Risk
2/2/2017
12:00 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

Businesses Fear Brand Damage More Than Security Breaches

Organizations struggling with risk management are more concerned about brand damage than cyberattacks, new Ponemon study shows.

Risk management is a challenge for most businesses, but security breaches aren't their top concern. Most fear long-term reputational damage will stem from their inability to manage risk.

This comes from a new survey entitled "The Imperative to Raise Enterprise Risk Intelligence," sponsored by RiskVision and conducted by the Ponemon Institute. Researchers surveyed 641 individuals involved in their organization's risk management programs to learn about the state of business risk intelligence.

They discovered the biggest fear resulting from a poor risk management program is reputation damage (63%). Security breaches and business disruption tied for second; each was cited by 51% of respondents.

"It was a surprise," says Joe Fantuzzi, president and CEO of RiskVision. "Despite all the noise and issues around cybersecurity, organizations really fear brand damage. That can come from cybersecurity breaches, but it can also come from lost intellectual property, accidents like losing laptops, and bad market news."

Boards of directors have had risk committees, he continues, but historically they have focused on dangers related to financial risk, market risk, currency exchange risk, and credit risk. IT and cyber risk are still new to them.

"There is an increasing awareness that they need to understand [cyberrisk]," Fantuzzi says of business leaders. "But ultimately as a board member, you're looking at the stock market and shareholder value, and that value is directly impacted by reputation. I think that's how they see it."

As cyberattacks on businesses become more publicized, enterprise leaders face the responsibility of predicting the likelihood, and potential impact, of security breaches. Many are scrambling to determine the best approach to risk modeling.

The survey discovered less than one-quarter (24%) of respondents say their organization has a clearly defined risk management strategy that is relevant across the enterprise. One-third do not have a clearly defined strategy at all. Only 37% said their risk management process was "very effective."

There are several barriers organizations face as they create and implement risk management plans. More than half (53%) of respondents, for example, say there is a lack of collaboration among the finance, operations, compliance, legal, and IT teams on risk management projects.

Budget problems prove another obstacle, the study found. More than half (52%) of respondents don't have a formal budget around enterprise risk strategy. Other key barriers to achieving risk management goals include lack of resources (44%), complexity (44%) and inability to get started (43%).

It's worth noting some progress has been made. Eighteen months before the study, only 21% of businesses reported they measured risk in real time with automated business unit decision-making, board-level analytics, and metrics. Today, that number has reached 32%.

Further, among the businesses with formal budgets dedicated to risk management, 58% plan to spend between $1M and $5M on risk management products in the upcoming fiscal year, the study found.

For organizations working to reduce their IT security risk, Fantuzzi recommends starting with an asset inventory.

"Many people don't have a good inventory of their assets," he notes. "And it's not about determining how many apps or network servers you have. You need to know who owns them and what their criticality is; what's going through them and what's stored on them."

Criticality management is important, he continues, because some data is higher risk than others. Look at assets and the threats that can attack them, run regular vulnerability scans, and keep a prioritized list of what matters.

Business leaders who take these steps will have a well-documented list in the event of an incident.

"If an incident happens, you'll be able to show the board and regulators you've done everything possible," Fantuzzi explains. "The impact on your division will be small because, as you know, bad things happen."

Related Content

Kelly Sheridan is Associate Editor at Dark Reading. She started her career in business tech journalism at Insurance & Technology and most recently reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft and business IT. Sheridan earned her BA at Villanova University. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Survivalindeed
100%
0%
Survivalindeed,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/23/2017 | 8:57:59 AM
Re: This is tactical info
Yes For Sure
Sammy324
50%
50%
Sammy324,
User Rank: Strategist
2/6/2017 | 2:30:32 PM
Re: This is tactical info
Can't add anything to that, thanks. :D
Shantaram
50%
50%
Shantaram,
User Rank: Strategist
2/6/2017 | 6:21:20 AM
Re: 192.168.0.1
I agreed with you! THanks for this post!
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
2/5/2017 | 12:57:08 PM
Re: Great research! Much more education of business leaders on the other damages of security breaches is needed.
@David: More to the point, what would be helpful is exposing enterprises to more and better research on the costs of each negative aspect realized from a security breach.  In some cases, brand damage may in fact be the costliest thing to worry about -- while in many cases, it may not be.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
2/5/2017 | 12:56:02 PM
Not THAT unsensible
It's not that unsensible.  It's a bit like saying a person fears pain more than they fear being set on fire.  There are lots of ways one can realize pain, and there are far more negative consequences to pain that being set on fire carries -- but it's one of the most obvious and one of the most devastating.

So too with brand damage.  There are lots of ways brand damage can happen, and lots of bad stuff that comes from security breaches, but it appears that most businesses have determined that the costliest of the costly consequences of security breaches is that of brand damage.

And it's hard not to find common ground with that point -- particularly if the breach happened because you/your organization did something stupid and/or ill-advised (TJX, Target, and Home Depot come to mind).
DavidK194
100%
0%
DavidK194,
User Rank: Author
2/3/2017 | 10:31:58 AM
Great research! Much more education of business leaders on the other damages of security breaches is needed.
Enjoyed the article.  Often reputation and brand damage is what I hear when I speak with customers.  Much more must be done to educate our enterprises of other damaging effects of breaches.  Intellectual property loss is huge among corporations as well as lost business opportunities due to competitors using intel gathered to out bid them.

 
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Security Operations and IT Operations: Finding the Path to Collaboration
A wide gulf has emerged between SOC and NOC teams that's keeping both of them from assuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of IT systems. Here's how experts think it should be bridged.
Flash Poll
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
The transition from DevOps to SecDevOps is combining with the move toward cloud computing to create new challenges - and new opportunities - for the information security team. Download this report, to learn about the new best practices for secure application development.
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-0290
Published: 2017-05-09
NScript in mpengine in Microsoft Malware Protection Engine with Engine Version before 1.1.13704.0, as used in Windows Defender and other products, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (type confusion and application crash) via crafted JavaScript code within ...

CVE-2016-10369
Published: 2017-05-08
unixsocket.c in lxterminal through 0.3.0 insecurely uses /tmp for a socket file, allowing a local user to cause a denial of service (preventing terminal launch), or possibly have other impact (bypassing terminal access control).

CVE-2016-8202
Published: 2017-05-08
A privilege escalation vulnerability in Brocade Fibre Channel SAN products running Brocade Fabric OS (FOS) releases earlier than v7.4.1d and v8.0.1b could allow an authenticated attacker to elevate the privileges of user accounts accessing the system via command line interface. With affected version...

CVE-2016-8209
Published: 2017-05-08
Improper checks for unusual or exceptional conditions in Brocade NetIron 05.8.00 and later releases up to and including 06.1.00, when the Management Module is continuously scanned on port 22, may allow attackers to cause a denial of service (crash and reload) of the management module.

CVE-2017-0890
Published: 2017-05-08
Nextcloud Server before 11.0.3 is vulnerable to an inadequate escaping leading to a XSS vulnerability in the search module. To be exploitable a user has to write or paste malicious content into the search dialogue.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
In past years, security researchers have discovered ways to hack cars, medical devices, automated teller machines, and many other targets. Dark Reading Executive Editor Kelly Jackson Higgins hosts researcher Samy Kamkar and Levi Gundert, vice president of threat intelligence at Recorded Future, to discuss some of 2016's most unusual and creative hacks by white hats, and what these new vulnerabilities might mean for the coming year.