Міжнародне агентство корпоративної безпеки

**Lysenko Serhiy Oleksiyovych**,

Ph.D. in Law, Associate Professorin the Department of Security Management and Law Enforcement and

Anti-Corruption Activities, Interregional Academy of Personnel Management

**Abstract**: The paper deals with techniques for analyzing criteria of efficiency of an information security conceptual model in corporate activities. It also evaluates information of indicators for enterprise information security models.

**Keywords**: information law, information security, enterprise information security system, information security system model, evaluation criteria, information, and reconstruction.

Analysis and assessment of risks to information security and used information security models is one of the crucial components of an enterprise information security system [1, 2]. Analysis of a model efficiency is not a one-time measure having to be carried out on a regular basis. In point of fact, efficiency analysis represents a process enabling to provide feedback between the processes of handling enterprise information security and information protection processes [3].

From the systems approach perspective, all information protection activities take the form of evaluation of various interrelated indicators. Providing the said indicators is possible using systems analysis principles and methods [4].

Conducted research reflected in related publications confirms this view and suggests that lately methods and techniques for analyzing efficiency of enterprise information security assurance have acquired an ever-increasing number of systemacity, both at design phases and in the course of application [2, 5].

Indicators obtained due to using enterprise information security models depend on the purposes, types of a model, and ways of execution. It is easier to analyze quality of models owing to reconstruction of situations where these models are applied.

Let us consider how information provided by the indicators designed for enterprise information security models is evaluated, which possesses an evidentiary value, statistical value and enables to evaluate it. We suggest that there is a special source of evidence - the results of reconstructions of certain algorithms of unfolding events [6]. We are of the opinion that depending on the modeling nature and techniques it is possible to divide the results of reconstruction into statistical information sources and evidence sources.

It is easy to notice that one information flow reproducing signs of an original is peculiar to results of reconstruction of the first group. Merger of two or more information flows is illustrative of results of reconstruction of another group. This property of most reconstructions should be taken into account when performing and using them [5].

Many reconstruction types rest upon logical connection among the elements of a security system model, therefore, one needs to know the nature of this connection when assessing its results. In some cases, it requires referring to special sources (reference books, readings, descriptions). The latter are independently estimated and compared with other sources (7, 5].

Indicators obtained during reconstruction are correlated with stories and proofs; conformity of these results to statistical data, as well as to available data is established for further comparison with a standard when ascertaining quality and stability of enterprise information security or the level of efficiency of an information security model. A trustworthy answer can only be given to questions on which there is trustworthy information reflected in reconstruction, other questions or those that are not decided by reconstruction at all or decided at the level of assumptions and therefore may not possess any evidentiary value.

Having obtained consistent reconstruction results, indicators by main areas of enterprise activity, it is possible to assess quality and stability of an enterprise information security model and later - the level of efficiency of an enterprise information security model, which is done by comparing (collating) data acquired as a result of reconstruction with statistical data drawn on official sources regarding leaders in a given branch of activity. Sometimes, in the absence of statistical data, reference (desired) indicators reproduced in the imagination of a specialist are used for comparison (mental reconstruction) [8].

To speak more specifically about this technique, the United Nations has introduced and successfully uses about the same techniques. They use them to analyze the development situation across the world.

Efficiency of an information security model type is an attained level of realizing and serving the totality of information security interests in societal development, in development of an individual for an enterprise, whose activity endpoint criterion consists in secure enterprise information activities measured only in terms of efficiency. We suggest determining efficiency in quantitative terms - information security model quality and information security model stability indices. Division of evaluation and calculation into two types of indices (those of quality and stability) is due to their general properties that will be explained through an example below [9].

The technique for calculating quality indices (Ql) and stability indices (SI) of an information security model consists of two successive stages. When calculating enterprise security model quality and stability levels, specific tasks are completed at each of them.

At the first stage, partial quality and stability indices of individual indicators of an information security model are calculated and ranked.

At the second stage, security model quality and stability indices - Qi and SI -are constructed, and later the general index of efficiency (El) of an enterprise information security model is specified.

1st evaluation stage. Following treatment of data obtained from reconstruction and enterprise activity, a totality of significant indicators is formed reflecting the content of an organization’s interests in the sphere of information security at a certain stage of their life cycle, for example, one year. Having completed formation of a totality of significant indicators reflecting the content of information security model reliability, we proceed to the process of constructing partial indices by every type.

We obtain partial indices dividing the above values of the indicators of our enterprise’s interests in the information security sphere by maximum or minimum values of the same indicators (standards of comparison) actually reached by the best enterprises in a given sector or created by mental reconstruction as desired standards we took as 1. The minimax nature of the denominator (standard for comparison) is determined by the character of an indicator requiring its quantitative increase towards improving, let us term them quality indices (interests of the 1s* kind), or decrease towards improving, let us term them stability indices (interests of the 2nd kind).

For the first set of quality indicators (interests of the 1st kind), which require their increase towards improving, that is, tend to a maximum in their ideal, we get a series characterized by the interests in the information security sphere similar enterprises or mental reconstruction have.

Since information security level quality indicators require, by definition, their quantitative increase, the maximum values actually reached by leading organizations in a given sector or mentally restored and taken as 1 are taken in this particular case as a standard of comparison of indicators.

For the second set of stability indicators (interests of the 2nd kind), which require their decrease towards improving, that is, tend in their ideal to a minimum, we get a series of index figures characterizing such interests as minimizing problems that complicate stability in the information security sphere.

As the indicators of stability interests, that is, minimization of information security problems to raise their quality level require, by definition, their quantitative decrease, the minimum values actually reached by leaders in a given sector or mentally restored and taken as 1 are taken in this particular case as a standard of comparison of indicators.

Calculation of a series of inserted quality and stability index figures presents certain difficulties due to lack of freely available necessary information. This is the case of the rates of remunerations and so on. This is a disease of not only a specific sector the enterprise belongs to but also of the existing statistical accounting and reporting system, which is full of sheets and records far from the problems of measuring the level of realization and protection of the totality of interests in a given field of activities [9].

Therefore, we hold that implementation of a general system of criteria for assessment of organizations accessible for users and information security specialists must become the result of these research activities.

2nd evaluation stage. At this stage, general quality indices (Ql) and stability indices (SI) of the enterprise are constructed based on the resulting totalities of individual indices of quality indicators (of the 1s* kind) and stability indicators (of the 2nd kind).

It is quite clear that each of the resulting indices makes its contribution to construction of an overall quality indicator or stability indicator of an enterprise. In practice, the question is how to aggregate these totalities of indicators and turn them into one overall indicator easy for specialists to assess?

The chief weakness of the existing rating methods consists in equalization of heterogeneous indicators when setting the value of the overall indicator. It is termed uniform distribution in mathematics.

This problem is solved in the United Nations Organizations by means of a certain, specially set “balance" - analyzable indicators. This is so-called “weight" utility. Therefore, similarly to world’s analysts and in an effort to avoid this weakness, we suggest put to use a method, with which a certain order of values of some values or other is first set. This is so-called ordinal utility. To solve the above-formulated tasks, this technique uses a quantitative preference scale with a one-order interval step - 100.0; 10.0; 1.0; 0.1; 0.01; and 0.001. Sequentially multiplying partial indices of both interest groups by the value of preferences of this scale, we get modified values of the partial indices for both interest groups. At that, preference should be given from the least to the greatest for interests of the 1sl kind, and from the greatest to the least for interests of the 2nd kind, going from the worst to the best. Next, we put together the modified indices for both interest groups and get their sums.

The obtained values of the sums of modified indices are compared using the formulas given below with similar values of the sum of the modified partial indices of the standard ideal model of enterprise information security, all interest indicators of which will possess maximum or minimum possible values, while all their partial indices Pi will equal 1.0. Such an ideal state just represents a future strategic goal of developing an enterprise information security system reflecting their vital interests.

As a result, the quality index of the enterprise information security model under study (Ql) equals:

QI = ΩP1i/ΩPi (i=n)

while the stability index (SI) is equal to:

SI = ΩPi (i=n) / ΩP2i

where P1i, P2i - partial indices of indicators of interests of, respectively, enterprise quality and stability; Pi - quantitative values of the standard; i = 1. 2, ...; n - number of indicators and preferences in the scale.

For practical calculations, it is quite enough that n=6, while in the above adopted system of preferences with a one-order interval step (100.0; 10.0; 1.0; 0.1; 0.01; 0.001) the sum of Pi of the standard model is a constant value equal to 111.111.

In ordinary uniform distribution, preference is not given to any indicator. Such an approach emphasizes the purposeful, consciously politicized nature and practical orientation of such methods of assessing the socially significant level of efficiency of an enterprise information security model.

Having at hand the values of the Ql and SI. an efficiency index El for the enterprise information security model is calculated next as an arithmetic mean value of the obtained indices - Ql and SI, which once again underlines equality of the categories “quality” and “stability” in societal life;

El = (Ql + SI) / 2

Based on the El value, it is possible to classify the objects of research, that is, enterprise information security models by their efficiency level under several groups. Thus, for example, organizations where the information security model has an El exceeding 0.7 enjoy a high efficiency level; those with an El varying from 0.4 to 0.7 have a mean efficiency level, while those with an El below 0.4 enjoy a low efficiency level and need improvement or reorganization of the model itself.

The technique enables to identify not only the numerical value of the information security model quality, stability and efficiency level but also the order of priority of setting and performing managerial tasks of the management bodies of an enterprise.

An important feature of the El is that this index enables to go beyond the scope of purely cost values, integrates interest indicators expressed in different units and gives a single measure for them.

As we can see, quantitative assessment of modeling outcomes is made not only using logical comparison with reconstruction or forecasting results but also through an empirical and accurate study. Skilled actions during reconstruction are of great importance, they serve as a tool for examining a model for objective compliance with the ideal state.

**References:**

1. On Protection of Information in Automated Systems: Law of Ukraine of 05.07.1994 №80/94-BP 11 Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. - 1994. -№ 31. - p. 286.

2. Blyzniuk, I. Information Security of Ukraine and Measures to Provide It // Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. - 2003. --№5.-pp. 101-214.

3. Kharkiv I. Kozhedub Air Force University, Kharkiv National University of Radioelectronics, Kharkiv // Collection of scientific papers of the Kharkiv Air Force University. - 2010. - Issue 2 (24).

4. Bilenchuk, P. D., Romaniuk, B. V., Tsymbaliuk, V. S. et al. Computer Crime. A Manual. - Kyiv: Atika, 2002. - 240 pages.

5. P. D. Bilenchuk, A. P. Hel, H. S. Semakov, Criminalistic Tactics of and Techniques for Investigation of Certain Types of Crimes. A Manual. Kyiv. IAPM, 2007-512 pages.

6. Vertuzaev, M. S., Popov, A. F. Problems of Combating Cybercrimes // Information Technology and Information Protection. - 1998. - № 1. - pp. 4-14.

7. Tsymbaliuk, V. S. Subjects of Information Law and Agents of Information Activity / V. S. Tsymbaliuk // Legal Informatics. - 2010. - № 3 (27). - pp. 29-32.

8. V. A. Lipkan, V. Y. Baskakov, Administrative and Legal Treatment of Restricted Information in Ukraine, a Monograph, Kyiv. Sole Proprietorship Lipkan. 2013 -344 pages.

9. O. A. Panchenko, N. V. Banchuk, Information Security of Person, a Monograph, Kyiv. KIT. 2011 -672 pages.

10. Holovatyi, M. (2015). The state and society: The conceptual foundations and social interaction in the context of formation and functioning of states. Economic Annals-XXI, 9-10, 4-8.