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.

News

7/2/2010
10:10 AM
George Crump
George Crump
Commentary
50%
50%

The Costs Of Finite Data Retention

In closing out our series about keeping data forever we will examine the financial aspects of keeping data forever. What can be done to curtail costs and how does it compare to the more traditional finite data retention model? In this entry we will look at the costs of a finite data retention policy.

In closing out our series about keeping data forever we will examine the financial aspects of keeping data forever. What can be done to curtail costs and how does it compare to the more traditional finite data retention model? In this entry we will look at the costs of a finite data retention policy.First we have to agree that data retention has a cost, whether you are going to keep it forever or for a short time. All the tools that are available to curtail the cost of retaining data are available to both models; deduplication, compression, disk archive, MAID disk and of course tape. In the keep data forever model the use of those tools becomes potentially more critical as does indexing that we discussed in our second entry.

There are two major cost disadvantages that the finite data retention model has. First, systems need to be put in place to manage the data going through that process. Data has to be identified and moved to the retained storage target, typically a disk or tape archive. While the keep data forever strategy will share this same need, the finite strategy has a greater layer of complexity and organization required because that data needs to be able to be identified for deletion at just the right time.

The cost to identify all the data that interrelates to a given policy can be astronomical. For example, say you decide to keep all Human Resources (HR) data for seven years and have another policy to keep all employee data for five years. It is fairly easy to identify data that is stored in the HR share as well as emails sent to and from HR. However what about the copy of a document that HR sends to an employee and then that employee re-saves that information in their own sub-directory? How is that document going to be identified to be kept two years longer than the other data within the employee's directory? While software does exist to manage that process, it is not free and there is still the complexity of managing the process. And this still does not address the potential for the employee to email a copy of that document to their personal email address or to copy to a thumb drive.

That last sentence leads to the second major cost of a finite data retention policy. What if something is deleted before it should have been, does not get deleted when it should or gets out of IT's control prior to the retention policy being invoked? Honestly as long as your company is never sued or has a legal discovery made against it, the cost is zero. If you have been or have the possibility of being sued then you have to be able to produce data. If you can't and you should be able to given your corporate data retention guidelines, then you have a problem, a costly one, on your hands. Potentially worse is the cost associated if someone else can then produce that data (via personal email) and you can't.

A finite data retention policy that was supposed to protect the organization may end up condemning it. The expectations that these policies set are simply too high. If you don't keep data and the data the relates to it for the exact period of time, you lose and it could cost the organization millions if it goes to court. A keep data forever strategy, as long as you can find that data, does not have the same issue.

Track us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/storageswiss

Subscribe to our RSS feed.

George Crump is lead analyst of Storage Switzerland, an IT analyst firm focused on the storage and virtualization segments. Find Storage Switzerland's disclosure statement here.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Commentary
Ransomware Is Not the Problem
Adam Shostack, Consultant, Entrepreneur, Technologist, Game Designer,  6/9/2021
Edge-DRsplash-11-edge-ask-the-experts
How Can I Test the Security of My Home-Office Employees' Routers?
John Bock, Senior Research Scientist,  6/7/2021
News
New Ransomware Group Claiming Connection to REvil Gang Surfaces
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  6/10/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Zero Trust doesn't have to break your budget!
Current Issue
The State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
In this report learn how enterprises are building their incident response teams and processes, how they research potential compromises, how they respond to new breaches, and what tools and processes they use to remediate problems and improve their cyber defenses for the future.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-36388
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-17
In CiviCRM before 5.21.3 and 5.22.x through 5.24.x before 5.24.3, users may be able to upload and execute a crafted PHAR archive.
CVE-2020-36389
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-17
In CiviCRM before 5.28.1 and CiviCRM ESR before 5.27.5 ESR, the CKEditor configuration form allows CSRF.
CVE-2021-32575
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-17
HashiCorp Nomad and Nomad Enterprise up to version 1.0.4 bridge networking mode allows ARP spoofing from other bridged tasks on the same node. Fixed in 0.12.12, 1.0.5, and 1.1.0 RC1.
CVE-2021-33557
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-17
An XSS issue was discovered in manage_custom_field_edit_page.php in MantisBT before 2.25.2. Unescaped output of the return parameter allows an attacker to inject code into a hidden input field.
CVE-2021-23396
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-17
All versions of package lutils are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the main (merge) function.