multiple things happened at the same point in time, which

create a set of circumstances that allowed something really

you know, low frequency to high impact to, to occur. So a lot of

time in the information security space, the blind spots happen

just because the IT industry and the IT culture, within business

places a premium on good customer service and sometimes

good customer service and a focus on functionality of our

systems, and what we do comes at the expense of maintainability,

compatibility, and information security. So you know, we we

have near misses all the time, we have a good team here, that's

proactive that can catch them. And we had we had a near miss

here recently, with some ransomware. And it really was

all about a very good employee working in a very good unit, you

know, probably doing something that they shouldn't have done to

enable some functionality from one of their key players. And

they did that and and they did that some time ago. And then

next thing you know, it's been a while since the machine was

patched and so on and so forth. And just kind of a constant

layering on of things that probably shouldn't have

happened. That created some some real risk and some some real

vulnerability there. And we were very fortunate that we were, we

became aware of those risks before something before they

were really exploited. But But again, going back to earlier,

you know, we're most comfortable, again, with a lot

of structure and a lot of predictability. And that leads

us to sometimes getting very comfortable allowing the plane

to fly us and the plane will fly us really, really fast if we're

not careful.

Mm hmm. Very true. Talking about being

comfortable, and, you know, operating in a predictable

space, you know, when you think about the hackers and how they

are constantly innovating and coming up with the latest

methods and techniques, it's hard to keep up with them. And

again, that's not what organizations are in the

business of, whether it's an academic organization, or

whether it's some other organization, they have their

own mission, their goals. So and of course, you know, there's

always the budgetary constraints. So under the

circumstances, how do folks like you try to ensure that your team

has the latest experience and expertise in keeping up with

these different evolving attack vectors?

That's a great question. I think the

Department of Homeland Security and the Cybersecurity and

Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), it's a branch of the

Department of Homeland Security, does an exceptionally good job

of creating awareness of a really complex and fast changing

environment. So you know, either through, you know, email, or

through automated feeds and other ways, we get real time

intelligence from the CIA, NSA, multiple times on a daily basis.

So as an executive, I just subscribed to their listservs.

And so today, you know, I've received email messages about

the need to patch vulnerabilities in Google

Chrome. And you know, there's a variety of other commercial

packages out there. So we have, we divide our information

security team up into kind of consulting and helping people

around controls, and then we have an operations arm. And then

a part of that operations arm is around proactively, you know,

patching the environment and creating awareness of the need

to do that. And they help the Institution and its IT staff

stay on, on toes when it comes to this type of changing

environment. The other thing that they do really well also is

they monitor known IP addresses that are out there that are

used, that are known to be distributing malware, or

ransomware, or to be command and control points for existing

installed malware. And, you know, I think, on a daily basis,

or certainly on a weekly basis, we get a feed of those IP

addresses in an automated fashion, our network firewalls

will block ingress and egress both to the to those IP

addresses immediately, which which helps us as well. So I

think that partnership, I think, has been really, really on on

point for helping us stay aware. And then the other thing that we

do is we stay highly engaged with with our counterparts in

the Southeastern Conference schools, as well as our other

peer and aspirational schools and constantly kind of comparing

notes and, and having constant conversations as well as within

the University System of Georgia.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. What about

the rest of the community? Your community in the field of

technology obviously, that's part of your job description,

you have to be on top of your game. But what kind of help and

support can you expect from the other business units, as well as

the individual stakeholders, whether it's faculty members,

whether it's students? What could or should they be doing to

help secure the environment?

Well, for somebody in my role, or for the

CISO role, and one of the most critical things is that you have

executive leadership that understands these

responsibilities aren't siloed responsibilities for the IT

folk, but they are business responsibilities that are shared

by everyone. And I think in the state of Georgia, frankly, that

recognition and that supporting philosophy starts at the top.

Governor Brian Kemp has been a very strong supporter and

advocate across the board for all state institutions to really

raise the game in terms of their cybersecurity defenses, and he

has been quite explicit that it is the division heads and the

CEOs of those major divisions, including the Chancellor of the

University System of Georgia who are ultimately responsible for

assuring the state and the state government that we are doing all

we can to reduce risk and to have the types of controls

around technology and its use that we need to have. Certainly

within the University of Georgia, in the 10 years that I

have been here, we've enjoyed that type of support from the

top, from President Jerry Morehead. He was the number two

at the University 10 years ago when I was hired here and I

worked for him directly for a couple years and now I continue

to work for the Provost, the number two here at the

University. And so that tone really starts at the top and I

can tell you that you know, we have division heads here we call

them Deans or Vice Presidents, they all understand that they

are ultimately responsible to the Institution for managing the

risk, and that my office is a resource and it's supporting arm

but it's a supporting arm, it's not solely responsible for

managing the risk in and of itself. That tone gets set

constantly where the we're doing things with security awareness

training would begin under Governor camps leadership we now

do twice a year. And under the leadership of acting Chancellor

Teresa McCartney at the University System of Georgia

level, there's been a sizable investment in new infrastructure

and supporting platforms for the cyber security training that

Governor Kemp requires us to do twice a year. And so I'm really

fortunate again, I spent the last two days actually before

recording this podcast at the meeting of my counterparts in

the Southeastern Conference, and I think the mix of support and,

and, and real advocacy around information security that we

enjoy at all levels of government have been very, very

helpful to us.

That's very, very assuring, that's good

to hear that you have great support from top management. So,

you know Tim, you were mentioning about my book, one of

the things I've emphasized in the book, which I have gathered

through my research is the importance of hands-on top

management. And I've seen in many companies, the exemplars

where the senior management take on active roles, whether it's in

the aspects of cybersecurity planning, strategizing,

performance review, they obviously are not experts, they

don't claim to be experts, but they try to stay on top of

things. It seems from from what you shared, that's the way your

organization functions. That's the kind of support you have.

Anything that you'd like to add for people who are listening in

and who feel a little frustrated or letdown that they don't see

that level of active commitment. It's a sensitive topic. But I

still thought of probing a little further because,

Yeah, yeah, well, I think part of this may

be is that when, when our president Jerry Morehead was the

provost of the university, and in fact responsible for most of

the operations here at the university, we were getting

burned constantly by cybersecurity incidents. And I

think that created an awareness in him of, of the need to make

sure that this was something that all executives understood

was part of their responsibility to manage well, and I'm not

going to, you know, curse us by mentioning how long it's been

since we've had a major incident. You know, we have near

misses all the time, just like everybody else. But again, I

think that constant diligence coming from the business side,

where we do have an understanding that these are

business responsibilities, first and foremost. So it's been

absolutely critical. I do think it's also really, really

important in terms of ultimately who whoever within an

organization has, the final responsibility and

accountability for these types of risk management activities,

has to basically set at the executive team with the CEO, and

whatever form exists when the when the organization so so I

report to the number two here at the university who's responsible

for academic operations, which is again, 70% of the university.

You know, but the President has staff meeting every two weeks,

and I'm a part of that staff meeting and I have the

opportunity to raise awareness of issues bring visibility to

things that should be be be visible to everyone to be an

advocate for, for sound practices. And, and then, you

know, I'm on a texting and cell phone relationship with the

president, whenever I need to get his attention to some

matter, the President is pretty easy to reach. In fact, you

know, last night coming back from my meeting with my

counterparts in the sec, you know, I debrief the President

on, you know, later a phone call in the evening to kind of

compare notes with things that are going on. So, I do think,

you know, CEOs really understand that these are things that they

have to manage, and frankly, if they don't manage Well, they are

things that wreck careers. And so frankly, that helps, right?

So you go back 10 years ago, a major secure cyber security

problem inside of a business probably, you know, the CIO or

the CIO, or both of them, you know, they are the two parts of

the operation that really had some career risk there. You

know, that that believe that that that awareness that extends

all throughout the organization and certainly at the executive

level, to go back to the the governor of the state, the CEO

of our great state of Georgia, you know, he he had a couple of

incidents on his watch when he was the secretary of state, and

I think he handled The response to those incredibly well, he, he

left the place better than he inherited it. And he has brought

that awareness to all arms at all levels of the state

government, which has been truly, truly helpful.

Yep, that is extremely important, you are

kind of speaking to a couple of things that I emphasize a lot.

One being joint ownership and accountability. And the other is

trying to create that We-Are-In-It-Together culture,

where everybody has to recognize that it's not ITs job or the

information security units job to protect us, we also have a

role to play. It's like the way we are fighting COVID, you know,

we can't just sit back and expect miracles to happen, we

have to recognize our roles, and do our part. From the standpoint

of enhancing level of awareness, you mentioned about, you know,

conducting awareness training twice a year. And that's great.

Now, there is a lot of research out there that speaks to the

importance of customized training, that speaks to the

importance of, you know, role based training, training that

shouldn't be one shot, because people often don't remember the

first time what they were trained in. And and then another

aspect that often doesn't get addressed is are you effectively

measuring the effectiveness of the training? And I know, I

asked you several sub questions, but, you know, take it the way

you're comfortable.

Yeah, I think there's a couple things, I

think we're raising the bar, right. And I mentioned earlier,

this investment in kind of the training and awareness platform

that the University System of Georgia has made, that platform

has a lot of capabilities around, you know, simulate

malware campaigns, and some other kind of tools to really

take an exercise approach to, you know, to helping to kind of

raise the awareness or for your organization. I think the

information security training that we have done in the past

has been quite rote, and frankly, not as polished as it

could be. And this investment of resources by the system, I

think, is really going to raise the bar quite a bit there for

us. And, you know, between that, and I think the commitment from

the executive level organization, I think it's, it's

been, it's really, we have a, we have a quite optimal environment

here at the University of Georgia right now to kind of

continue moving the needle here.

Now, from a communication standpoint, you

know, as a member of the University community, I will

often receive cybersecurity related communications, and, you

know, they're often a long email, and I can, I can

understand that, you know, certain things need to be

mentioned. Now, it's quite possible that when somebody

receives a long email, they might be skimming through it or

might be reading parts of or might just ignore it. You will

appreciate that part of effective communication is to

ensure that the message really gets across to the appropriate

folks. So, keeping that in mind, how do you make cybersecurity

communication more customized and more effective? Have you all

been giving this some thought?

Yeah, well, I think we certainly understand

that we need to do a lot better job at this. You know,

typically, you know, we we have a very structured communication,

you know, management program that goes around our initiatives

and our operations that's designed to raise awareness but

I think you hit the nail on the head is that sometimes those

communications are written from the standpoint of IT folk, which

you know, sometimes uses vocabulary and acronyms that

really aren't well understood. And readers tend to disengage

pretty quickly from that, frankly, the whole question of

whether or not email is the best vehicle for communicating these

things, also continues to be a concern, people don't read email

as much as they used to, and the longer the email, the less,

you're likely to get the message across. So, you know, I think

trying to raise messaging that's targeted to more smaller

audiences is something that we're trying to do. And there's

some upgrades to our multifactor system that we're trying to be

very specific and targeted, as opposed to global like

communications. The other thing we have to do is just make when

we communicate to people, we have to do so in a context that,

you know, is accessible and relevant, you know, through

narrative, you know, what's at stake for me, and what do I have

in this and, again, it has to be very personalized as well. And

again, I think we've got real opportunities to get much, much

better at that. When I came here 10 years ago, the knock used to

be well, you never told us anything that we were doing

this, you know, now we beat people over the head with

communications. But I still wonder sometimes whether the

message is truly getting through. And the use of social

media is becoming an important part of that as well. Although

I'm not, you know, sending a mass listserv to 50,000 people

versus posting something on Twitter, you know, to a much

smaller audience repetitively I'm not sure the the social

media gets this broader reach. But, you know, we're trying to

take multiple avenues and use multiple, you know, tags at the

messaging to more specific audiences to get the word out,

get the word across.

That's great to hear, you know, for

instance, from a faculty members perspective, you know, it'd be

good to know that, given the role I play at the university,

what are some do's and don'ts from a cyber security

standpoint? Now, is this information not available, no it

is available, it's out there, but to get it in my inbox in a

very targeted manner, and then, from time to time being reminded

that these are the things that you should focus on. That helps

simplify things a little bit, as compared to a broad brush

approach, where you're being told, what are the sensitive

assets, and what are some scenarios that you should be

careful about. That's a little too generic. So that's just my

two cents. But I appreciate the candor and the recognition that

we can do better.

So the other I just added that really,

really quickly. I mean, so we get we were at Auburn University

for this meeting of my counterparts in the last couple

of days. Auburn has done a really good job with messaging

around posters on entryways, you know, for their computer labs,

screensavers, and things like that. And that's probably

another opportunity where we need to get the word out a lot,

a lot more.

That's a good, that's a good approach.

That's a great approach indeed. All right, so the next topic

that is also very close to my heart, is security audits and

drills. You know, something that I talk about a lot when I'm out

there, I say, you know, we have fire drills, do we have

information security drills? Do we plan for distributed denial

of service attacks and, and ransomware attacks? And now, I

know it's easier said than done, and organizations do tabletop

exercises, but in your role as the the person, the technology

Person of the university, are you happy with the rehearsals

that we have in place? Or can we do better?

Yeah, you know, I think we think we're

doing well here; we certainly always can do better, but, you

know, we really have implemented, you know, kind of

the gold standard approach to to, to a security operation

center. And a part of that center is, you know, a red team

versus a blue team and the red team are the friendly hackers

who you know, are empowered to probe our ourselves and our

systems and look for vulnerabilities and so, again,

being here, you know, at an institution we are able to

employ graduate students, we are able to employ undergraduate

students, as well as some professional employees and so we

are constantly trying to hack the hell out of ourselves, using

many of the common methods that are out there and you know,

moving the needle in terms of not only just penetration but

also thinking about malware and ransomware there there are some

tools out there that are now available we're looking at

acquiring which well you know, with with some intelligence

agents scattered around your enterprise will tell you really

quickly how easy it is to drop malware and other things. So we

are constantly hoping to discover the major risks and

vulnerabilities we have before others do; and again we're not

perfect yet; we're so big, we often miss things. But there's a

huge investment in resources to do that. And it is always you

know, I have to be careful about some of the stories I would

share but again, you will appreciate this given your

expertise and your rich experience in consulting, many

times when vendors and implementers you know, install

major infrastructure on campus and they walk away from they

flip the switch on, they don't change the default password to

things. And so we've discovered major things here at the

University from from Hvac equipment to scoreboard and

athletic venues, that if you knew what kind of make and model

the thing was and you knew how to use Google to find the, the

the manual of instructions and how to go find that and get the

default username and password. If you're on campus, you could

actually control that stuff. And, you know, there have been

several vulnerabilities like that that had been discovered.

And you know, really that goes right back to the question of

blind spots, right? So you got an implementer, my job is to

implement and turn it on, they'll figure that other stuff

out. And then you got customers who bought for; well, we paid

these experts to do it. So they had to do it, right, we're in

good shape. There's a blind spot between two well intentioned

good groups of people working their best to do a hard job. And

so again, constantly attacking ourselves, again, using the well

understood red team approach is something we are very aggressive

with.

Yep, that's, that's very true; and

talking about vulnerabilities and talking about discovering

vulnerabilities, another you know, area of great concern to

me is, we keep reading about these stories in the media that

this organization was made aware, but did nothing about it

until it happened, right. And so I wonder, from an operation

standpoint, I'm sure you all have a mechanism in place where

you're logging all the intelligence you're receiving,

and then you are evaluating them, and then either acting or

not acting, but at least you're on record explaining your reason

for your decisions. So this way, you're maintaining a rigorous

record of how you handling intelligence, which later on,

I'm not a legal expert, but I think, you know, if you had to

defend the organization, you could say that we've done

everything, and this is how we thought during that period of

time. So you kind of backup your actions, your reactions to that?

Yeah, and let me just give you a little

context. First, you know, research flagships like the

University of Georgia, you know, our, our, you know, vertical

industries, like finance, or manufacturing, we are Research

and Innovation conglomerates. And we have 18 major units here

at the institution, colleges and schools that are invested in

innovation in their fields. So we allow for a wide variety of

different than non standard approaches to running

technology, because it supports Research and Engineering or

business, research in the areas that you do Dave, public health,

so on, and so forth. So that kind of very distributed non

standardized environments increases risk dramatically. But

we have a couple of basic gatekeeping rules around that;

to begin with, everybody's got to run our antivirus. And

everybody's got to send their logs to our Security Operations

Center. And the tools just for data mining and analysis around

those logs, just continues to get better and better and

better, better. So So again, one of the one of the benefits for

making everybody use the same standard antivirus engine, we

don't allow people to buy other antivirus products, is that we

get just incredibly centralized logging about packets that are

downloaded from the internet. And many times, you know, we

will we will see something through our intelligence, the

end user is not aware of and we can take action from that.

There's a there's another very good product that is being

commercialized by a computer science faculty at Georgia Tech,

he was formerly at the University of Georgia that that

very helpful in this space. And then again, kind of on the

reactive side, as well, the ransomware near miss that we

had, these new data mining tools are very good at looking for

lateral moves through the network environment by people

who've breached the environments that they did it, if they moved

anywhere. And you know, again, it's kind of a big data

collection effort, right, you've got hundreds, if not 1000s, of

endpoints, all logging things. And if you can capture all that

data with the tools, you can get a fuller sense of what's going

on. But again, it is absolutely amazing, you know, used to we

would have to write our own scripts to kind of look for

things and then the tools come with standard templates. Now the

tools come with AI and machine learning, that merges all of

those things together to really give us a proactive sense. Now

these tools are expensive, they are absolutely expensive. But

you know, they're well well worth it. And it's a fast

maturity field. And again, we're very fortunate to operate in an

environment with a senior administration that that that

supports us with the resources necessary to be in this space.

We are early adopters.

Very very, very good to hear that. You

know, you talked about all kinds of data and analytics that's

available to us now, that brings to mind performance measures and

metrics. And this is another one of those areas where it's very

hard to learn. Or it seems that organizations are struggling in

terms of identifying what measures or metrics to capture

and monitor when it comes to cybersecurity performance.

What's your take on that?

You know, and this is, this is an area

that I am not necessarily a subject matter expert, as well

as I should be. I have a really strong information security

team, and I trust their judgment and, and in some areas, I'm

really just the gatekeeper. I'm not the gatekeeper. But I am the

guard rails, rail rail network. So thinking about these KPIs,

frankly, the most important KPI that I'm aware of is have we had

a major breach that resulted in either increased vulnerabilities

or an increased reputational damage or real damage to the

institution and its customers. And that is one certainly that I

keep in my pocket, as well. But But everything else from number

of users types of end users, types of access, that that's

managed by those users, you know, metrics around how we

properly decommission accounts, when people some people exit the

community is absolutely critical. As well as, you know,

stats on, you know, volume of patching, you know, what's our

time to patch for, you know, a certain grade a patch with

medium risk versus low risk versus critical risk? And those

are all, I think, really, really important as well, the most

important one, which is the one that the the CEO cares about

most that I do is number of incidents, and how many have we

we had and and first and foremost, that's one thing I

keep in mind all the time.

Yeah, yeah. Along those lines, if, you know,

if you were to think about rewards and incentive systems,

it's a reward in itself if cyberattacks didn't happen that

that is that goes without saying, but do you have any

thoughts about it, because in reality, it helps to motivate a

certain desired behavior. Any thoughts on what would be some

good rewards and incentive systems to achieve the desired

behavior across the organization, when it's not your

job function?

Unfortunately, I think this is an opportunity

for the whole profession more than anything else. Because you

know, right now, we probably have more sticks than we have

carrots. Unfortunately, I mean, one of the ways we keep our you

know, our Dean's and our vice president attention on these

matters is simply because they know if there's an incident on

their watch, you know, they're going to be in the general

counsel's office with me and some of my folks, the

president's chief of staff, as we begin root causing how

whatever happened actually happened. And that's an

uncomfortable seat to be in for the three or four Dean's that

have, that I've been in the room with, when we've had to do that.

And, you know, that, you know, accountability works. It's, it's

really, really, really, really important. But I think the other

thing that we do, and it's more, not necessarily secondary, but

indirect, kind of, you know, carrot or incentive is just

really empower user to try you know, you know, particularly

with the researcher in a lab and, you know, or whether we're

talking about the vet school or in chemistry or something like

that, by just basically helping them understand how this works,

good security practices work and, and how they really can

enable them to do some innovative things without

artificial controls and barriers from on top here at the

institution. I think that really creates an incentive for people

to you know, have really good baselines around information

security in their in their operations. So we certainly try

to take that as well. Again, sharing data from these meetings

I just come out of you know, we we do we trust our users a lot

more here at the Institution, and we do some things,

compensating controls, which I could get into at the network

level, that give us the ability to have more flexibility at the

endpoint level, which we're very, very comfortable with,

but, but again, I went to graduate school at Texas A&M, I

started my career in IT at that organization with some great

mentors, people that your listeners won't know but but

gentlemen, Tom Putnam, Steve Williams, Pierce Cantrell,

they're really giants in my eyes of our discipline. And the thing

that they all kind of really baked into my noggin is that

research institutions are research and innovation

conglomerates, and you have to allow faculty have the room to

innovate. Otherwise, you You know, you're defeating the

whole, you know, mission of search and innovation at the

institution. So we do a lot more aggressive things a lot, a lot

more things with tools that are quite expensive at the network

level. That means we don't micromanage the endpoints in our

environment where a lot of other schools are actively trying to

manage risk by managing endpoints and again, making sure

that we provide faculty members and staff members the

flexibility to use tools as they best see fit to carry out their

job or their their research, I think is one of the most

important incentives that we can have.

Yep, that is very true. And and in that

spirit of empowering the users to be able to continue their

mission to why they are the institution, like we said, at

the very beginning. We are not here in the business of

security, we're in the business of doing what we do. But we

cannot ignore security, security is centric to ensuring that we

can do all our jobs. well. I'd like to probe into another area

that's about empowering the chief information security

officer. It is my belief that you are the head of technology

of IT at the institution, the CISO reports to you, is that

correct? He does. Okay, so how do you ensure that because, you

know, again, the research literature talks about trying to

keep the CISO, CISO function, as objective as possible, the CISO

should have a direct reporting relationship to the C level,

folks. Again, this is a murky area, you can do it in different

ways. what's what's your sense about CISO empowerment?

Yeah, you know, I think

I think what we have here at the University of Georgia works

because of the leadership, you know, tone that the President

sets and the way he's organized this team in a very

collaborative way. And it's not necessarily replicable at

institution for that the culture with that kind of that kind of

leadership tone that that gets that so what President Morehead

is looking for in all of his vice presidents is an ultimate

and final authority over their areas, right, subject to his

review or his his perspective on on any matter. So, from a

university governance standpoint, I am that final

subject matter expert, when it comes to IT matters. And

President Morehead that does include information security

matters as as as well. And so that means I have signature

authority over policy. But you know, that's, you know, it's a

servant leadership role. It's not a, particularly in a

collaborative environment, like universities, it's not

necessarily a hierarchical role at all. But within my team, you

know, we're very non hierarchical as well. I know you

know, the University of Texas System, for example, has a

system wide rule that says that the CISO cannot report to IT

because what the concern always is, is that information security

kind of gets buried under the weight of fulfilling customer

service requests and demands for functionality and that's why you

would split those roles off; so the University of Texas System

has done that for all of its counterparts. And

philosophically, I don't think it's the best mix because I

think when you do that, yes you gain some some increased

visibility with that organizational structure but you

tended to divorce security a bit from from operations; now now

they have done this at the University System of Georgia as

well but just for their office alone and and so the CISO at

that point, when you do it that way, they almost always always

focused on controls and standards at the expense of

operations. And I worry and this is President Morehead's genius,

what he doesn't want from the vice presidents or the deans is

a lot of finger pointing, so if there's an information security

thing that goes on he doesn't want two subject matter

authorities pointing the finger at each other and security

saying these darn IT folks if they'd get their act together we

would be okay and the IT folks saying I'll security people over

there this is their deal their silo, not ours. And so you know,

again, it's not just in IT, the VP for Student Affairs is the

final authority over student affairs, the VP for instruction

over instruction and teaching and, and and so on. So I, we

run, but again, what works for us doesn't work elsewhere

particularly would not work in a very hierarchical organization.

So I know some CIOs who basically have a team that

direct reports. And, you know, they'll bring that team of

direct reports together once every two or three months to

have a staff meeting, and they'll meet with everybody

individually. My team meets with me once a week, everybody's in

the room. And everybody knows I have a responsibility to

understand how they can be supportive of everyone else and

really understand the independencies they have on

everybody else, including information security. They also

meet without me once a week on their own as well, I think they

do that to try to figure out how to collectively manage me better

or something like that. But it's a very non hierarchical, very

collaborative, everyone around the table has an equal seat and

equal voice on the matter. And that mirrors the way the

President runs the University. If CISO was buried under me in a

very hierarchical way, that may be that may be really, really

grounds for concerns, but but again, because of my style, and

approach, Ben Myers, the CISO, he has his own relationship with

the general counsel. He has his own relationship with Deans', I

don't gatekeep him from collaborating and relationships

around here. I guess the only only area that I would gatekeep

him around access is access to the President of staff meeting,

but that's the way the President runs the meeting, you know,

we're going to bring, if we're going to bring somebody to the

meeting, it comes through us so but for what so what we have

worked through us this is this is a field that's that's fast

changing. And so I know what the University of Texas has going on

is working for them. And, and then frankly, I'll also say the

University System of Georgia really began moving the needle

from a policy and control standpoint, when they separated

out information security from from IT operations until I think

what they've done, that's working for them also.

Wonderful, Tim, thank you so much for your

time, this has been extremely enlightening. We've covered a

lot of areas. Any final thoughts, yeah, you've covered a

lot of ground. Any final thoughts?

I you know, I think this is one of the most

interesting and dynamic fields that there is in IT and I tell

my students that, you know, if you want a super career for the

next 20 years, guaranteed, this is a space to really explore,

you don't have to be incredibly technical, you have to be

technical enough to know what's going on at least the 25,000

foot view and up. But it is it's real opportunity. And again, I

was in a staff meeting with the CISL and my team to get the day

and just hearing a report on some of the new investments they

would like to make in tools and how AI is fast evolving as a

threat monitor is just absolutely incredible. And also

from a student standpoint, I'm a huge advocate for them thinking

about this space and investing in it. And, you know, again,

I've been fortunate to work for great people and for great

organizations. And having been here at the University of

Georgia now for 10 years red flag runs in my blood. And I

consider myself very fortunate to be able to do the job that

I've done. But I do it knowing that I'm a caretaker for a while

and not going to going to I'm going to leave it to somebody at

some point. And the thing that I've tried to do is to leave an

organization and a team and and in a pool of talent that gets

the job done. And I think we're making that work today really

well.

Fantastic. And Tim, thank you for what you

do for the Institution. It's been a pleasure to work with you

as a colleague and thank you again for doing this podcast

with me today.

It's been a pleasure. Thank you.

A special thanks to Dr. Timothy Chester,

for his time and insights. If you like what you heard, please

leave the podcast a rating and share it with your network. Also

subscribe to the show, so you don't miss any new episodes.

Thank you for listening, and I'll see you in the next

episode.

The information contained in this podcast is for

general guidance only. The discussants assume no

responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the

content of this podcast. The information contained in this

podcast is provided on an AS IS BASIS with no guarantee of

completeness, accuracy, usefulness, or timeliness. The

opinions and recommendations expressed in this podcast are

those of the discussants and not of any organization.