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.

Operations

5/19/2015
05:00 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Retailers Take 197 Days To Detect Advanced Threat, Study Says

Most common method of identifying them as advanced threats is a "gut feeling."

Despite a string of high-profile breaches in recent history, the retail industry is still lagging behind on cybersecurity, according to research released today by Arbor Networks and the Ponemon Institute.

According to the report, it took retailers 197 days on average to identify that they'd been hit with an advanced threat, and took them 39 days to contain it; it took financial services organizations 98 days to identify, and 26 to contain. 

The most common method retailers used for identifying an advanced threat? "A gut feeling." While 23 percent used forensic evidence, 21 percent used known attacker signatures, and 16 percent used threat intelligence that had been shared by others in the industry (and 2 percent said "other), a vast 38 percent simply said they had a gut feeling. The answers in finance were: 34% forensics, 23% signatures, 25 % shared intelligence, and only 20% "gut."

About 22 percent of the security budget, for both industries, was spent on "cyber kill chain activities" -- efforts to disrupt an attack before it happens, ranging from the time an attacker begins its reconaissance to just before it carries out its ultimate goal (like data exfiltration).

"I thought that was a huge number," says Arabella Hallawell, vice president of corporate strategy for Arbor Networks, noting that just a few years ago, few people would have even been familiar with the term "cyber kill chain."

"It's a real sea change from just buying infrastructure-based products," she says.

Overall, respondents didn't have a great amount of confidence in their ability to detect and contain advanced threats, and even less confidence in detecting/containing denials of service. Only 58 percent of financial organizations said technology and personnel were effective in detecting advanced threats, and in all other categories, less than half of respondents in both industries said their technology and personnel were effective.

"I think it's one of the reasons you see them looking at more people-based" solutions, says Hallawell. Threat intelligence and threat hunting, she says, once the domain of only the most security-savvy organizations, are now becoming more popular -- or at least getting on the radar of -- other industries. These methods, she says require more input from and analysis by knowledgable human beings.

Human beings are in short supply. On average, retailers have 11 employees responding to security incidents; financial industries 19, according to the study. Hallawell says that retail, in particular, doesn't often have dedicated teams to respond to security incidents.

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
Michael McMahon
50%
50%
Michael McMahon,
User Rank: Author
5/21/2015 | 12:44:14 PM
APT detection
Excellent article.  We have seen tremendous advances in digital identification and forensics, but these alone clearly remain insufficient to deterring or solving advanced threats.  We need to link technical analysis with human/behavioral analysis.  Non-traditional fields for cyberthreat analysis--such as the behavioral sciences--may offer us insight about both threat actor and victim behavior on networks.  There are some initial studies available, but more work needs to be done.  Linking technical and human/behavioral analysis will provide greater resolution to these persistent problems.

 
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: This gives a new meaning to blind leading the blind.
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
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-27479
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-16
ZOLL Defibrillator Dashboard, v prior to 2.2,The affected product’s web application could allow a low privilege user to inject parameters to contain malicious scripts to be executed by higher privilege users.
CVE-2021-27483
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-16
ZOLL Defibrillator Dashboard, v prior to 2.2,The affected products contain insecure filesystem permissions that could allow a lower privilege user to escalate privileges to an administrative level user.
CVE-2021-27485
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-16
ZOLL Defibrillator Dashboard, v prior to 2.2,The application allows users to store their passwords in a recoverable format, which could allow an attacker to retrieve the credentials from the web browser.
CVE-2021-31159
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-16
Zoho ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus MSP before 10519 is vulnerable to a User Enumeration bug due to improper error-message generation in the Forgot Password functionality, aka SDPMSP-15732.
CVE-2021-31857
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-16
In Zoho ManageEngine Password Manager Pro before 11.1 build 11104, attackers are able to retrieve credentials via a browser extension for non-website resource types.