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

3/28/2017
04:28 PM
Curtis Franklin
Curtis Franklin
Curt Franklin
50%
50%

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
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 7/9/2020
Omdia Research Launches Page on Dark Reading
Tim Wilson, Editor in Chief, Dark Reading 7/9/2020
Mobile App Fraud Jumped in Q1 as Attackers Pivot from Browsers
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  7/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
This report describes some of the latest attacks and threats emanating from the Internet, as well as advice and tips on how your organization can mitigate those threats before they affect your business. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15105
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
Django Two-Factor Authentication before 1.12, stores the user's password in clear text in the user session (base64-encoded). The password is stored in the session when the user submits their username and password, and is removed once they complete authentication by entering a two-factor authenticati...
CVE-2020-11061
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
In Bareos Director less than or equal to 16.2.10, 17.2.9, 18.2.8, and 19.2.7, a heap overflow allows a malicious client to corrupt the director's memory via oversized digest strings sent during initialization of a verify job. Disabling verify jobs mitigates the problem. This issue is also patched in...
CVE-2020-4042
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
Bareos before version 19.2.8 and earlier allows a malicious client to communicate with the director without knowledge of the shared secret if the director allows client initiated connection and connects to the client itself. The malicious client can replay the Bareos director's cram-md5 challenge to...
CVE-2020-11081
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
osquery before version 4.4.0 enables a priviledge escalation vulnerability. If a Window system is configured with a PATH that contains a user-writable directory then a local user may write a zlib1.dll DLL, which osquery will attempt to load. Since osquery runs with elevated privileges this enables l...
CVE-2020-6114
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
An exploitable SQL injection vulnerability exists in the Admin Reports functionality of Glacies IceHRM v26.6.0.OS (Commit bb274de1751ffb9d09482fd2538f9950a94c510a) . A specially crafted HTTP request can cause SQL injection. An attacker can make an authenticated HTTP request to trigger this vulnerabi...