A Study on The Practical Risk Mitigation Methodology for Systematical Risk Management of Information System


The KIPS Transactions:PartC, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 125-132, Apr. 2003
10.3745/KIPSTC.2003.10.2.125,   PDF Download:

Abstract

In the paper, we can select the best safeguard as proposed the definite and systematical method and procedure on risk mitigation of risk management for information system. The practical risk mitigation methodology has a good fulfillment procedure and a definition to fulfill procedure on each phase. So, it is easy to fulfill and can apply to any risk management methodology. The practical risk mitigation is composed of 6 phases, which are the existing safeguard assessment, safeguard means selection, safeguard technique selection, risk admission assessment, cost-effective analysis and safeguard embodiment. The practical risk mitigation´s advantages are as follow. Efficient selection of safeguards to apply to risk´s features with safeguard´s means and techniques before embodying safeguards. Prevention of redundant works and security budgets waste as re-using the existing excellent safeguards through the existing safeguard assessment. Reflection of organization´s CEO opinions to require special safeguards for the most important information system.


Statistics
Show / Hide Statistics

Statistics (Cumulative Counts from September 1st, 2017)
Multiple requests among the same browser session are counted as one view.
If you mouse over a chart, the values of data points will be shown.


Cite this article
[IEEE Style]
J. H. Eom, B. K. Woo, I. J. Kim, T. M. Chung, "A Study on The Practical Risk Mitigation Methodology for Systematical Risk Management of Information System," The KIPS Transactions:PartC, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 125-132, 2003. DOI: 10.3745/KIPSTC.2003.10.2.125.

[ACM Style]
Jung Ho Eom, Byeong Koo Woo, In Jung Kim, and Tai M. Chung. 2003. A Study on The Practical Risk Mitigation Methodology for Systematical Risk Management of Information System. The KIPS Transactions:PartC, 10, 2, (2003), 125-132. DOI: 10.3745/KIPSTC.2003.10.2.125.