Security Policy As A Constitutional Pillar For Startups

Among the latest trends in the startup infrastructure, security spending has gained attention in recent times. An estimate reveals that the figure for security spending will cross the $80 billion mark by 2016.

Despite the evolution of technology, startup businesses are failing to protect themselves against different threats. The reason is that the victims are gearing their efforts towards product framework rather than sound security architecture.

Data Security Regulation

Startups, however, are gradually becoming wary of the threats in a virtual world where domains such as cloud computing are increasingly popular. However, it has led to data becoming a liability.

When it comes to laying down a sound security framework, The Gramm Leach Bliley Act (GLBA) Safeguards Rule provides a good precedent. This framework targets financial regulation with respect to issues such as information privacy and secure maintenance of data.

Secondly, startups should take a leaf out of the building industry notebook. The building industry follows a basic principle, ‘form follows function’. The same principle applies for laying down grounds of resolute security architecture. In the case of an enterprise, the purpose of the company should mandate the design of the security protection.

Security Solutions

So, with the need for effective security measure established, lets proceed towards a characterization of the system.

Many business owners believe that using state of the art security solutions would be able to protect them from intrusions and data theft. However, it is important to realize that data protection is far more complex than just warding off intruder threats.

Internet and networking can open businesses up to liability issues, and this is where the value of network visibility protection becomes important. Trend Micro points out an important fact about network security: the intrusions for which you are defending against can be internal as well, something startups are not well prepared to handle.

What happens is that the system can identify a false threat (false positive) because of its sensitivity, resulting in the business wasting time chasing a nonexistent threat.

Based on the logic provided above, businesses should look at systems that are intelligent when it comes to security, and have the fewest false positives without compromising the sensitivity of the detection system.

This brings us back to the argument that security architecture is necessary. The basic architecture is categorized into three fundamental areas: computational tasks, storage and networking. The security policy should be constituted based on these three pillars.

Conclusion

A recent survey carried out on small/medium enterprise for security concerns found three sources which prevent businesses from having a solid security framework. They include failing to prioritize security, insufficient budget and lack of technical expertise.

The analysis provided above not only addresses these concerns, but also provides solutions. The notion of cost efficacy is being catered to by authentic security systems and solid security framework. Secondly, sources such as OSA do not need a highly technical staff.

At the end of the day, using these measures will allow startups to stave off major security threats before their businesses are annihilated.