Welcome Guest. | Log In | Register | Membership Benefits

Most Security Pros Wouldn't Bet On The Security Of Their Networks

Majority of security pros say they wouldn't bet any amount of money that they could prevent compromises in the next year

Feb 28, 2012 | 07:32 AM | 

By Tim Wilson
Dark Reading
Most security professionals would be unwilling to bet any of their own money that their networks will not be breached in the next 12 months.

According to a survey of 300 IT professionals conducted by authentication tool vendor PhoneFactor, a leading global provider of multifactor authentication, more than two-thirds (70.3 percent) of respondents are only somewhat confident or not at all confident that an unauthorized person could not gain access to their networks.

Only one-quarter (25.7 percent) of respondents are very confident that they would know their networks had been infiltrated, the study says.

When asked whether an expert hacker would be capable of infiltrating their networks, 84.4 percent of respondents thought it was at least possible, with 23.1 percent answering that an expert hacker could definitely gain access to their corporate networks.

Some of the top reasons respondents said they believe their networks may be vulnerable are malware (55.4 percent), use of personal devices to access company resources (45 percent), sheer volume of attacks (35.2 percent), and widespread use of remote network access (32.6 percent).

When asked to wager one of five amounts -- $0, $1,000, $5,000, $50,000, or $1,000,000 -- that their networks will not be compromised in the next 12 months, 57.7 percent refused to take the bet, opting for $0, the study says.

PhoneFactor, which offers a second factor of authentication through an out-of-band phone call, conducted the study to see whether security professionals would have more confidence in their networks if they had implemented such a form of authentication in their networks. The vast majority said it would, according to the study.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.



Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

Dark Reading encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, Dark Reading moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. Dark Reading further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
Subscribe to RSS



Authentication Reports

report What's Next for Certificate Technology
A recent rash of certificate authority breaches has left a bad taste in many people's mouths. There is no one reason for the breaches. The compromises were the result of a breakdown in people, processes and technology, but not necessarily the certificates themselves. We take a look at what?s wrong with certificate technology, what can be done to fix it, and what's down the road for certificates and CAs.

report Will Smartcards Live Up to Their Name?
Recent compromises of smartcard data have exacerbated concerns about the technology?s privacy, security and standards (or lack thereof). Yet the promise of smartcards is too compelling to ignore. New technologies and applications prompt us to take a fresh look.

report Get The Best Of Biometrics
As data volume and sensitivity grow, companies cannot rely on password- and token-based authentication. Biometrics can be used to provide strong access control, but you must weigh added complexity and costs against assurance that users are who they say they are.

Other reports from the Authentication Tech Center:




Featured Webcasts
Featured Whitepapers
Featured Reports