Vulnerabilities / Threats
5/6/2010
04:08 PM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%
Repost This

2010 Strategic Security Survey

We've weathered years of stagnant budgets. Could proof of a sophisticated network of attackers formidable enough to drive Google out of China finally open management's eyes to what it takes to protect data?

InformationWeek Green - May 10, 2010 InformationWeek Green
Download the entire May 10, 2010 issue of InformationWeek, distributed in an all-digital format as part of our Green Initiative
(Registration required.)
We will plant a tree
for each of the first 5,000 downloads.

2010 Strategic Security Survey Feeling vindicated? Security pros everywhere rejoiced when proof that external adversaries really are targeting companies to steal intellectual property led the 10 o'clock news. Government and military agencies have been dealing for years with these attacks, but cries for help from enterprise IT groups often fell on deaf ears.

Until January. That's when Google announced that for half of 2009 it was attacked using a zero-day Internet Explorer exploit originating in China. Other companies, including Adobe, Juniper, and Rackspace, said they were also targeted with same techniques during that same period. Dubbed "Operation Aurora" by McAfee, this wide-ranging cyberassault attempted to steal the source code of applications developed by these--and possibly other--leading vendors.

As word spread, CISOs everywhere got copies of the standard "Could this happen to us?" e-mail from management and struggled to answer questions about how they could hope to fend off such exploits if Google, which employs hundreds of top security pros, had to withdraw from the largest emerging market and leave many millions of dollars on the table.

Security researchers group these attacks under the advanced persistent threat, or APT, category. We see APT as shorthand for a targeted assault, where the attacker's skill level and resources are advanced. When they get in, often via social engineering techniques, they seek to stay undetected and tunnel deep into the network, then quietly export valuable data. Cleaning up the mess is an expensive nightmare.

Fact is, after several years of both our budgets and our data being under siege, few companies have the means to fight off world-class attackers. In every security survey we deploy, a percentage of respondents say they long for a major breach to wake business leaders up. Finally, you got your wish, albeit via proxy.

Now, are you going to let a good crisis go to waste?

Early indications are promising. Companies are spending more time learning about the underlying components of APT, such as worms and bots, as shown by the 30% of the 1,002 respondents to our 2010 InformationWeek Analytics Strategic Security Survey who say they spend a great deal of time on virus and worm detection and research. This is a 25% increase over 2009.

But APT isn't only about the constant malware battle; that's just the front line of this war. Incident response is required to properly counter attacks, and enhanced security awareness is needed to keep users from infecting themselves. Our poll showed increases in those dedicating a great deal of time to both these activities, 14% and 22%, respectively.

To read the rest of the article,
Download the May 10, 2010 issue of InformationWeek


Global Threat, Local Pain: 2010 Strategic Security Survey

Become an InformationWeek Analytics subscriber for $99 per person per month, multiseat discounts available, and get our full 2010 Strategic Security report

This report includes 50 pages of action-oriented analysis, packed with 38 charts.

  • The reason why you should take a marketing pro to lunch
  • Financials: Security spending overall, as a percent of IT budgets, and a 2009 vs. 2010 comparison
  • Ratings of most effective vulnerability management tactics
Get This And All Our Reports

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-0360
Published: 2014-04-23
Memory leak in Cisco IOS before 15.1(1)SY, when IKEv2 debugging is enabled, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via crafted packets, aka Bug ID CSCtn22376.

CVE-2012-1317
Published: 2014-04-23
The multicast implementation in Cisco IOS before 15.1(1)SY allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (Route Processor crash) by sending packets at a high rate, aka Bug ID CSCts37717.

CVE-2012-1366
Published: 2014-04-23
Cisco IOS before 15.1(1)SY on ASR 1000 devices, when Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) tracking is enabled for IPv6, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via crafted MLD packets, aka Bug ID CSCtz28544.

CVE-2012-3062
Published: 2014-04-23
Cisco IOS before 15.1(1)SY, when Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) snooping is enabled, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption or device crash) via MLD packets on a network that contains many IPv6 hosts, aka Bug ID CSCtr88193.

CVE-2012-3918
Published: 2014-04-23
Cisco IOS before 15.3(1)T on Cisco 2900 devices, when a VWIC2-2MFT-T1/E1 card is configured for TDM/HDLC mode, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (serial-interface outage) via certain Frame Relay traffic, aka Bug ID CSCub13317.

Best of the Web