Attacks/Breaches
3/19/2014
01:06 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Many Businesses Fail To Disclose Data Breaches

Only about 35% of businesses worldwide say they share attack and threat information with others in their industry, even though 77% admit to suffering from a cyberattack.

There are likely many more breached retailers than Target, Neiman Marcus, Michaels, and Sally Beauty either unaware that they have been hit or not yet ready to go public. There also are many data breaches, even at retailers, that may never see the light of day: As a matter of fact, some 57% of organizations worldwide say they do not voluntarily report hacks that aren't bound by disclosure laws.

So says a new report published Tuesday by Arbor Networks and The Economist Intelligence Unit, which surveyed some 360 C-level or board-level business executives around the globe on their incident-response posture. Some 77% of the respondents say their firms had been hit with a cyberattack in the past two years, but only about 35% say they share attack and threat information with other organizations in their industry, 32% say they do not share such intelligence, and 27% did not say one way or the other.

"Only a third of companies are willing to share information about incidents with other organizations ... But these days, the only way to defend is sharing," says Dan Holden, director of Arbor's ASERT.

Threat and attack intelligence-sharing is widely considered crucial to fight the bad guys and to give organizations information to prepare or defend against attack campaigns.

Read the rest of this story on Dark Reading.

Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
pfretty
50%
50%
pfretty,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/21/2014 | 11:47:55 AM
No doubt.
Cyber crime is increasing in volume -- up twenty percent in 2013 according to the HP Ponemon Cost of Cyber Crime Report (http://www.hpenterprisesecurity.com/ponemon-study-2013). At the same time the cost of attacks is up 30 percent as well. This should be a spotlight on the importance of having more intelligence based strategies in effect. 

Peter Fretty, j.mp/pfrettyhp
Stratustician
50%
50%
Stratustician,
User Rank: Moderator
3/22/2014 | 12:03:57 PM
Re: No doubt.
The problem is that there is such a stigma attached with being breached (rightfully so), that unless they are mandated by the government or law enforcement, organizations have zero incentive to notify customers that there has been an incident. It's about balancing corporate image and brand and the safety of their customers.  Many organizations feel that it's better to keep these incidents under wraps unless they are forced to admit there was an incident for fear of brand damage and customer fallout.  On the other side, as a consumer, I have to accept that these things happen. Ofcourse no one wants to be involved in these incidents from a liability side, and I am reminded every time I have to change a password or a PIN due to an incident, but the reality is that I'm a lot less critical of a company if they proactively tell me they had an incident, as opposed to those who hide it.  These things sadly happen, and the reality is that these attacks are so sophisticated it's almost impossible to protect against (ofcourse there are exceptions to this, many breaches are caused by bad security practices too), but I think companies underestimate consumers if they think hiding an incident is a better choice than proactively telling their customers "sorry, we screwed up, but at least we're being honest".

Customers will forgive and forget if they feel they were respected.  
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-2184
Published: 2015-03-27
Movable Type before 5.2.6 does not properly use the Storable::thaw function, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via the comment_state parameter.

CVE-2014-3619
Published: 2015-03-27
The __socket_proto_state_machine function in GlusterFS 3.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (infinite loop) via a "00000000" fragment header.

CVE-2014-8121
Published: 2015-03-27
DB_LOOKUP in nss_files/files-XXX.c in the Name Service Switch (NSS) in GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) 2.21 and earlier does not properly check if a file is open, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (infinite loop) by performing a look-up while the database is iterated over...

CVE-2014-9712
Published: 2015-03-27
Websense TRITON V-Series appliances before 7.8.3 Hotfix 03 and 7.8.4 before Hotfix 01 allows remote administrators to read arbitrary files and obtain passwords via a crafted path.

CVE-2015-0658
Published: 2015-03-27
The DHCP implementation in the PowerOn Auto Provisioning (POAP) feature in Cisco NX-OS does not properly restrict the initialization process, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands as root by sending crafted response packets on the local network, aka Bug ID CSCur14589.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Good hackers--aka security researchers--are worried about the possible legal and professional ramifications of President Obama's new proposed crackdown on cyber criminals.