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.

Risk

2/2/2017
12:00 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

Businesses Fear Brand Damage More Than Security Breaches

Organizations struggling with risk management are more concerned about brand damage than cyberattacks, new Ponemon study shows.

Risk management is a challenge for most businesses, but security breaches aren't their top concern. Most fear long-term reputational damage will stem from their inability to manage risk.

This comes from a new survey entitled "The Imperative to Raise Enterprise Risk Intelligence," sponsored by RiskVision and conducted by the Ponemon Institute. Researchers surveyed 641 individuals involved in their organization's risk management programs to learn about the state of business risk intelligence.

They discovered the biggest fear resulting from a poor risk management program is reputation damage (63%). Security breaches and business disruption tied for second; each was cited by 51% of respondents.

"It was a surprise," says Joe Fantuzzi, president and CEO of RiskVision. "Despite all the noise and issues around cybersecurity, organizations really fear brand damage. That can come from cybersecurity breaches, but it can also come from lost intellectual property, accidents like losing laptops, and bad market news."

Boards of directors have had risk committees, he continues, but historically they have focused on dangers related to financial risk, market risk, currency exchange risk, and credit risk. IT and cyber risk are still new to them.

"There is an increasing awareness that they need to understand [cyberrisk]," Fantuzzi says of business leaders. "But ultimately as a board member, you're looking at the stock market and shareholder value, and that value is directly impacted by reputation. I think that's how they see it."

As cyberattacks on businesses become more publicized, enterprise leaders face the responsibility of predicting the likelihood, and potential impact, of security breaches. Many are scrambling to determine the best approach to risk modeling.

The survey discovered less than one-quarter (24%) of respondents say their organization has a clearly defined risk management strategy that is relevant across the enterprise. One-third do not have a clearly defined strategy at all. Only 37% said their risk management process was "very effective."

There are several barriers organizations face as they create and implement risk management plans. More than half (53%) of respondents, for example, say there is a lack of collaboration among the finance, operations, compliance, legal, and IT teams on risk management projects.

Budget problems prove another obstacle, the study found. More than half (52%) of respondents don't have a formal budget around enterprise risk strategy. Other key barriers to achieving risk management goals include lack of resources (44%), complexity (44%) and inability to get started (43%).

It's worth noting some progress has been made. Eighteen months before the study, only 21% of businesses reported they measured risk in real time with automated business unit decision-making, board-level analytics, and metrics. Today, that number has reached 32%.

Further, among the businesses with formal budgets dedicated to risk management, 58% plan to spend between $1M and $5M on risk management products in the upcoming fiscal year, the study found.

For organizations working to reduce their IT security risk, Fantuzzi recommends starting with an asset inventory.

"Many people don't have a good inventory of their assets," he notes. "And it's not about determining how many apps or network servers you have. You need to know who owns them and what their criticality is; what's going through them and what's stored on them."

Criticality management is important, he continues, because some data is higher risk than others. Look at assets and the threats that can attack them, run regular vulnerability scans, and keep a prioritized list of what matters.

Business leaders who take these steps will have a well-documented list in the event of an incident.

"If an incident happens, you'll be able to show the board and regulators you've done everything possible," Fantuzzi explains. "The impact on your division will be small because, as you know, bad things happen."

Related Content

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance & Technology, where she covered financial ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Survivalindeed
100%
0%
Survivalindeed,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/23/2017 | 8:57:59 AM
Re: This is tactical info
Yes For Sure
Sammy324
50%
50%
Sammy324,
User Rank: Strategist
2/6/2017 | 2:30:32 PM
Re: This is tactical info
Can't add anything to that, thanks. :D
Shantaram
50%
50%
Shantaram,
User Rank: Ninja
2/6/2017 | 6:21:20 AM
Re: 192.168.0.1
I agreed with you! THanks for this post!
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
2/5/2017 | 12:57:08 PM
Re: Great research! Much more education of business leaders on the other damages of security breaches is needed.
@David: More to the point, what would be helpful is exposing enterprises to more and better research on the costs of each negative aspect realized from a security breach.  In some cases, brand damage may in fact be the costliest thing to worry about -- while in many cases, it may not be.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
2/5/2017 | 12:56:02 PM
Not THAT unsensible
It's not that unsensible.  It's a bit like saying a person fears pain more than they fear being set on fire.  There are lots of ways one can realize pain, and there are far more negative consequences to pain that being set on fire carries -- but it's one of the most obvious and one of the most devastating.

So too with brand damage.  There are lots of ways brand damage can happen, and lots of bad stuff that comes from security breaches, but it appears that most businesses have determined that the costliest of the costly consequences of security breaches is that of brand damage.

And it's hard not to find common ground with that point -- particularly if the breach happened because you/your organization did something stupid and/or ill-advised (TJX, Target, and Home Depot come to mind).
DavidK194
100%
0%
DavidK194,
User Rank: Author
2/3/2017 | 10:31:58 AM
Great research! Much more education of business leaders on the other damages of security breaches is needed.
Enjoyed the article.  Often reputation and brand damage is what I hear when I speak with customers.  Much more must be done to educate our enterprises of other damaging effects of breaches.  Intellectual property loss is huge among corporations as well as lost business opportunities due to competitors using intel gathered to out bid them.

 
Data Privacy Protections for the Most Vulnerable -- Children
Dimitri Sirota, Founder & CEO of BigID,  10/17/2019
Sodinokibi Ransomware: Where Attackers' Money Goes
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  10/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
2019 Online Malware and Threats
2019 Online Malware and Threats
As cyberattacks become more frequent and more sophisticated, enterprise security teams are under unprecedented pressure to respond. Is your organization ready?
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-18216
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-20
** DISPUTED ** The BIOS configuration design on ASUS ROG Zephyrus M GM501GS laptops with BIOS 313 relies on the main battery instead of using a CMOS battery, which reduces the value of a protection mechanism in which booting from a USB device is prohibited. Attackers who have physical laptop access ...
CVE-2019-18214
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-19
The Video_Converter app 0.1.0 for Nextcloud allows denial of service (CPU and memory consumption) via multiple concurrent conversions because many FFmpeg processes may be running at once. (The workload is not queued for serial execution.)
CVE-2019-18202
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-19
Information Disclosure is possible on WAGO Series PFC100 and PFC200 devices before FW12 due to improper access control. A remote attacker can check for the existence of paths and file names via crafted HTTP requests.
CVE-2019-18209
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-19
templates/pad.html in Etherpad-Lite 1.7.5 has XSS when the browser does not encode the path of the URL, as demonstrated by Internet Explorer.
CVE-2019-18198
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
In the Linux kernel before 5.3.4, a reference count usage error in the fib6_rule_suppress() function in the fib6 suppression feature of net/ipv6/fib6_rules.c, when handling the FIB_LOOKUP_NOREF flag, can be exploited by a local attacker to corrupt memory, aka CID-ca7a03c41753.