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.

Network Security //

Data Center

End of Bibblio RCM includes -->

Network Operations Filled With Unplanned Activity

Network operations spends vast amounts of time reacting to events. What does that mean for your organization and its people?

Ask an executive whether they want the organization to be proactive or reactive, and the answer will almost alway be "proactive." It's a noble goal, but according to the results of The 1E 2017 IT Incident Response Report, released this week by software tool vendor 1E, the average IT professional spends roughly 14 weeks every year reacting to events on the network. That's based on survey respondents saying that every day, 29% of their time is spent responding to immediate events rather than working on planned activities. It's a number that brings up a number of questions including, "Is anyone surprised by this?" and "Is it bad?"

For the first question, I looked for the answer on Google. When I typed in a number of search strings like "IT worker time reacting to network problems" I consistently received at least 220,000,000 responses. While I did not go through all 220 million responses to check for relevance, I took the large number to mean that this was an issue that has occupied quite a bit of thought over time. I think it's safe, then, to assume that, while the specific number might be discussed by people, the rough scale of the number won't surprise most people who have put any thought into the problem.

The second question is more complex than it might appear on the surface. The complexity begins with drilling into where the stream of interruptions begins. For 56% of the respondents who said they spend from 25% to 100% of their day responding to problems, those problems arise from operational issues like outages and performance issues. Another 41% said that their interruptions were to deal with help desk issues. Given that relatively few people call the help desk to offer compliments on superb system function, it can be assumed that these are "bad" events, too.

Beyond the insight into network and system performance, interruptions and incident response are bad because they generate stress in the workforce. According to a paper published nearly 20 years ago by Rebecca Maxon of Fairleigh-Dickinson University, stress is a "costly epidemic" in the workplace, bringing with it effects including absenteeism, lower productivity, staff turnover and more.

Christine Porath, writing in the New York Times, said that stress is a major contributor to incivility in the workplace, and that incivility can be a literal killer. In her article, she wrote, "Robert M. Sapolsky, a Stanford professor and the author of 'Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers,' argues that when people experience intermittent stressors like incivility for too long or too often, their immune systems pay the price. We also may experience major health problems, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and ulcers."

In business units outside IT, advice on how to reduce stress from unplanned interruptions often boils down to "set up time for dealing with un-scheduled things, and ignore them until it's their turn." That is career-limiting advice when it comes to network performance issues or outages. So what can network staff do to minimize the destructive effects of stress from constant interruptions?

  • Get the right tools -- Tools that allow staff to quickly isolate the cause of the problem, followed by tools for rapid remediation, reduce stress by giving people something to do about the problem (beyond panic).
  • Get the right process -- If the staff is spending more than one-quarter of its time on un-planned activities then it's worth building processes that recognize the reality of these events, provide ways of dealing with them, and allow for the unplanned when it comes to employee evaluation and management.
  • Get a goldfish -- Because watching fish helps calm people down. And goldfish don't have to be walked in the rain.

The survey took place between February 19 and February 28, 2017 and included responses from 1,014 IT pros (verified by Survey Monkey). The data was drawn from 1E's professional network database, sourced from site visitors, customers, events and external data partners. Of those responding, 306 respondents represented companies of more than 50,000 machines, and altogether respondents represented companies numbering almost 21 million endpoints in total.

— Curtis Franklin, Security Editor, Light Reading

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Improving Enterprise Cybersecurity With XDR
Enterprises are looking at eXtended Detection and Response technologies to improve their abilities to detect, and respond to, threats. While endpoint detection and response is not new to enterprise security, organizations have to improve network visibility, expand data collection and expand threat hunting capabilites if they want their XDR deployments to succeed. This issue of Tech Insights also includes: a market overview for XDR from Omdia, questions to ask before deploying XDR, and an XDR primer.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-34491
PUBLISHED: 2022-06-25
In the RSS extension for MediaWiki through 1.38.1, when the $wgRSSAllowLinkTag config variable was set to true, and a new RSS feed was created with certain XSS payloads within its description tags and added to the $wgRSSUrlWhitelist config variable, stored XSS could occur via MediaWiki's template sy...
CVE-2022-29931
PUBLISHED: 2022-06-25
Raytion 7.2.0 allows reflected Cross-site Scripting (XSS).
CVE-2022-31017
PUBLISHED: 2022-06-25
Zulip is an open-source team collaboration tool. Versions 2.1.0 through and including 5.2 are vulnerable to a logic error. A stream configured as private with protected history, where new subscribers should not be allowed to see messages sent before they were subscribed, when edited causes the serve...
CVE-2022-31016
PUBLISHED: 2022-06-25
Argo CD is a declarative continuous deployment for Kubernetes. Argo CD versions v0.7.0 and later are vulnerable to an uncontrolled memory consumption bug, allowing an authorized malicious user to crash the repo-server service, resulting in a Denial of Service. The attacker must be an authenticated A...
CVE-2022-24893
PUBLISHED: 2022-06-25
ESP-IDF is the official development framework for Espressif SoCs. In Espressif’s Bluetooth Mesh SDK (`ESP-BLE-MESH`), a memory corruption vulnerability can be triggered during provisioning, because there is no check for the `SegN` field of the Transaction Start PDU. This can resul...