How to Maintain Accountability Standards According to DFARS?

One of the first things corporate executives consider after a data breach is who or what is to blame. This can be a tough topic to answer, and in that case, the blame will most likely be shifted around the business as executives, employees, and divisions point fingers at one another, sometimes without proof. If that scenario seems familiar, your firm may have a significant problem with responsibility. Here, one must seek help from CMMC consulting VA Beach for compliance requirements.

Remaining consistent with the DFARS 252.204-7012 clause, which oversees the preservation of information belonging to the US Department of Defense, requires a culture of responsibility. The provision is aligned with the internationally known NIST 800-171 information security framework, and compliance is required for any business that is or aspires to be NIST 800-171 compliant.

What is the definition of accountability?

In recent years, technical security procedures have advanced significantly, but the attack surface has also changed. However, one factor that hasn’t changed is that no number of technical measures can keep a corporation secure on its own. Whereas the DFARS 252.204-7012 provision, which is aligned with the NIST 800-171 standard, establishes a strong security foundation, maintaining and enforcing these controls demands a shift in organizational culture.

Any company that has reached a high degree of security maturity must have a strong sense of accountability. Accountability implies that everybody in the company is responsible for keeping the firm, its data, workers, and clients secure. It means that people will be made liable for their conduct while being unafraid to report dubious situations and behaviors. This allows security teams to address problems once they have far-reaching ramifications.

Leaders must set an example for others to follow.

Any change in a company’s culture must start at the top, not only because executives are a favored target for attackers due to the abundance of information they have exposure to. After all, a social manipulation scheme involving a supervisory employee does not look good.

Leaders must foster the idea that security is everybody’s responsibility, not simply the job of a specialized IT staff. As a result, leaders must hold themselves responsible and set an example to inspire everybody else to feel secure.

Everyone needs to be trained.

Because data security is everyone’s obligation, it’s only fair that everyone on the team is required to attend training. While more determined assailants may target high-ranking personnel, con artists searching for easy targets frequently target low-ranking staff members who they believe are unprepared.

Training programs should be compelling and ongoing to keep organizations up to date on the newest dangers and develop a culture of responsibility. Training programs may be more gratifying if they include information relevant to employees’ personal life and a collaborative environment with hands-on instruction and virtual laboratories.

It is critical to work together closely.

A compartmentalized organization is especially detrimental for accountability since separate divisions are reluctant to exchange data. When a corporation lacks outstanding leadership and refuses to foster effective interdepartmental collaboration, organizational silos develop. This is terrible news for efficiency and CMMC cybersecurity since it may lead to an eternal loop of finger-pointing if something goes wrong.

Having high accountability norms necessitates organizational openness. Professionals should not be hesitant to report suspicious activity, and they should also not be reluctant to recognize their errors. If we develop a collaborative atmosphere, it will be much simpler to prevent possible security concerns before they create severe issues.