IME this is less the fault of IT and more so bad auditors that won't consider, or just don't understand, what compensating controls are. If it doesn't meet their little checklist exactly, they fail the audit.
IME this is less the fault of IT and more so bad auditors that won't consider, or just don't understand, what compensating controls are. If it doesn't meet their little checklist exactly, they fail the audit.
This is such a nonsensical claim. If a company is asking someone from IT to read the regulations and implement them, then obviously you’re going to get something that conforms to the written specification they were provided.
But a company that does that is basically delegating both compliance and legal functions to IT. No sane company does that.
I was a Software Dev in a small (but fully regulated and licensed) stock exchange. We used to have guidance from legal experts, market experts, and traders, but in the last project I worked on, they just dumped 300 pages of laws and regulations on my desk and asked me what needed to be done. Why? Because the experts we used to have were either fired or left. Along with any product managers. I guess company leadership thought they were no longer needed.
Insane is right. I told them that this is not how it is supposed to work. I can't tell them what needs to be done. I am not a legal expert who can just interpret these regulations.
I was forced out of the company after that, but honestly, no one would want to work in such an environment anyway.
This actually happens scarily often, especially in smaller companies. No F500 is doing this, but there are tons of "mid market" sized non-tech companies (think 80 to 150 employees in size) that basically rely on the IT department of 1 or 2 people, or an MSSP for pretty much everything. No legal team, maybe an attorney they consult with once or twice a year if you're lucky.
regulation are written ambiguously and the specifications do not match the industry
I have even seen regulators refuse to specific legislated laws because "thats not what the government meant", giving a company the choice of following the law and being fined, or breaking the law to please the regulatory agency
One good one is that providing concrete razors for compliant and non-compliant behavior accelerates the gaming of the rules.
How to say you deal with PCI compliance without saying you steal with PCi compliance.