Documents Contributed by ECAR, Security Management, and Security Policies
Local IT Security for Colleges, Schools, and Departments: A Higher Education Perspective
| Title: | Local IT Security for Colleges, Schools, and Departments: A Higher Education Perspective (ID: ERB0624) | | Author(s): | Derek Spransy (Emory University) | | Origin: | Documents Contributed by ECAR, Research Bulletins (12/05/2006) | | Type: | Articles, Papers, and Reports | | Abstract: | This bulletin discusses some of the lessons learned by the Emory College, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, in developing its information technology security strategy, as well as what other schools grappling with security should consider when implementing a local security strategy. Research in this bulletin is drawn from the experiences of the Emory College, along with interviews of IT lead personnel from five of Emory's graduate and undergraduate schools: the School of Law, the School of Nursing, the School of Medicine, the School of Public Health, and the School of Business. | | View this resource: | |
Safeguarding the Tower: IT Security in Higher Education 2006
| Title: | Safeguarding the Tower: IT Security in Higher Education 2006 (ID: ERS0606) | | Author(s): | Robert B. Kvavik (EDUCAUSE) and John Voloudakis (Huron Consulting Group) | | Origin: | Documents Contributed by ECAR, Research Studies (10/12/2006) | | Type: | Articles, Papers, and Reports | | Abstract: | When ECAR studied IT security in 2003, we discovered that despite efforts to develop a secure IT infrastructure in higher education, uneven management awareness and a culture that equated good IT security with the curtailment of academic freedom constrained IT security options and choices. The results of this 2006 study of IT security in higher education demonstrate that there has been a sea change in less than three years. This study not only assesses the current condition of IT security practice, but documents changes in practice over time among a constant set of respondents. Among 492 total survey respondents, fully 204 institutions responded to both the 2003 and the 2005 surveys. Extraordinary changes in both hard and soft security measures were reported. Nearly one-third of responding institutions now have a chief information security officer, and more than 60 percent of the 2005 respondents have a centralized IT security function. The study is supported with qualitative interviews from 18 higher education institutions and organizations and with three case studies. | | View this resource: | |
Safeguarding the Tower: IT Security in Higher Education 2006 Roadmap
| Title: | Safeguarding the Tower: IT Security in Higher Education 2006 Roadmap (ID: ECM0606) | | Author(s): | Robert B. Kvavik (EDUCAUSE) | | Origin: | Documents Contributed by ECAR, Roadmaps (10/12/2006) | | Type: | Articles, Papers, and Reports | | Abstract: | This roadmap synthesizes the important issues and recommended actions drawn from the ECAR study, Safeguarding the Tower: IT Security in Higher Education 2006. When ECAR studied IT security in 2003, we discovered that despite efforts to develop a secure IT infrastructure in higher education, uneven management awareness and a culture that equated good IT security with the curtailment of academic freedom constrained IT security options and choices. The results of this 2006 study of IT security in higher education demonstrate that there has been a sea change in less than three years. This study not only assesses the current condition of IT security practice, but documents changes in practice over time among a constant set of respondents. Among 492 total survey respondents, fully 204 institutions responded to both the 2003 and the 2005 surveys. | | View this resource: | |
Safeguarding the Tower: IT Security in Higher Education 2006 – Key Findings
| Title: | Safeguarding the Tower: IT Security in Higher Education 2006 – Key Findings (ID: EKF0606) | | Author(s): | Judith B. Caruso (University of Wisconsin-Madison) | | Origin: | Documents Contributed by ECAR, Key Findings (10/12/2006) | | Type: | Articles, Papers, and Reports | | Abstract: | This document presents the key findings of the ECAR study, Safeguarding the Tower: IT Security in Higher Education 2006. When ECAR studied IT security in 2003, we discovered that despite efforts to develop a secure IT infrastructure in higher education, uneven management awareness and a culture that equated good IT security with the curtailment of academic freedom constrained IT security options and choices. The results of this 2006 study of IT security in higher education demonstrate that there has been a sea change in less than three years. This study not only assesses the current condition of IT security practice, but documents changes in practice over time among a constant set of respondents. Among 492 total survey respondents, fully 204 institutions responded to both the 2003 and the 2005 surveys. Extraordinary changes in both hard and soft security measures were reported. Nearly one-third of responding institutions now have a chief information security officer, and more than 60 percent of the 2005 respondents have a centralized IT security function. | | View this resource: | |
Campus IT Security: Governance, Strategy, Policy, and Enforcement
| Title: | Campus IT Security: Governance, Strategy, Policy, and Enforcement (ID: ERB0617) | | Author(s): | Richard Boes (California State University, Fresno), Tom Cramer (Stanford University), Vicky Dean (Cornell University), Roger Hanson (University of Wisconsin-Madison), and Nan McKenna (Stanford University) | | Origin: | Documents Contributed by ECAR, Research Bulletins (08/15/2006) | | Type: | Articles, Papers, and Reports | | Abstract: | Successful implementation of an effective information, data, and system "security blanket" for higher education institutions requires recognition of and action upon the cultural, political, and regulatory fronts. Data stewards; policy makers; central and departmental IT staff; and students, faculties, and staff members all have a role to play. This bulletin is based on the research of current IT security literature and on interviews with representatives from multiple campuses. It offers a broad survey of the current nontechnical issues facing higher education as it attempts to secure information assets and systems. | | View this resource: | |
A Systematic, Comprehensive Approach to Information Security
| Title: | A Systematic, Comprehensive Approach to Information Security (ID: ERS0505) | | Author(s): | Daniel Blum (Burton Group) | | Origin: | Documents Contributed by ECAR, Research Studies (07/06/2005) | | Type: | Articles, Papers, and Reports | | Abstract: | Information security is a process of business risk management that must be performed on an ongoing basis. It is critical to take an approach to information security that examines the risks and security objectives within the environment in which the organization operates. Any comprehensive approach to information security must include a feedback mechanism that measures the performance of the process so that risks are managed appropriately and determines whether the organization's security objectives are being met. Burton Group (www.burtongroup.com) provides technically in-depth research and advisory services for colleges and universities, government agencies, and commercial enterprises. Burton Group's practical and unbiased research and advice helps technologists make smart IT infrastructure decisions in increasingly complex environments. Burton Group covers directories, identity management, application platforms, architecture, and network and telecom infrastructure topics. Like ECAR, Burton Group is an unbiased advocate for the user and more than 80 percent of Burton Group's clients are user organizations rather than suppliers. | | View this resource: | This publication is currently password protected. All faculty, staff, and students from institutions that have subscribed to ECAR at the ECAR Participating, Comprehensive Content, Corporate, and Research Studies Package levels are authorized to access this publication by using their EDUCAUSE personal profile. |
|