Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Attacks/Breaches

1/21/2015
04:45 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Security Budgets Going Up, Thanks To Mega-Breaches

Sixty percent of organizations have increased their security spending by one-third -- but many security managers still don't think that's enough, Ponemon study finds.

Mega-breaches like those at Target and Sony are good for one thing: they help security departments get greater buy-in and bigger budgets from the powers that be. In the wake of the Target breach, 61 percent of organizations increased their security budgets by an average of 34 percent in 2014, according to a study released today, conducted by the Ponemon Institute on behalf of Identity Finder, LLC.

Nevertheless, only 67 percent of respondents said that their organizations gave them sufficient budget to defend against data breaches, even after the Target incident -- which, respondents say upped their upper management's concern about breaches from a 5.7 to a 7.8 on a scale of 1 to 10.

That said, most respondents agreed that they did have adequate tools and personnel to minimize (72%), quickly detect (69%), prevent (65%), and determine the root cause of (55%) data breaches.

Where is the extra money going? The report does not make it clear how much is being invested in new personnel. As for technology spending, the lion's share is going to endpoint security, intrusion detection systems, and security incident and event management (SIEM) systems.

In other words, it's mostly being used on tools that will help detect attacks -- which is important, since 46 percent of survey respondents said they discovered breaches "by accident" and 33 percent said it took them over a year to do so.

Organizations also reported that they'd made operational changes to enhance breach security. Half said they'd begun new security training and awareness activities, and 56 percent established incident response teams.

"Businesses are clearly spending money to prevent cyberattacks, but data breaches still occur. There must be a balance between blocking threats and reducing the footprint of vulnerable, sensitive data," said Todd Feinman, CEO of Identity Finder. "JP Morgan Chase spent over $250 million on cyber security last year, but still suffered from a significant data breach.  The recent Sony cyberattack where millions of instances of Social Security numbers were found within hundreds of files is an unfortunate example of the damage that can occur when an attack gets through and organizations don't properly store and classify sensitive information and don't remove outdated or redundant data completely."

Budgets will probably get another bump this year, now that company executives have Sony, Home Depot, and JP Morgan Chase haunting their dreams. 

To download "2014: Year of the Mega Breach," click here.

Sara Peters is Senior Editor at Dark Reading and formerly the editor-in-chief of Enterprise Efficiency. Prior that she was senior editor for the Computer Security Institute, writing and speaking about virtualization, identity management, cybersecurity law, and a myriad ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
GonzSTL
50%
50%
GonzSTL,
User Rank: Ninja
1/22/2015 | 11:31:24 AM
Re: Training: The elephant in the room
Case in point could be Target, the breach that keeps on giving. Incident Response certainly failed them; malware was detected early and not acted upon. I wonder how much training their security team had undergone, and if any security exercises were performed. In an organization as large as that, one would think that those exercises are part of their routine.

"Through our investigation, we learned that after these criminals entered our network, a small amount of their activity was logged and surfaced to our team. That activity was evaluated and acted upon." "Based on their interpretation and evaluation of that activity, the team determined that it did not warrant immediate follow up." Those were the words of a Target spokesperson after the breach. I understand that there are literally hundreds of alerts received by their security team daily, but perhaps with better knowledge and training, certain types of alerts could be elevated and acted upon accordingly.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
1/22/2015 | 11:17:13 AM
Training: The elephant in the room
It's notworthy that the report is unclear on how much is being invested in training and new personnel. The best technology in the world won't help if the security team doesn't have the expertise to use it effectively.  
GonzSTL
50%
50%
GonzSTL,
User Rank: Ninja
1/22/2015 | 11:02:21 AM
Re: How does one know what the appropriate level of investment should be?
Those are tough questions to answer, and I doubt you will get definitive ones. If you ask the companies that have been breached, they will likely tell you that they did not have the right level of investment in IT security despite having spent many millions of dollars on it, and that they did not have the right success metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of their IT security. The reality is that the level of investment is really a matter of risk assessment and management. You can easily spend more than the value of that which you wish to protect, so the issue becomes a management decision. Metrics too can be a tricky venture. Periodic security assessments are certainly a must. These should include penetration tests, vulnerability assessments, awareness training tests,  and social engineering tests, the results of which must be tabulated and examined over a course of time for effectiveness. In all cases, the results must trend increasingly to the positive. Additionally, I cannot overemphasize the use of an external party to perform these tests in addition to similar ones performed by internal resources. You must get an objective point of view in order to properly assess your security posture.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
1/22/2015 | 10:55:38 AM
Re: How does one know what the appropriate level of investment should be?
That's a fantastic question that does not have a definitive answer. Each solution is unique to each enterprise. You want to spend the right amount of capital towards a cyber security program but you also want to ensure that you are not erecting a $1 million fence around a $1 asset. A security program needs to have the right balance of active personnel and tools that are preventative and reactive. This is also dependent on what data types a company houses and who they do business with. My point here is that there is a variety of factors that will go into each implementation. This decision needs to be made by the powers that be but security needs to be one of the seats at the table to rationalize future endeavors. As you can see from the article, even throughing massive amounts of money at the issue doesn't make you 100% secure.
Rickkam
50%
50%
Rickkam,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/21/2015 | 7:20:46 PM
How does one know what the appropriate level of investment should be?
It is good to hear that the average security budget is increasing.  My question relates to how one knows what the right level of investment is?  And also what is the right success metric for security?  
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/14/2020
Lock-Pickers Face an Uncertain Future Online
Seth Rosenblatt, Contributing Writer,  8/10/2020
Hacking It as a CISO: Advice for Security Leadership
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 New Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities That Could Put Your Enterprise at Risk
In this Dark Reading Tech Digest, we look at the ways security researchers and ethical hackers find critical vulnerabilities and offer insights into how you can fix them before attackers can exploit them.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-17475
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of authentication in the network relays used in MEGVII Koala 2.9.1-c3s allows attackers to grant physical access to anyone by sending packet data to UDP port 5000.
CVE-2020-0255
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2020-10751. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2020-10751. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2020-10751 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-14353
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2017-18270. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2017-18270. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2017-18270 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-17464
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none.
CVE-2020-17473
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of mutual authentication in ZKTeco FaceDepot 7B 1.0.213 and ZKBiosecurity Server 1.0.0_20190723 allows an attacker to obtain a long-lasting token by impersonating the server.