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.

Analytics

1/31/2011
05:23 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Report: Noncompliance Much More Costly Than Compliance

Ponemon Institute study finds average cost of not complying with security regulations and policies is more than two-and-a-half times as high as what it costs to comply

If you're wondering whether the cost of complying with security regulations is really worth it financially, think again, according to a new report: Noncompliance costs organizations, on average, 2.65 times more than meeting compliance rules does.

The Ponemon Institute study -- which was commissioned by Tripwire -- of 46 global firms during a 12-month period found that meeting compliance costs on average $3.5 million, while noncompliance can add up to around $9.4 million in costs including business disruption, productivity loss, revenue loss, and fines. Ponemon conducted benchmark studies of organizations in various industries (none of which were customers of Tripwire) and interviewed some 160 executives in those organizations.

Companies spent between $446,000 to more than $16 million during that period, according to the Ponemon report, with the most expensive compliance efforts being data protection and enforcement. Technologies for data protection and incident response management incurred the biggest bills.

In noncompliant scenarios, business disruption and loss of productivity were the costliest outcomes -- an average of $3.2 million and $2.4 million, respectively.

"It still costs more to be noncompliant," says Rekha Shenoy, vice president of strategy for Tripwire. "And noncompliance costs grow a lot more when companies grow," according to the report, Shenoy says.

Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute, said in a statement that he hopes the dollar values the report attaches to noncompliance will provide IT security and compliance professionals more ammunition for compliance initiatives in their organizations. "Companies that invest in compliance activities such as frequent audits, enabling technologies, staff training, and operational processes will find the most success in reducing risk and realize the ROI associated with preventing or reducing non-compliance costs," he said.

According to the findings in the report, organizations that run three to five internal audits per year incur the lowest per-capita compliance cost, an average of $154, whereas those firms that don't conduct in-house audits incur the highest, an average of $341. Overall, 28 percent say they don't run internal audits, and 11 percent perform more than five per year.

"The question is not should I be compliant, but how can I drive down the cost of being compliant?" says Joshua Corman, research director for the enterprise security practice at The 451 Group. "How do I reduce the cost of compliance such that I can liberate funds, time, and cycles to focus on going beyond compliance? ... An attacker knows you are compliant, and he does not care."

Ponemon measured organizations' security postures with its security effectiveness score metric, which showed that companies with the better security or with a higher score tend to be noncompliant less often than others. So the more you spend on compliance relative to the IT budget overall, the less your noncompliance costs, the report concludes.

None of the organizations in the study were free from getting hit by breaches, Tripwire's Shenoy says. "The ones with the highest noncompliance are getting breached the most," Shenoy says. "And those with a higher security effectiveness score have lower non-ompliance practices."

A big challenge for companies is managing multiple compliance programs. "They tend to struggle with multicompliance, with audit after audit," Shenoy says.

And compliance costs are different for different industries: Energy spends more than $24 million; education and research spend $6.8 million; healthcare, $8.86 million; and retail, $9.24 million.

Corman says the report's findings on the percentage of compliance to the total IT budget were surprising. According to the Ponemon report, 39 percent of the organizations spend 6 to 10 percent on compliance; 39 percent spend 11 to 15 percent; 11 percent spend 16 to 20 percent; and 7 percent spend a whopping 21 to 25 percent of their IT budgets on compliance. "That seemed high," Corman says.

A full copy of "The True Cost of Compliance" report is available here for download.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add Your Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
News
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Commentary
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
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-2021-3493
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-17
The overlayfs implementation in the linux kernel did not properly validate with respect to user namespaces the setting of file capabilities on files in an underlying file system. Due to the combination of unprivileged user namespaces along with a patch carried in the Ubuntu kernel to allow unprivile...
CVE-2021-3492
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-17
Shiftfs, an out-of-tree stacking file system included in Ubuntu Linux kernels, did not properly handle faults occurring during copy_from_user() correctly. These could lead to either a double-free situation or memory not being freed at all. An attacker could use this to cause a denial of service (ker...
CVE-2020-2509
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-17
A command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect QTS and QuTS hero. If exploited, this vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands in a compromised application. We have already fixed this vulnerability in the following versions: QTS 4.5.2.1566 Build 20210202 and later Q...
CVE-2020-36195
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-17
An SQL injection vulnerability has been reported to affect QNAP NAS running Multimedia Console or the Media Streaming add-on. If exploited, the vulnerability allows remote attackers to obtain application information. QNAP has already fixed this vulnerability in the following versions of Multimedia C...
CVE-2021-29445
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-16
jose-node-esm-runtime is an npm package which provides a number of cryptographic functions. In versions prior to 3.11.4 the AES_CBC_HMAC_SHA2 Algorithm (A128CBC-HS256, A192CBC-HS384, A256CBC-HS512) decryption would always execute both HMAC tag verification and CBC decryption, if either failed `JWEDe...