Analytics

5/31/2018
09:00 AM
Kelly Sheridan
Kelly Sheridan
Slideshows
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

6 Security Investments You May Be Wasting

Not all tools and services provide the same value. Some relatively low-cost practices have a major payoff while some of the most expensive tools make little difference.
Previous
1 of 7
Next

(Image: Wutzkohphoto via Shutterstock)

(Image: Wutzkohphoto via Shutterstock)

Security budgets are growing and so are security costs, with drivers coming from all sides: data breaches that are more frequent and more expensive to remediate; preventative technologies that are costly to buy and maintain; and talent that remains both pricey and hard to find.

On a positive note, businesses today are better at understanding risks and allocating more of their attention and IT budgets (23%) to cybersecurity. Enterprises, as reported in new Kaspersky Lab research, believe their security budgets will grow by 15% over the next three years, as do businesses with less than 50 employees. SMBs are about the same, anticipating 14% growth in security spend by 2021, according to Kaspersky Lab.

But despite larger budgets, security teams still struggle to make ends meet. Increasingly advanced tools are expensive to buy and, oftentimes, more expensive to run. Enterprise victims allocate most ($193,000, on average) of their post-breach spending toward improving software and infrastructure, and SMBs hit with breaches spend $15,000 on the same expense, according to Kaspersky.

Maintaining advanced technology is also a challenge due to the growth of complex infrastructure and lack of both organizational and technical ability to manage it. More than one-third (34%) of organizations say the intricacy of IT systems is driving investments; the same amount say improving security expertise is a motivation to spend, according to Kaspersky.

The reason: many security technologies simply aren't worth their cost without the right resources to implement and run them, observes Tom Parker, group technology officer at Accenture Security. Oftentimes what Parker describes as "comfort purchasing" makes companies feel good about the money they spend on new technology and lures them into feeling confident they're making the right moves.

"The biggest concern I have, honestly, is ... [about the] false sense of security organizations often get by buying technology and not having a well-considered view of how that technology is performing in their environment," Parker adds.

Here, experts point to security technologies and processes that require more investment to be worth their cost. Not all tools and services provide the same value. Some relatively low-cost practices can have a major payoff; some of the most expensive tools make little difference.

Are there any components to your security strategy you felt haven't been worth their high cost? Feel free to add to the conversation in the comments.

 

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance & Technology, where she covered financial ... View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 7
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Google Engineering Lead on Lessons Learned From Chrome's HTTPS Push
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/8/2018
White Hat to Black Hat: What Motivates the Switch to Cybercrime
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/8/2018
PGA of America Struck By Ransomware
Dark Reading Staff 8/9/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-3937
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
An exploitable command injection vulnerability exists in the measurementBitrateExec functionality of Sony IPELA E Series Network Camera G5 firmware 1.87.00. A specially crafted GET request can cause arbitrary commands to be executed. An attacker can send an HTTP request to trigger this vulnerability...
CVE-2018-3938
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
An exploitable stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the 802dot1xclientcert.cgi functionality of Sony IPELA E Series Camera G5 firmware 1.87.00. A specially crafted POST can cause a stack-based buffer overflow, resulting in remote code execution. An attacker can send a malicious POST r...
CVE-2018-12537
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
In Eclipse Vert.x version 3.0 to 3.5.1, the HttpServer response headers and HttpClient request headers do not filter carriage return and line feed characters from the header value. This allow unfiltered values to inject a new header in the client request or server response.
CVE-2018-12539
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
In Eclipse OpenJ9 version 0.8, users other than the process owner may be able to use Java Attach API to connect to an Eclipse OpenJ9 or IBM JVM on the same machine and use Attach API operations, which includes the ability to execute untrusted native code. Attach API is enabled by default on Windows,...
CVE-2018-3615
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
Systems with microprocessors utilizing speculative execution and Intel software guard extensions (Intel SGX) may allow unauthorized disclosure of information residing in the L1 data cache from an enclave to an attacker with local user access via a side-channel analysis.