Establishing a Risk Management Framework for Cybersecurity in Financial Reporting
Keywords:
Cybersecurity, financial reporting, data breaches, governanceAbstract
As our society becomes more digital, cybersecurity has to be included in financial accounts. The threat to financial data drives much of the need for thorough systems to track and reduce the hazards related to cyber incidents. This paper investigates the development of a comprehensive risk control system that is specifically tailored to address financial reporting malware concerns. The approach is largely based on the awareness of significant assets, the identification of flaws, and the implementation of laws and rules solving issues. It underlines the requirement of proactive threat monitoring and a reaction plan to ensure the correctness of reports and the security of personal financial data. Among the most important elements are risk analysis, incident response, and regulatory standard compliance—that is, Sarbanes-Oxley Act protection of financial data. Since human mistakes constitute a major factor of the danger of cybercrime, the framework stresses the need of training and monitoring people. It also demonstrates the coordinated efforts of groups focused in cyberattacks and financial reporting to develop a strategy assuring data protection and access. This architecture helps financial companies to reduce their exposure to assaults and assure the quality and dependability of financial data. This architecture helps financial firms to guarantee the accuracy and dependability of financial data and lower their vulnerability to attacks. This will inspire investors to follow laws set by authorities and help to maintain their confidence. This article shows how financial organizations can create a cybersecurity risk management system following best standards and regulatory policies. It underlines the unique interaction between cybersecurity and financial reporting.
References
1. Philpott, D. R., & Gantz, S. D. (2012). FISMA and the risk management framework: the new practice of federal cyber security. Newnes.
2. Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G., & Wright, A. (2017). Enterprise risk management and the financial reporting process: The experiences of audit committee members, CFO s, and external auditors. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(2), 1178-1209.
3. Bozkus Kahyaoglu, S., & Caliyurt, K. (2018). Cyber security assurance process from the internal audit perspective. Managerial auditing journal, 33(4), 360-376.
4. Radziwill, N. M., & Benton, M. C. (2017). Cybersecurity cost of quality: Managing the costs of cybersecurity risk management. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.02653.
5. Jacobs, P. C., von Solms, S. H., & Grobler, M. M. (2016). Towards a framework for the development of business cybersecurity capabilities. The Business & Management Review, 7(4), 51.
6. McCarthy, C., & Harnett, K. (2014). National institute of standards and technology (nist) cybersecurity risk management framework applied to modern vehicles (No. DOT HS 812 073). United States. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
7. Johnson, K. N. (2015). Cyber risks: Emerging risk management concerns for financial institutions. Ga. L. Rev., 50, 131.
8. Force, J. T. (2017). Risk Management Framework for Information Systems and Organizations: A System Life Cycle Approach for Security and Privacy (Discussion Draft) (No. NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-37 Rev. 2 (Draft)). National Institute of Standards and Technology.
9. Barrett, M., Marron, J., Pillitteri, V. Y., Boyens, J., Witte, G., & Feldman, L. (2017). The Cybersecurity Framework.
10. Goodwin, C., Nicholas, J. P., Bryant, J., Ciglic, K., Kleiner, A., Kutterer, C., ... & Sullivan, K. (2015). A framework for cybersecurity information sharing and risk reduction. Microsoft.
11. Force, J. T., & INITIATIVE, T. (2010). Guide for applying the risk management framework to federal information systems. NIST special publication, 800, 37.
12. Ralston, P. A., Graham, J. H., & Hieb, J. L. (2007). Cyber security risk assessment for SCADA and DCS networks. ISA transactions, 46(4), 583-594.
13. Trautman, L. J., & Altenbaumer-Price, K. (2010). The board's responsibility for information technology governance. J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L., 28, 313.
14. Groves, S. (2003). The unlikely heroes of cyber security. Information Management, 37(3), 34.
15. Barnier, B. G. (2009). The New ISACA Risk IT Framework and Best Practice: Filling a Gap, Making Risk Management Easier and More Effective. EDPACS The EDP Audit, Control, and Security Newsletter, 40(1), 1-7.
16. Gade, K. R. (2018). Real-Time Analytics: Challenges and Opportunities. Innovative Computer Sciences Journal, 4(1).
17. Gade, K. R. (2017). Integrations: ETL vs. ELT: Comparative analysis and best practices. Innovative Computer Sciences Journal, 3(1).
18. Komandla, V. Transforming Financial Interactions: Best Practices for Mobile Banking App Design and Functionality to Boost User Engagement and Satisfaction.
19. Naresh Dulam. Snowflake: A New Era of Cloud Data Warehousing. Distributed Learning and Broad Applications in Scientific Research, vol. 1, Apr. 2015, pp. 49-72
20. Naresh Dulam. The Shift to Cloud-Native Data Analytics: AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud Discussing the Growing Trend of Cloud-Native Big Data Processing Solutions. Distributed Learning and Broad Applications in Scientific Research, vol. 1, Feb. 2015, pp. 28-48
21. Naresh Dulam. DataOps: Streamlining Data Management for Big Data and Analytics . Distributed Learning and Broad Applications in Scientific Research, vol. 2, Oct. 2016, pp. 28-50
22. Naresh Dulam. Machine Learning on Kubernetes: Scaling AI Workloads . Distributed Learning and Broad Applications in Scientific Research, vol. 2, Sept. 2016, pp. 50-70
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
