Components Security DOD Implementation - DevClusterAI/DOD-definition GitHub Wiki
Document of Decisions (DOD): Security Implementation
This document outlines the key decisions and approaches for implementing security practices across different organizational contexts. It serves as a framework for making effective security implementation decisions based on threat landscape, organization size, regulatory requirements, and technical environment.
1. Foundational Decisions
1.1 Security Posture Definition
Decision: Establish a clear, risk-based security posture appropriate for your specific context.
Rationale: Without defining your security posture, security initiatives will lack focus and may result in misallocated resources.
Implementation Options:
- Risk-Based Posture: Define security based on specific threat vectors and business impact
- Compliance-Driven Posture: Define security primarily to meet regulatory requirements
- Zero-Trust Architecture: Assume no trusted perimeter and verify everything
- Defense-in-Depth: Implement multiple layers of security controls
Recommendation: Combine a risk-based approach with compliance requirements, with emphasis on:
- Identifying 3-5 key security risks specific to your business
- Mapping compliance requirements to security controls
- Implementing security in layers with clearly defined boundaries
1.2 Security-Business Alignment
Decision: Align security practices with specific business objectives and values.
Rationale: Security initiatives that support business goals will receive better executive support and adoption.
Implementation Options:
- Enablement Focus: Security as a business enabler (e.g., secure digital transformation)
- Protection Focus: Security as protection against specific threats to business assets
- Trust Focus: Security as building customer and partner trust
- Compliance Focus: Security as a compliance requirement
Recommendation: Document 2-3 clear connections between security initiatives and business priorities, and review these connections quarterly.
1.3 Security Tooling Strategy
Decision: Determine whether to adopt integrated security platforms or best-of-breed tools.
Rationale: Tool strategy significantly impacts operational efficiency, coverage, and team expertise requirements.
Implementation Options:
- Platform Approach: Integrated security suite from one vendor
- Best-of-Breed: Specialized tools for each security function
- Hybrid Approach: Core platform with specialized tools for critical areas
- Open Source Core: Open source foundation with commercial tools as needed
Recommendation:
- Smaller organizations (<50 employees): Platform approach with managed services
- Larger organizations: Hybrid approach with integration framework
- Allow exceptions with a documented security architecture review process
2. Implementation Approach by Organization Type
2.1 Startup/Small Team (2-15 employees)
Key Decisions:
Decision 2.1.1: Implement security essentials with minimal operational overhead.
Rationale: Resource constraints require focusing on high-impact security controls.
Recommended Approach:
- Start with cloud-native security controls provided by infrastructure
- Implement identity management with MFA
- Deploy endpoint protection with automated responses
- Use managed security services where possible
- Focus on secure development practices over complex tools
Example Implementation:
# Simple security implementation for small teams
security_essentials:
identity:
- MFA for all accounts
- SSO where possible
- Automated offboarding workflow
development:
- Pre-commit hooks for secrets detection
- Dependency scanning in CI/CD
- Cloud formation/infrastructure validation
endpoints:
- Managed EDR solution
- Automated patching
- Disk encryption
monitoring:
- Cloud provider logs
- Critical alerts only
- Weekly security review
Decision 2.1.2: Leverage cloud provider security capabilities.
Rationale: Small teams benefit from security capabilities built into cloud platforms.
Recommended Approach:
- Use cloud provider security services (AWS Security Hub, Azure Security Center, etc.)
- Implement cloud security posture management
- Enable default security configurations
- Deploy managed WAF services
- Utilize cloud-native encryption services
2.2 Mid-Sized Organization (15-100 employees)
Key Decisions:
Decision 2.2.1: Establish a dedicated security function with defined responsibilities.
Rationale: As organizations grow, dedicated security resources become necessary.
Recommended Approach:
- Designate a security lead (CISO or Security Manager)
- Implement a security governance structure
- Establish security policies and standards
- Deploy a security awareness program
- Define security incident response procedures
Example Implementation:
# Mid-sized Organization Security Structure
## Security Leadership
- CISO or Security Manager (can be part-time/shared role)
- IT Security Specialist
- Development Security Champion
## Core Security Functions
- Identity and Access Management
- Application Security
- Infrastructure Security
- Security Monitoring
- Compliance Management
## Essential Security Documents
- Security Policy
- Acceptable Use Policy
- Incident Response Plan
- Disaster Recovery Plan
- Data Classification Policy
Decision 2.2.2: Implement security automation for key processes.
Rationale: Mid-sized organizations need to scale security without proportionally scaling staff.
Recommended Approach:
- Automate vulnerability scanning and remediation workflows
- Implement automated security testing in CI/CD pipelines
- Deploy SOAR (Security Orchestration, Automation and Response) for common alerts
- Automate security compliance reporting
- Establish automated user access reviews
2.3 Enterprise Organization (100+ employees)
Key Decisions:
Decision 2.3.1: Establish a comprehensive security program with specialized functions.
Rationale: Enterprise scale requires specialized security capabilities.
Recommended Approach:
- Build a security team with specialized roles
- Implement formal security governance and risk management
- Establish a security operations center (SOC)
- Deploy enterprise-wide security monitoring
- Develop a formal third-party security assessment program
Example Implementation:
# Enterprise Security Team Structure
## Leadership
- Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)
- Director of Security Operations
- Security Architects
## Teams
- Security Operations Center (SOC)
- Application Security Team
- Cloud Security Team
- Identity & Access Management Team
- Risk & Compliance Team
- Security Architecture Team
## Governance
- Security Steering Committee
- Security Working Groups
- Executive Reporting Structure
Decision 2.3.2: Implement defense-in-depth with layered security controls.
Rationale: Enterprise environments require multiple layers of security.
Recommended Approach:
- Implement network segmentation and micro-segmentation
- Deploy advanced threat protection across endpoints, network, and cloud
- Establish a robust identity governance framework
- Implement privileged access management
- Deploy comprehensive data protection controls
- Establish advanced threat hunting capabilities
3. Implementation Approach by Security Domain
3.1 Application Security
Key Decisions:
Decision 3.1.1: Integrate security throughout the software development lifecycle.
Rationale: Fixing security issues early is significantly more cost-effective.
Recommended Approach:
- Implement security requirements in design phase
- Provide secure coding guidelines and training
- Deploy automated SAST, DAST, and SCA tools
- Conduct regular security testing and penetration testing
- Establish a bug bounty or vulnerability disclosure program
Example Implementation:
# Application Security Pipeline
stages:
design:
- Threat modeling
- Security requirements review
- Privacy impact assessment
development:
- IDE security plugins
- Pre-commit hooks
- Code reviews with security focus
build:
- SAST (Static Application Security Testing)
- SCA (Software Composition Analysis)
- Container security scanning
test:
- DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing)
- API security testing
- Interactive Application Security Testing
deploy:
- Infrastructure-as-Code security verification
- Secret scanning
- Compliance verification
runtime:
- RASP (Runtime Application Self-Protection)
- WAF (Web Application Firewall)
- API gateway security
Decision 3.1.2: Establish security gates for the deployment pipeline.
Rationale: Prevents insecure code from reaching production environments.
Recommended Approach:
- Define security quality gates for each phase of CI/CD
- Implement automated pass/fail criteria
- Establish exception process for critical deployments
- Configure graduated security thresholds based on application criticality
- Implement automated remediation for common security issues
3.2 Identity and Access Management
Key Decisions:
Decision 3.2.1: Implement least privilege and zero trust principles.
Rationale: Compromised credentials are a leading attack vector in breaches.
Recommended Approach:
- Implement role-based access control (RBAC)
- Deploy multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all access
- Establish just-in-time access for privileged operations
- Implement continuous access verification
- Design for zero trust with identity as the primary perimeter
Example Implementation:
# Zero Trust IAM Implementation
## Identity Foundation
- Single source of truth for identities
- Lifecycle management automation
- Strong authentication (MFA, passwordless)
- Conditional access policies
## Access Controls
- Just-in-time access provisioning
- Time-limited access grants
- Role-based access control (RBAC)
- Attribute-based access control (ABAC)
## Monitoring & Governance
- Access certification campaigns
- Privileged session monitoring
- Anomalous behavior detection
- Automated de-provisioning
Decision 3.2.2: Centralize identity management across environments.
Rationale: Fragmented identity systems increase security risks and management overhead.
Recommended Approach:
- Implement centralized identity provider
- Establish federation with cloud services
- Deploy single sign-on (SSO) across applications
- Standardize onboarding and offboarding processes
- Implement automated access reviews
3.3 Data Protection
Key Decisions:
Decision 3.3.1: Implement data-centric security controls.
Rationale: Data protection should follow the data regardless of where it resides.
Recommended Approach:
- Implement data classification framework
- Deploy data loss prevention (DLP) controls
- Establish encryption standards for data at rest and in transit
- Implement data access governance
- Deploy database activity monitoring
Example Implementation:
# Data Protection Framework
## Classification Levels
- Public
- Internal
- Confidential
- Restricted
## Protection Requirements by Level
- Public: None
- Internal: Authentication required
- Confidential: Encryption, access logging
- Restricted: Encryption, MFA, access approval, DLP
## Data Lifecycle Controls
- Creation: Classification and labeling
- Storage: Encryption at rest
- Use: Access controls, monitoring
- Sharing: DLP, encryption in transit
- Archiving: Secure storage, retention
- Destruction: Secure deletion
Decision 3.3.2: Deploy specialized controls for sensitive data.
Rationale: Sensitive data requires additional protections based on criticality.
Recommended Approach:
- Implement tokenization for payment data
- Deploy masking and anonymization for development environments
- Establish key management solutions
- Implement data access monitoring and auditing
- Deploy database encryption
4. Implementation Timeline and Phasing
4.1 Phase One: Foundation (1-3 months)
Key Activities:
- Conduct security risk assessment
- Establish basic security policies
- Implement fundamental identity controls
- Deploy endpoint protection
- Establish basic network security
- Implement critical security awareness training
4.2 Phase Two: Protection (2-4 months)
Key Activities:
- Deploy application security testing tools
- Implement cloud security controls
- Establish vulnerability management process
- Deploy data protection controls
- Implement security monitoring
- Establish incident response capabilities
4.3 Phase Three: Detection (3-6 months)
Key Activities:
- Implement advanced security monitoring
- Deploy threat intelligence capabilities
- Establish security analytics
- Implement behavior-based anomaly detection
- Deploy advanced application security controls
- Establish continuous compliance monitoring
4.4 Phase Four: Response (6+ months)
Key Activities:
- Implement advanced automation and orchestration
- Establish threat hunting capabilities
- Deploy deception technologies
- Implement breach simulation exercises
- Establish advanced forensics capabilities
- Develop cyber resilience program
5. Key Implementation Risks and Mitigations
5.1 Security Friction Risk
Risk: Implementing security controls that significantly impact user experience or productivity.
Mitigation:
- Design security with user experience in mind
- Phase implementation to allow for adaptation
- Provide clear communication about security changes
- Collect feedback on security usability
- Measure and minimize security friction
5.2 Incomplete Coverage Risk
Risk: Security blind spots due to incomplete implementation.
Mitigation:
- Conduct regular security architecture reviews
- Implement asset discovery and management
- Deploy continuous security validation
- Establish regular penetration testing
- Develop and test incident response procedures
5.3 Skills Gap Risk
Risk: Insufficient security expertise to implement or maintain security controls.
Mitigation:
- Leverage managed security services
- Provide training and certification paths
- Establish security champions program
- Document security processes and procedures
- Implement automation to reduce manual security tasks
6. Success Metrics
Track these metrics to evaluate your security implementation success:
6.1 Process Metrics
- Mean time to detect (MTTD) security incidents
- Mean time to respond (MTTR) to security incidents
- Vulnerability remediation times
- Security defects in code
- Security policy exceptions
6.2 Outcome Metrics
- Number of security incidents
- Data breach impact
- Phishing simulation success rate
- Security controls coverage
- External security posture assessment scores