Attacks/Breaches

3/30/2016
09:20 AM
50%
50%

NIST Cybersecurity Framework Adoption Hampered By Costs, Survey Finds

Security pros consider the NIST framework an industry best practice, yet half of its adopters say its complete implementation involves a high level of investment.

US organizations say the major investment required in fully implementing the NIST Cybersecurity Framework is hampering their full adoption of it, according to a survey report released by Tenable Network Security.

The Trends in Security Framework Adoption Survey, which includes responses from around 300 US IT and security pros, was conducted to determine patterns in the adoption of various security frameworks. A majority of organizations (84%) have at least one security framework in place.

While the survey data reveals that 70% organizations view NIST's framework as a security best practice, 50% see the high level of investment that it requires as a barrier to adoption. The NIST framework was the most popular choice of security frameworks to be implemented over the next year, the study found.

Some 64% of organizations are using part of the NIST framework and not all of the recommended controls due to the cost and lack of regulatory pressures. Also, 83% of those planning to adopt the NIST framework in the coming year say they will take a similar approach--adopting some and not all of the CSF controls.

"Historically, CISOs have been hesitant to take full advantage of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework because of a high investment requirement and a lack of regulatory mandate," said Ron Gula, CEO of Tenable. "This is changing as organizations begin to shift their mindset from moment-in-time compliance with frameworks like PCI DSS to continuous conformance with the NIST Cybersecurity Framework."

Read more from the report here.

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
4/1/2016 | 1:04:50 PM
Re: NIST Cybersecurity Framework Adoption Hampered By Costs, Survey Finds
Thanks, MESBernard.  You make a good point about skills/resources. Our story was based on Tenable's survey, which I don't think drilled down into what exactly the investment costs entailed. 
MESBernard
50%
50%
MESBernard,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/30/2016 | 7:51:58 PM
NIST Cybersecurity Framework Adoption Hampered By Costs, Survey Finds
That is unfortunate miss-information. Its obvious that the root-cause is the lack of skill and experience needed to implement a CyberSecurity Framework.

If you are interested in learning how to implement the NIST CyberSecurity Framework please drop by my new web sites and register for a training session. http\\www.securekm.us or http\\www.securekm.com. I wrote the NIST CSF Foundation course and I can help you...
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
3/30/2016 | 10:55:13 AM
Re: Broken Link
Thanks! The link has been fixed. 
Kelly Jackson Higgins
50%
50%
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
3/30/2016 | 10:55:13 AM
Re: Broken Link
The link has now been fixed--thank you!
JeraldC500
50%
50%
JeraldC500,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/30/2016 | 10:42:14 AM
Broken Link
The link to the report is an internal link to a hard drive.
6 Ways Greed Has a Negative Effect on Cybersecurity
Joshua Goldfarb, Co-founder & Chief Product Officer, IDRRA ,  6/11/2018
Weaponizing IPv6 to Bypass IPv4 Security
John Anderson, Principal Security Consultant, Trustwave Spiderlabs,  6/12/2018
'Shift Left' & the Connected Car
Rohit Sethi, COO of Security Compass,  6/12/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-12026
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
During the spawning of a malicious Passenger-managed application, SpawningKit in Phusion Passenger 5.3.x before 5.3.2 allows such applications to replace key files or directories in the spawning communication directory with symlinks. This then could result in arbitrary reads and writes, which in tur...
CVE-2018-12027
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
An Insecure Permissions vulnerability in SpawningKit in Phusion Passenger 5.3.x before 5.3.2 causes information disclosure in the following situation: given a Passenger-spawned application process that reports that it listens on a certain Unix domain socket, if any of the parent directories of said ...
CVE-2018-12028
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
An Incorrect Access Control vulnerability in SpawningKit in Phusion Passenger 5.3.x before 5.3.2 allows a Passenger-managed malicious application, upon spawning a child process, to report an arbitrary different PID back to Passenger's process manager. If the malicious application then generates an e...
CVE-2018-12029
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
A race condition in the nginx module in Phusion Passenger 3.x through 5.x before 5.3.2 allows local escalation of privileges when a non-standard passenger_instance_registry_dir with insufficiently strict permissions is configured. Replacing a file with a symlink after the file was created, but befor...
CVE-2018-12071
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
A Session Fixation issue exists in CodeIgniter before 3.1.9 because session.use_strict_mode in the Session Library was mishandled.