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.


05:00 PM
Connect Directly

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
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Michael McMahon
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.

Attackers Leave Stolen Credentials Searchable on Google
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2021
How to Better Secure Your Microsoft 365 Environment
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/25/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: I can't find the back door.
Current Issue
2020: The Year in Security
Download this Tech Digest for a look at the biggest security stories that - so far - have shaped a very strange and stressful year.
Flash Poll
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprises
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprises
COVID-19 has created a new IT paradigm in the enterprise -- and a new level of cybersecurity risk. This report offers a look at how enterprises are assessing and managing cyber-risk under the new normal.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-25
The MediaWiki "Report" extension has a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability. Before fixed version, there was no protection against CSRF checks on Special:Report, so requests to report a revision could be forged. The problem has been fixed in commit f828dc6 by making use of Medi...
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-25
ORAS is open source software which enables a way to push OCI Artifacts to OCI Conformant registries. ORAS is both a CLI for initial testing and a Go Module. In ORAS from version 0.4.0 and before version 0.9.0, there is a "zip-slip" vulnerability. The directory support feature allows the ...
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-25
An XML external entity (XXE) injection vulnerability was discovered in the Nutch DmozParser and is known to affect Nutch versions < 1.18. XML external entity injection (also known as XXE) is a web security vulnerability that allows an attacker to interfere with an application's processing of XML ...
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-25
When handler-router component is enabled in servicecomb-java-chassis, authenticated user may inject some data and cause arbitrary code execution. The problem happens in versions between 2.0.0 ~ 2.1.3 and fixed in Apache ServiceComb-Java-Chassis 2.1.5
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-22
Pepperl+Fuchs Comtrol IO-Link Master in Version 1.5.48 and below is prone to an authenticated reflected POST Cross-Site Scripting