Episode 27 — Craft Rules of Behavior Statements
In Episode Twenty-Seven, titled “Craft Rules of Behavior Statements,” we place a firm, practical frame around how users are expected to act when they touch systems, data, and networks. A Rules of Behavior statement, often shortened to R O B, is the document that makes expectations explicit before access is granted, not after something goes wrong. It is the user-facing compact that translates policy language into everyday obligations and consequences in plain words. When written clearly and acknowledged consistently, it becomes one of the quietest but most effective controls in the environment.
The purpose of the Rules of Behavior is straightforward and non-negotiable: define user responsibilities for access, security, and conduct in a way that leaves no room for guesswork. It explains what users must do to protect accounts, devices, and data; what they must not do because it introduces unacceptable risk; and how their actions will be monitored according to law and policy. The document should make the relationship explicit: access is conditionally granted in exchange for responsible behavior, and that behavior is traceable. By making the bargain transparent, the organization reduces ambiguity and gains a defensible position when enforcement becomes necessary.
Clarity about who must sign is as important as what they are signing. Employees are obvious, but contractors, vendors, interns, volunteers, and visitors with any logical or physical access must also acknowledge the Rules of Behavior before credentials are issued or badges are activated. Privileged administrators require the same acknowledgement, with additional clauses that reflect their heightened authority and the heightened scrutiny that comes with it. The statement should also account for service providers who access systems remotely under support agreements, binding them to the same expectations as insiders. When no role can slip between the cracks, the organization closes an often-exploited gap.
Handling of sensitive data must be described with the specificity that real systems and audits require. The Rules of Behavior should identify approved storage locations—managed drives, sanctioned cloud repositories, encrypted databases—and explicitly forbid placing sensitive records in email drafts, personal cloud accounts, unmanaged devices, or ad hoc spreadsheets. If personally identifiable information (P I I), sensitive personally identifiable information (S P I I), or protected health information (P H I) appear in the environment, the statement should name them, give examples, and link them to stricter handling rules. Transport obligations matter too, including encryption in transit, approved file transfer methods, and portable media restrictions. This paragraph replaces folklore with instructions that people can follow and leaders can defend.
Unique accounts, strong authentication, and credential safeguarding practices must be written as baseline obligations, not suggestions. Each individual receives their own account; account sharing is prohibited because it erases accountability and undermines forensic clarity. Multi-Factor Authentication (M F A) is required wherever supported, with special emphasis on remote access, administrative consoles, and systems that process sensitive data. Users are responsible for protecting authenticators—tokens, codes, cards, or devices—and for storing recovery factors in a manner that prevents reuse by others. If password managers are approved, say so plainly; if certain authenticator types are preferred for phishing resistance, name them. The goal is to make the secure path the documented, supported default.
Prompt reporting of suspected security incidents and breaches is a duty every user must understand in advance. The Rules of Behavior should define what “suspected” looks like in everyday terms—unexpected prompts, lost devices, misdirected email, strange login alerts, or files locked by ransomware—and provide a simple, reliable channel to report twenty-four by seven. It must also reassure users that early reporting, even of honest mistakes, is the right behavior and will be treated accordingly. Time expectations matter: immediate verbal reporting for high-risk events and same-day ticket creation for lower-risk anomalies keeps the clock honest. By turning reporting into a practiced reflex, the organization shortens the delay between detection and action.
Disciplinary outcomes belong in the same document because responsibility without consequence is not a control. The Rules of Behavior should state that violations may lead to counseling, retraining, access suspension, contractual remedies, or termination, depending on severity and intent. It should explain that deliberate misuse is treated differently from inadvertent error and that cooperation during investigation is expected. When the organization operates under collective bargaining agreements or specific civil service rules, the statement should reference those frameworks without reproducing them. Clear, proportionate consequences protect fairness for individuals while protecting the system for everyone else.
A recurring gotcha is the slow mismatch between outdated statements and current controls, which breeds both confusion and avoidable findings. If the Rules of Behavior say “use company-managed M F A app,” but the identity platform moved to a different method last quarter, users will be out of step and auditors will be rightly skeptical. The remedy is to align the document to living sources of truth: reference the identity provider for current factors, point to the approved cloud repository list, and tie prohibited tools to a maintained catalog. A quarterly light review and an annual formal refresh keep text synchronized with reality so that leadership does not promise what the systems cannot enforce.
Electronic acknowledgement with scheduled renewal reminders is a simple improvement that pays dividends in coverage and evidence. Use a system that presents the current version on first login for new users and prompts existing users to re-acknowledge on a defined cadence, such as annually or when material changes occur. Capture the user’s identity, timestamp, version identifier, and any supplementary attestations in a tamper-evident log that compliance teams can query. Renewal reminders should escalate gently, then firmly, culminating in access restrictions if the user does not sign by the deadline. This automation turns a one-time ceremony into a sustained commitment backed by records that stand up to scrutiny.
Tracking signatures, versions, and revocation for departing users is part administrative hygiene and part legal prudence. The record should show exactly which version a person acknowledged and when, so that any subsequent dispute references the correct obligations. When a user leaves, their acknowledgement record should be linked to deprovisioning artifacts—account disablement, token revocation, and return of assets—and retained per policy. If access is later reinstated, the system should require a fresh acknowledgement of the current version to prevent silent drift. Versioning also enables change management: when clauses are added or clarified, the organization can target re-acknowledgement to affected populations rather than prompting everyone for minor edits.
Before any credential is issued or access is granted, the program performs a quick but mandatory check: confirm that the user’s signature is recorded against the current Rules of Behavior version. This control can be implemented as a gate in the identity provider, the access request workflow, or the account provisioning script, and it should fail safely by denying access until acknowledgement is complete. Exceptions must be time-bounded and approved at an appropriate level, with a clear reason recorded—such as break-glass access for emergency response—and a post-event review that closes the gap. Treating this check as an enforceable step, not a courtesy reminder, prevents preventable lapses that later become headlines.
A short memory phrase helps reinforce the habit at scale: know rules, sign once, renew regularly. “Know rules” asks the organization to write clearly and teach the expectations in onboarding and refresher training. “Sign once” means access begins only after acknowledgement, never before, and the proof lands in an auditable system. “Renew regularly” gives the cadence that keeps statements aligned with evolving tools, threats, and responsibilities. This line is easy to repeat in town halls, handbooks, and login prompts, creating a common language that outlives any single campaign.
Wrapping up, a good Rules of Behavior statement is a living compact: it sets purpose, names who must sign, defines acceptable and unacceptable actions, explains how sensitive data is handled, requires unique accounts and Multi-Factor Authentication (M F A), mandates prompt incident reporting, and clarifies consequences. It avoids the trap of staleness through electronic acknowledgements, scheduled renewals, version tracking, and enforced pre-access checks that leave a trail. The next action is practical and finite: finalize the updated statement text, configure the acknowledgements workflow, and schedule renewal prompts with a report that shows completion by population and by version. When that loop starts running, culture and control align, and users know exactly what it means to be trusted with access.
