| RISK EVENT | PROBABILITY | IMPACT | Pros/Cons | PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN | RISK LEVEL | RISK DECISION |
| Device (laptop, phone) that contains proprietary data is stolen. | High | huge loss of competitive advantage, bad media exposure | pro- might help to discover hidden vulnerabilities in the employees. Cons-employees may oppose mitigation techniques | prevent employees from taking work laptops home. Provide locks for the laptops. | high | accept |
| internal network break-in from outside | medium | disrupt system, loss of vital data | pro-will lead to reduced external attacks once it is solved. Cons- implementation costs | use of firewalls and other network intrusion detection systems | medium | transfer |
| virus worm or trojan infection | medium | restoration is needed, productivity loss | pro-identifies security loopholes allowing for mitigation against them. Cons-yearly cost for antivirus | install kaspersky antivirus (Grachev, , & Batenin, 2013). | medium | accept |
| source code stolen by external attacker or insider | medium | loss of competitive advantage | cons- could lead to corporate espionage | use authorization technique to prevent unauthorised members from accessing | low | accept |
| denial of service attacks | medium | productivity loss, system restoration might be needed | pros- presence of compensation controls will allow for the reassignment of resources to other high risk areas. Cons-could lead to customer loss | use of compensation controls. For example the use of firewalls | medium | transfer |
| data security breach for personal, financial and/or customer data | medium-low | some amount of bad media exposure, loss of customers, possibility of lawsuits | Cons- underestimating this vulnerability could lead to increased breaches and unauthorized access | use of biometric authentication techniques | low | avoid |
| prolonged IT outage | low | high disruption, productivity loss, system restoration | NA | provide secondary power options e.g. CPUs | medium | transfer |
| pirated software, music or movies used within Code Galore | low | fines, reputation loss | pros-there are less chances of unauthorized access to files in the system. Cons-if mitigation technique fails it could be detrimental | blocking of certain websites | low | accept |
| attack against others initiated by Code Galore employee | low | negative media exposure, fines, lawsuits | cons-possible destruction of property | introduction of organizational behavior policies | low | accept |
| data extrusion through interception of wireless signals | medium | forbbiding policies against use of wireless media in sending confidential and proprietary information without authorization | pros- curb any attempts at destroying companies integrity | NA | medium | mitigate |
| sabotage of source code | medium | loss of productivity | pros-integrity of source code is protected. cons- failure to address this issue could lead to competitor gaining access to the source code leading to loss of competitive advantage (Flynn, Clark, Moore, , Collins, Tsamitis, Mundie, & McIntire, 2013). | use authorization only for top notch members of the organization | medium | mitigate |
| Flynn, L., Clark, J., Moore, A. P., Collins, M., Tsamitis, E., Mundie, D., & McIntire, D. (2013, October). Four insider IT sabotage mitigation patterns and an initial effectiveness analysis. In Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (pp. 1-19). Grachev, V. V., & Batenin, V. A. (2013). U.S. Patent No. 8,424,093. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
|
vars
Excel.xlsx
