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.

Partner Perspectives //

bitdefender

2/22/2017
09:00 AM
Razvan Muresan
Razvan Muresan
Partner Perspectives
50%
50%

Survey: 14% Of IT Execs Would Pay $500K To Avoid Shaming After A Breach

Bitdefender report shows how negative media headlines following an attack can cause financial damage, ruin business forecasts and severely damage reputations.

Some 14% of IT decision makers from large companies would pay more than $500,000 to avoid public shaming or other devastating consequences after a security breach, according to a survey by Bitdefender of 250 IT decision makers at companies in the US with more than 1,000 PCs.

The survey shows only a third of US companies would refuse to pay attackers if their infrastructure gets compromised while two-thirds would pay an average of $124K. From those who would pay, some 40% would give less than $10K, 26% between $10K and $100K, and 19% between $100K and $500K.

These results confirm that negative media headlines could cause substantial financial damage, ruin business forecasts and severely damage reputations.

In a recent case, officials from Verizon, which agreed to buy Yahoo’s core properties for $4.83B in July, told reporters that the company has “a reasonable basis” to suspect the Yahoo security breach, one of the largest ever, could have a meaningful financial impact on the deal. This further highlights the risk that cyber incidents could alter significant transactions and even destroy whole companies under the enormous pressure from both stakeholders and media. In the minds of board members, IT decision makers in C-level suites are to blame for breaches. Failure to mitigate and act quickly and efficiently in case of a breach can cost CIOs and IT manager their jobs.

Bitdefender’s survey shows 64% of IT decision makers think their company’s IT security budget is sufficient, while 26% say it is adequate but the company is understaffed. Another 7% say they have enough budget but it doesn’t support expansion. Only 3% of IT decision makers surveyed said the IT security budget in their company is insufficient. The IT decision makers, on average, say only 64% of cyberattacks can be stopped, detected or prevented with the current resources.

Bitdefender’s survey also shows that 34% of companies acknowledge that they were breached in the past 12 months, while 74% of respondents don’t know how.

Cybercriminals can spend large amounts of time inside organizations without being detected; Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) are often defined as threats designed to evade detection. In the virtualization paradigm, since nothing executed in raw memory is encrypted – just scrambled – APTs that try to execute malicious code on a virtual machine will be intercepted by Bitdefender’s hypervisor introspection technology long before they actually compromise the operating system. In fact, as soon as the malicious code, even delivered via a zero-day exploit, tries to execute in the VM’s memory, the introspection engine will immediately “see” the malicious action and the code that it was trying to execute.

This survey was conducted in October 2016 by iSense Solutions for Bitdefender on 250 IT security purchasing professionals from enterprises with 1,000 or more PCs based in the United States. The sample included CIOs/CEOs/ CISOs – 26 percent; IT managers/directors – 56 percent; IT system administrators – 10 percent; IT support specialists – 5 percent.)

 

Razvan, a security specialist at Bitdefender, is passionate about supporting SMEs in building communities and exchanging knowledge on entrepreneurship. A former business journalist, he enjoys taking innovative approaches to hot topics and believes that the massive amount of ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
10 Ways to Keep a Rogue RasPi From Wrecking Your Network
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  7/10/2019
The Security of Cloud Applications
Hillel Solow, CTO and Co-founder, Protego,  7/11/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-13611
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-16
An issue was discovered in python-engineio through 3.8.2. There is a Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking (CSWSH) vulnerability that allows attackers to make WebSocket connections to a server by using a victim's credentials, because the Origin header is not restricted.
CVE-2019-0234
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-15
A Reflected Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in Apache Roller. Roller's Math Comment Authenticator did not property sanitize user input and could be exploited to perform Reflected Cross Site Scripting (XSS). The mitigation for this vulnerability is to upgrade to the latest version of ...
CVE-2018-7838
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-15
A CWE-119 Buffer Errors vulnerability exists in Modicon M580 CPU - BMEP582040, all versions before V2.90, and Modicon Ethernet Module BMENOC0301, all versions before V2.16, which could cause denial of service on the FTP service of the controller or the Ethernet BMENOC module when it receives a FTP C...
CVE-2019-6822
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-15
A Use After Free: CWE-416 vulnerability exists in Zelio Soft 2, V5.2 and earlier, which could cause remote code execution when opening a specially crafted Zelio Soft 2 project file.
CVE-2019-6823
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-15
A CWE-94: Code Injection vulnerability exists in ProClima (all versions prior to version 8.0.0) which could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on the targeted system in all versions of ProClima prior to version 8.0.0.