Welcome Guest. | Log In| Register | Membership Benefits
  • Email this page E-mail this page
  • |  Print Print this page
  • |   Bookmark and Share

Survey: Enterprises Don't Know Sensitive Data Flow

Upcoming report from The 451 Group demonstrates how little progress enterprises have made in identifying and protecting sensitive data

Mar 04, 2008 | 03:05 AM

By Kelly Jackson Higgins
DarkReading

Most enterprises still don’t know where their sensitive data resides, and less than half of those that do know are actually enforcing its protection, according to new research to be released next month by The 451 Group.

“Seventy-five percent don’t know who their employees are talking to,” says Nick Selby, director of research operations and research director of enterprise security for The 451 Group. “But this is not an IT problem -- it’s a business problem.”

The 451 Group survey, which will be published as part of its “Mind the Data Gap” report next month, found that only 37 percent of enterprises have determined where their data physically resides in the organization. Only 26 percent have established data-sensitivity classification schemes -- such as “public,” “confidential,” and “regulated" -- to label their data, and over half of those respondents say enforcement of these data classifications is nonexistent in their organizations.

Selby says of the around 320 IT decision-makers his firm surveyed, only 22 percent of them had done any analysis on interdepartmental communication. “We are finding that they don’t know where the data is because they don’t understand how they do business... They don’t understand the processes,” he says.

Those organizations that are on track with classifying their data either do business with the government or are regulated to label their data’s sensitivity, Selby says.

And it appears enterprises are out of touch when it comes to just how data leaks in the real world, according to The 451 Group. While data leakage by email accounted for only about 0.5 percent of the incidents (there were two so far) reported to Attrition.org's database this year, some 38 percent of respondents to 451's survey said employees leaking information via email or USB device, for instance, was either somewhat or very likely. And 44 percent said employees stealing information this way was somewhat or very likely, according to the survey.

But The 451 Group says this disconnect may be more about organizations in general just not knowing their users are leaking data via email. "It is inconceivable to us that so few losses occurred by a channel like email," according to its latest blog entry.

Meanwhile, Selby says before organizations throw tools at the data leakage problem, they first need to have their senior business and IT people team up to analyze data volumes, traffic, and study which groups need to talk to which groups, etc.

— Kelly Jackson Higgins, Senior Editor, Dark Reading

  • The 451 Group


  • Subscribe to RSS










    Bugs
    ENTERPRISE VULNERABILITIES
    Vulnerability:cxf
    Published:2010-08-19
    Severity:High
    Description:Apache CXF 2.0.x before 2.0.13, 2.1.x before 2.1.10, and 2.2.x before 2.2.9, as used in Apache ServiceMix, Apache Camel, Apache Chemistry, Apache jUDDI, Apache Geronimo, and other products, does not properly reject DTDs in SOAP messages, which allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files, send HTTP requests to intranet servers, or cause a denial of service (CPU and memory consumption) via a crafted DTD, as demonstrated by an entity declaration in a request to samples/wsdl_first_pure_xml, a similar issue to CVE-2010-1632.
    Vulnerability:libvirt
    Published:2010-08-19
    Severity:Medium
    Description:Red Hat libvirt, possibly 0.6.1 through 0.8.2, looks up disk backing stores without referring to the user-defined main disk format, which might allow guest OS users to read arbitrary files on the host OS, and possibly have unspecified other impact, via unknown vectors.
    Vulnerability:libvirt
    Published:2010-08-19
    Severity:Medium
    Description:Red Hat libvirt, possibly 0.7.2 through 0.8.2, recurses into disk-image backing stores without extracting the defined disk backing-store format, which might allow guest OS users to read arbitrary files on the host OS, and possibly have unspecified other impact, via unknown vectors.
    Vulnerability:libvirt
    Published:2010-08-19
    Severity:Medium
    Description:Red Hat libvirt, possibly 0.6.0 through 0.8.2, creates new images without setting the user-defined backing-store format, which allows guest OS users to read arbitrary files on the host OS via unspecified vectors.
    Vulnerability:libvirt
    Published:2010-08-19
    Severity:Low
    Description:Red Hat libvirt 0.2.0 through 0.8.2 creates iptables rules with improper mappings of privileged source ports, which allows guest OS users to bypass intended access restrictions by leveraging IP address and source-port values, as demonstrated by copying and deleting an NFS directory tree.


    Briefing Centers
    POWERFUL INFORMATION
    AT YOUR FINGERTIPS
    (SPONSORED LINKS)