Risk

12/7/2016
12:40 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Corporations Cite Reputational Damage As Biggest Cyber Risk

New data analyzing SEC disclosures found 83% of publicly traded companies worry most about the risk of brand damage via hacks exposing customer or employee information.

Public businesses fear the possibility of losing customer or employee's personally identifiable information (PII) and the subsequent brand-damage fallout more so than other risks, a new study published by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) found. 

The IAPP Westin Research Center studied US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-K disclosure statements from more than 100 publicly traded companies. The forms are where businesses share risk factors that could prove concerning to investors. 

The chief privacy officers, chief legal counsel, and other experts in privacy and privacy law on IAPP's research advisory board were struggling to quantify privacy risk for their companies and clients. IAPP decided to study this via the SEC disclosures, according to IAPP research director Rita Heimes.

"It's tough to come up with a value for privacy risk," she explains. "We decided to determine whether companies think [privacy] is a risk to the bottom line, and provide more definition that way."

Among the companies that disclosed privacy risk, 83% cited reputational harm as the top digital risk factor. This surpassed civil litigation (60%), regulatory enforcement (51%), and remediation (50%). Less than half (43%) cited the risk of failing to comply with privacy laws and regulations.

Brand damage causes more immediate damage than lawsuits, which can drag on for long periods of time.

"Trust is the biggest threat because it applies to both the employee and the customer, depending on whose data is being misused or exposed," Heimes says. "Once that trust factor is undermined, it can have a ripple effect, leading to financial harm, embarrassment, or drop in employee retention."

Another risk factor is loss of corporate resources, Heimes continues. Anytime someone mishandles personal data, it takes a lot of time away from business operations and as a result, employees have to work on planning recovery and preventing future incidents.

One in five companies warns investors that if it becomes the victim of a data breach, the liability could exceed insurance coverage. The same amount say an attack could distract management, and other employees, from their core business responsibilities.

The fear of privacy risk varies across industries, says Heimes. Businesses offering products known for being secure, like software, operating systems or cloud services, run a tremendous risk if personal information is lost.

"If their products are vulnerable to attack and data can be easily mishandled, that makes the product or service inherently less valuable," she explains. "We perceived technology companies and social media platforms as being far more likely to write elaborate, sophisticated, and knowledgeable privacy disclosures" compared with organizations like energy companies, which are more concerned with system failure.

Heimes says she was surprised there wasn't greater unease about the role of vendors and other third parties in using PII. Less than half (47%) of respondents were concerned about information mishandling by business partners, vendors, and other organizations.

"There was less mention of third parties disclosing data than I think is reflective of reality," she notes. "This is significant and many companies have begun to step up paying attention to how vendors handle their data."

That is likely to change over time, however, she notes.

There are steps businesses can take to mitigate the risk of information loss, she says. It's not enough to simply buy software tools; the human factor is most important.

Investing in people and helping them understand privacy best practices can prevent the misuse of PII. The workers who collect, store, and make decisions about how to handle user data need to be aware of privacy issues and make informed choices, Heimes says.

Related Content:

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance & Technology, where she covered financial ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
'PowerSnitch' Hacks Androids via Power Banks
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  12/8/2018
The Case for a Human Security Officer
Ira Winkler, CISSP, President, Secure Mentem,  12/5/2018
Windows 10 Security Questions Prove Easy for Attackers to Exploit
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  12/5/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
10 Best Practices That Could Reshape Your IT Security Department
This Dark Reading Tech Digest, explores ten best practices that could reshape IT security departments.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-8651
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-12
A cross site scripting vulnerability exists when Microsoft Dynamics NAV does not properly sanitize a specially crafted web request to an affected Dynamics NAV server, aka "Microsoft Dynamics NAV Cross Site Scripting Vulnerability." This affects Microsoft Dynamics NAV.
CVE-2018-8652
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-12
A Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists when Windows Azure Pack does not properly sanitize user-provided input, aka "Windows Azure Pack Cross Site Scripting Vulnerability." This affects Windows Azure Pack Rollup 13.1.
CVE-2018-8617
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-12
A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way that the Chakra scripting engine handles objects in memory in Microsoft Edge, aka "Chakra Scripting Engine Memory Corruption Vulnerability." This affects Microsoft Edge, ChakraCore. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2018-8583, CVE-2018-8...
CVE-2018-8618
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-12
A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way that the Chakra scripting engine handles objects in memory in Microsoft Edge, aka "Chakra Scripting Engine Memory Corruption Vulnerability." This affects Microsoft Edge, ChakraCore. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2018-8583, CVE-2018-8...
CVE-2018-8619
PUBLISHED: 2018-12-12
A remote code execution vulnerability exists when the Internet Explorer VBScript execution policy does not properly restrict VBScript under specific conditions, aka "Internet Explorer Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This affects Internet Explorer 9, Internet Explorer 11, Internet Exp...