Information technology security management concerns in global financial services institutions

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to add a layer of understanding to a previous survey of information technology (IT) security concerns and issues in global financial services institutions (GFSI). Design/methodology/approach -This paper uses data obtained from a secondary source. The dimensions of national culture used in this paper come from Hofstede's work. Two analyses are performed on the data. First, a non-parametric test is conducted to determine whether there are significant differences on the 13 IT security concerns when the dimensions of national culture are used to group responses. Second, a correlation analysis is carried out between the study's variables. Findings -First, the results indicate that the dimensions of national culture are not statistically important in differentiating responses and perceptions of IT security concerns across GFSI. Second, some of the dimensions of national culture are found to have significant correlations with a few of the IT security concerns investigated.Research limitations/implications -The use of a secondary data source introduces some limitations. The views captured in the survey are those of management team, it is likely that end-users' perceptions may vary considerably. Nonetheless, the main finding of the paper for corporate managers in the financial services industry is that IT security concerns appear to be uniform across cultures. Further, the data show that the dimension of uncertainty avoidance deserves further attention with regard to the assessment of security concerns in GFSI. This information may be useful for decision making and planning purposes in the financial services industry. Originality/value -This paper is believed to be among the first to examine the impacts of national culture on IT security concerns in GFSI. The paper's conclusions may offer useful insights to corporate managers in the industry.

Relationships Between Relevant Contextual Influences and Information Security Threats and Controls in Global Financial Services Industry

“…Entities in differing countries and regions of the world are conditioned by socio-cultural imperatives [13], [14], [23], [24]. To that end, individuals based in differing localities may view issues in ways that have been preconditioned by their environments.…”

“…GFSI practitioners realize that securing the future of their organizations is linked to how well emerging challenges are understood and subsequently contained [7][8][9], [14]. It is almost impossible to come out with a perfect security plan to mitigate every threat confronting an organization.…”

“…First, it seeks to increase the depth of information provided in the 2012 DTTL survey as it examines the relationships between the aforementioned contextual factors and six (6) information security threats and controls in the report. Second, it complements and adds to the growing body of work specifically discussing information security concerns in GFSI [4], [14]. In particular, this study aims at providing answer to the following questions: What relationships exist between the selected contextual factors and information security threats and controls across GFSI?…”

“…This supposition seems to suggest that contextual factors may mean very little in such assessment. Were this viewpoint accepted as the only truth, empirical studies would not have suggested that countries and even blocs of nations differ in the way they relate to information security management issues [10], [11][12][13][14].…”

Technology Of Trust: Safely In, Securely Out System (E-Siso)

“…Current organizations depend on information systems (IS) for their existence; this is because such systems often hold treasured organizational data resources (Cavusoglu et al, 2004;Richardson, 2011;Ifinedo, 2009Ifinedo, , 2011Ifinedo, , 2012. To protect the main IS assets held in such systems from misuse, abuse and destruction; organizations often utilize a variety of methods such as installing firewalls, updating anti-virus software, backing up their systems, maintaining and restricting access controls, using encryption keys, using surge protectors, and using wide-ranging monitoring systems (Ryan, 2004;Workman, Bommer and Straub, 2008;Lee and Larsen, 2009).…”