Comments on: On the value of ‘digital asset value’ for security decisions http://newschoolsecurity.com/2009/10/on-the-value-of-digital-asset-value-for-security-decisions/ The Blog Inspired By The Book Wed, 16 May 2012 16:05:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: LonerVamp http://newschoolsecurity.com/2009/10/on-the-value-of-digital-asset-value-for-security-decisions/#comment-426 LonerVamp Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:32:34 +0000 http://newschoolsecurity.com/?p=803#comment-426 Strange, what sounds like a great Razor (what you're willing to spend on them to secure them) turns into another way of saying "sunk cost." :\ Strange, what sounds like a great Razor (what you’re willing to spend on them to secure them) turns into another way of saying “sunk cost.” :\

]]> By: Russell http://newschoolsecurity.com/2009/10/on-the-value-of-digital-asset-value-for-security-decisions/#comment-420 Russell Sat, 24 Oct 2009 06:03:05 +0000 http://newschoolsecurity.com/?p=803#comment-420 Thus, I blame Andrew for the confusion! :-) Thus, I blame Andrew for the confusion! :-)

]]> By: Russell http://newschoolsecurity.com/2009/10/on-the-value-of-digital-asset-value-for-security-decisions/#comment-419 Russell Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:23:39 +0000 http://newschoolsecurity.com/?p=803#comment-419 > That [i.e. what you are willing to pay to keep it secure] part you added is incorrect. Ah. Thanks for clarifying. I picked this phrase up from Andrew's interpretation. If your threshold is total spending on the asset vs. total security costs, then that is a much lower hurtle, depending on your granularity. Now that you have clarified it, I don't agree with the premise that every digital asset *must* be at least what you spend on it. Maybe it's so, or maybe not. It's like the saying about advertising spending: "Half of my advertising budget is wasted, but I don't know which half." If you believe Nicholas Carr and Paul Strassman, most digital assets are *not* worth what they cost, but a few are worth far more than their cost, and essentially pay for the rest. > That [i.e. what you are willing to pay to keep it secure] part you added is incorrect.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying. I picked this phrase up from Andrew’s interpretation.

If your threshold is total spending on the asset vs. total security costs, then that is a much lower hurtle, depending on your granularity.

Now that you have clarified it, I don’t agree with the premise that every digital asset *must* be at least what you spend on it. Maybe it’s so, or maybe not. It’s like the saying about advertising spending: “Half of my advertising budget is wasted, but I don’t know which half.”

If you believe Nicholas Carr and Paul Strassman, most digital assets are *not* worth what they cost, but a few are worth far more than their cost, and essentially pay for the rest.

]]> By: Spire Security Viewpoint http://newschoolsecurity.com/2009/10/on-the-value-of-digital-asset-value-for-security-decisions/#comment-415 Spire Security Viewpoint Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:28:35 +0000 http://newschoolsecurity.com/?p=803#comment-415 <strong>Lindstrom’s Razor is not about security spending...</strong> After a few conversations, and having seen (part of) Russell Cameron Thomas’ post on the topic, I am beginning to realize that people are making a common mistake about Lindstrom’s Razor, which states: The digital assets in question must be ... Lindstrom’s Razor is not about security spending…

After a few conversations, and having seen (part of) Russell Cameron Thomas’ post on the topic, I am beginning to realize that people are making a common mistake about Lindstrom’s Razor, which states:
The digital assets in question must be …

]]> By: Pete http://newschoolsecurity.com/2009/10/on-the-value-of-digital-asset-value-for-security-decisions/#comment-414 Pete Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:19:05 +0000 http://newschoolsecurity.com/?p=803#comment-414 Russ - That [i.e. what you are willing to pay to keep it secure] part you added is incorrect. I intentionally meant the value of the assets themselves. So if you spend $24 million to deploy SAP in your environment, then that SAP deployment is worth at least $24 million to the enterprise. Also, please note that the relationship between digital asset value and loss potential is still indeterminate in my mind. thanks, Pete Russ -

That [i.e. what you are willing to pay to keep it secure] part you added is incorrect. I intentionally meant the value of the assets themselves. So if you spend $24 million to deploy SAP in your environment, then that SAP deployment is worth at least $24 million to the enterprise.

Also, please note that the relationship between digital asset value and loss potential is still indeterminate in my mind.

thanks,

Pete

]]>