Ignorance is a decision. In this day and age, Ignorance can only be a decision.
ZTA stands for Zero Trust Architecture.
Simply put, this means that all employees on all systems will have "need to know" level access only.
While ZTA is the new favourite flavour of the security fraternity, is it really the silver bullet we've been looking for?
I believe that ZTA will create a culture of inherent mistrust. While that may stop security incidents in the short term, this mistrust will only lead to greater vulnerability over a longer period.
I would, instead, like to propose RTA - Reasonable Trust Architecture.
In this format (which is not very different from what we currently practise at many organisations):
A. All employees are trusted.
B. System access follows a simple protocol. Audits are in place and logs are automated and detailed.
C. Simple checks like maker-checker are in place.
Now, most readers are, at this point, shaking their heads and thinking, "No, this doesn't work. We tried it."
It does. If we make ONE change.
What do you think is the one change that will make the current RTA successful?
It is Right Recruitment.
Get the right people in. That's all it takes. Get people who have an unblemished security record. And genuine integrity.
Remember that systems are hacked by humans. Deliberately. Willfully. or Stupidly. Rarely has a hack been possible without some human action. Whether it is social engineering, spear phishing, or any other format.
The right people will:
A. Welcome rather than resist security and safety briefings - both physical safety and data security.
B. Demonstrate a high level of personal and professional integrity.
C. Actively report both security incidents and process vulnerabilities that they discover
D. Insist on a culture of fairness and equity - Where everyone is taken at their word and looking over the shoulder or micromanagement is considered a form of professional disrespect.
E. Believe inherently in the welfare of all or none. So long as one is left behind, we are all left behind - this should be their core ethos, not something they learn at work.
F. Demonstrate the ability to work in groups and active empathy.
For our case, let's call these people the Ants.
What would Right Recruitment look like?
Right recruitment is top-bottom. If the senior leadership recruits yes-people, they really cannot expect to find the ants further down the hierarchy.
Right recruitment prioritises personality over experience. "Skills we can teach. Attitude you have to bring." - these golden words that I heard at the SAP interview still ring true.
Right recruitment has zero tolerance on ethics. There is no "one time". The first ethical lapse is the final one. Would that make the culture toxic? Yes, for those who believe in flexible ethics. But it would make the culture incredibly secure for everyone else, because they would truly be in a place where everyone inherently trusts and is trustworthy.
Right recruitment is hiring the person, not just hiring for the role. If you deserve to be in here, we will find something for you to do. - Can you imagine a workplace like that?
Is that hard? Yes and No.
In the Western management systems, which we currently follow, the individual is an absolute and most white-collar crimes are hushed up under the carpet. The person is asked to leave, and that is that. Whether it is POSH or corporate corruption, these things are just not recorded.
But in the Indian management practice, a person's reputation precedes them. If they are found in POSH, or party to corporate corruption, they are brought to book and their actions made public. Most Indian business communities are specialised by industry and are close knit. Further, employment is typically a family thing. Like, if the father works at one office, it is assumed that once the child completes their education, they will be viewed favourably by the employer. This means that the price of dishonesty is not individual - it is a shock that reverberates through the entire family. Nor is it purely financial. Your "saakh" or social prestige is also destroyed by an incident like this.
Even if we don't, or are not ready to adopt this paradigm, a simple case that I saw last night, would definitely argue for a more holistic approach to selection.
The story is that the conductor of a bus in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was fired by his employer. This genius changed the display of the bus to show a cuss word, followed by the surname of the employer - also the name of the business.
Now, one genius data analytics professional tweeted about this and added wink emojis to the post.
The conductor, one might argue, is technically savvy and acted with mala fide intent.
Therefore, the act of the data analyst who thinks abuse of privilege is funny, is, to my mind, a huge employment red flag.
When hiring, I would like to access the public posts of the candidate. Those who think this is 'invasion of privacy' when we access your public posts on a public platform, obviously fall in the category of flexible ethics or multiple personalities.