Attacks/Breaches
3/7/2011
06:09 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Data Breach Costs Continue Climbing

Some of that cost may be unnecessary, a study has found.

The average cost of a data breach for a U.S. company continues to rise, having reached $7.2 million in 2010.

This represents an increase of 7% from 2009, when the average cost was found to be $6.8 million, according to Symantec which published "2010 Annual Study: U.S. Cost of a Data Breach," and the Ponemon Institute, which conducted the research.

The cost of losing data has grown for U.S. companies every year since 2006.

Larry Ponemon, founder of the Ponemon Institute, says that there was one unusual finding: A rapid response to a breach, which generally involves notifying everyone potentially affected, turns out to be more costly than a slow response.

Increasingly sophisticated data security threats and compliance pressures are pushing organizations to respond as rapidly as possible to data breaches. This is reflected in the finding that malicious attacks have become the most costly cause of breaches. But responding quickly to a breach may not be called for in every instance.

This isn't to say a slow response is always good; rather, it reflects the survey's finding that rapid notification can be a waste of money if subsequent investigation indicates some of those notified were not affected after all.

"In the world of data breaches, telling people your data is lost or stolen and then having to change that doesn't help anyone," said Ponemon in a phone interview.

Quick responders paid $268 per record, an increase of 22% from 2009, while organizations that took more time paid $174 per record, a decrease of 11% from 2009.

Symantec has created an online data breach calculator to help companies assess the potential cost and likelihood of a data breach. Not coincidentally, Symantec sells security solutions, particularly those focused on encryption.

Encryption has become more popular lately because data breach regulations often exempt companies from notification requirements if the lost data was encrypted.

This trend is partially reflected in the survey, which found: an increase in the number of organizations with an "above average IT security posture"; a decrease in breaches due to system failure, lost or stolen devices, and third-party mistakes; and more companies responding faster and putting CISOs in charge of response management.

Negligence remains the most common cause of breach incidents (41%), followed by lost or stolen portable or mobile devices (35%), malicious attacks (31%), and system failure (27%).

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-0334
Published: 2014-10-31
Bundler before 1.7, when multiple top-level source lines are used, allows remote attackers to install arbitrary gems by creating a gem with the same name as another gem in a different source.

CVE-2014-2334
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2336.

CVE-2014-2335
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiManager before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2336.

CVE-2014-2336
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiManager before 5.0.7 and FortiAnalyzer before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2334 and CVE-2014-2335.

CVE-2014-3366
Published: 2014-10-31
SQL injection vulnerability in the administrative web interface in Cisco Unified Communications Manager allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via a crafted response, aka Bug ID CSCup88089.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.