Welcome Guest. | Log In | Register | Membership Benefits

Enterprises Falling Short On App Security, Ponemon Study Says

Most organizations have been hacked, yet 88 percent still spend more on coffee than on app security

Feb 09, 2011 | 11:39 PM | 

By Tim Wilson

Ninety-three percent of organizations have been hacked at least once in the past two years through insecure Web applications, according to a study released Tuesday. Yet the same study says 88 percent of enterprises spend more on coffee than on securing Web applications.

The "State of Web Application Security Survey" (PDF), conducted by the Ponemom Institute and sponsored by security vendors Barracuda Networks and Cenzic, shows a clear disconnect between the growing threat posed by Web application-related attacks and the relatively small effort by enterprises to defend against them.

"Companies know they're being hacked and that a lot of the attacks come through Web applications," says Paul Judge, chief research officer at Barracuda Networks. "Yet in most cases, they spend very little of their time and resources on app security."

Mandeep Khera, chief marketing officer for Cenzic, agreed. "Security departments tend to be given a single bucket of money for security, usually about 6 to 7 percent of the overall IT budget, and this is what they have to work with," he observes. "What we see is that a lot of them spend most of that money on network security, such as firewalls and IDS, and they mistakenly believe that those systems will protect them."

According to the survey, 88 percent of enterprises said they spend more on coffee per employee than they spend on application security. Seventy-two percent of organizations test less than 10 percent of their Web applications for security holes, even knowing those applications have been hacked in the past.

Sixty-nine percent of respondents say they are relying on network firewalls to secure Web applications, even though such firewalls do little to prevent application-level attacks, the study says.

Data protection (62 percent) and compliance (51 percent) were the top reasons for securing Web apps, according to the study. Yet while compliance is a major driver, 43 percent of respondents said they are not familiar with or have no knowledge of OWASP, a key component to compliance standards like PCI.

While 41 percent of respondents reported they have 100 Web applications or more, the majority (66 percent) test fewer than than 25 percent of these applications for vulnerabilities.

"Companies need to learn that they have to assess all of their applications for security vulnerabilities, not just the top five," Khera says. "You can't do partial open heart surgery -- you have to do all of it. If you only screen a few of your Web applications, the attackers will just get in through the others."

There is some question as to whom is responsible for Web application security within the organization, the study shows. More than half of respondents (53 percent) said they expect their Web hosting provider to secure their Web applications. Even within the organization, many IT departments are unsure whether the security function is handled by the security team, the app development team, or someone else, Judge observes.

Organizations should take a dual approach to securing Web applications, using application scanning to identify vulnerabilities and deploying Web application firewalls to help protect enterprise data until the applications can be remediated, Khera says.

"Application security is not as big a monster as many people think," Khera adds. "There are tools out there that can help, even if your budget is limited."

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Make a 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












Featured Webcasts
Featured Whitepapers
Featured Reports
Bugs
ENTERPRISE VULNERABILITIES
Vulnerability:ssl-vpn end-point interrogator/installer activex control
Published:2010-11-03
Severity:High
Description:Stack-based buffer overflow in SonicWALL SSL-VPN End-Point Interrogator/Installer ActiveX control (Aventail.EPInstaller) before 10.5.2 and 10.0.5 hotfix 3 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via long (1) CabURL and (2) Location arguments to the Install3rdPartyComponent method.
Vulnerability:gvim
Published:2010-11-03
Severity:High
Description:Untrusted search path vulnerability in VIM Development Group GVim before 7.3.034, and possibly other versions before 7.3.46, allows local users, and possibly remote attackers, to execute arbitrary code and conduct DLL hijacking attacks via a Trojan horse User32.dll or other DLL that is located in the same folder as a .TXT file. NOTE: some of these details are obtained from third party information.
Vulnerability:cforms
Published:2010-11-03
Severity:Medium
Description:Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in wp-content/plugins/cforms/lib_ajax.php in cforms WordPress plugin 11.5 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) rs and (2) rsargs[] parameters.
Vulnerability:links, wsn links, wsn links
Published:2010-11-03
Severity:High
Description:Multiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in search.php in WSN Links 5.0.x before 5.0.81, 5.1.x before 5.1.51, and 6.0.x before 6.0.1 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the (1) namecondition or (2) namesearch parameter.
Vulnerability:deluxebb
Published:2010-11-03
Severity:Medium
Description:SQL injection vulnerability in misc.php in DeluxeBB 1.3, and possibly earlier, when magic_quotes_gpc is disabled, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the xthedateformat parameter in a register action, a different vector than CVE-2005-2989, CVE-2006-2503, and CVE-2009-1033.



Briefing Centers
POWERFUL INFORMATION
AT YOUR FINGERTIPS
(SPONSORED LINKS)