Risk

1/24/2018
11:49 AM
Dark Reading
Dark Reading
Products and Releases
50%
50%

Mind the GDPR gap: Board members at odds with management on level of GDPR compliance

  • 41% of board level respondents think they have all of the necessary processes in place to be GDPR compliant, yet, only 21% of middle management agree.
  • 56% of board members think they could handle hundreds of RTBF requests, yet only a third of middle management agree.
  • Data duplication is common within firms: 49% of board level respondents, and 31% of middle management, thought their organisation definitely duplicated customer data.
  • New whitepaper outlines recommendations for bridging this compliance gap, and growing a business through better information governance.

 

23rd January 2018, Theale UK – New research by data security company Clearswift has shown that board members are more confident than management about their organisation's ability to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), in time for the May 25th deadline.

The research, which surveyed 600 senior business decision makers and 1,200 employees across the UK, US, Germany and Australia, revealed that 41% of board level respondents think they have all of the necessary processes in place to be GDPR compliant, yet, only a quarter of senior management and even fewer middle management respondents (21%) thought the same.

It is important that the board understands the true state of GDPR compliance in order to address any issues in time for the May 25th deadline, and also to identify ways of growing their business through better information governance.

When it came to the right to be forgotten (RTBF), which entitles EU citizens to request that an organisation deletes all references to them that it holds, over half (56%) of board level respondents think that their organisation could handle hundreds of requests at once. Yet, only a third (36%) of middle management agree.

Not only did the research show a differing opinion between the board and management level respondents, but it also revealed insights into the extent of data duplication that exists within organisations. For example, 49% of board level respondents, and 31% of middle management, thought their organisation definitely duplicated customer data. 

Two thirds (66%) of board level respondents and 70% of senior management thought employees in their organisation have downloaded work documents to their personal devices (such as a laptop, smartphone or tablet) that they have not subsequently deleted (unintentionally or otherwise).

Dr Guy Bunker, SVP Products at Clearswift, said: “Board level respondents may have a misplaced confidence when it comes to their organisation’s level of GDPR compliance. However, once a board becomes aware that its confidence may be misplaced, then it is immediately one-step closer to compliance. By engaging closely with management, the board will have a much clearer and more accurate view of the state of compliance, and will be able to put measures in place to address any issues.”

“Middle management is more likely to have a better view of the data that their organisation holds – where it is saved and how it is being used – because they are more familiar with the day-to-day operations and challenges that staff may encounter. For example, if a company doesn’t have its own private file sharing service, then this may drive employees to use third party sites or download data onto a USB. Management should be encouraged by the board not to filter out ‘bad’ information. For example, if data duplication is rife then the board needs to know so it can address the issue in time for the GDPR deadline.”

Bunker added, “GDPR can be the first step towards better information governance: GDPR compliance is about being able to recognise a particular data set and protect it accordingly. The same processes and technology can be used to protect other types of information that are valuable to your organisation. For example, product design documents, price lists, patent applications and even information around service pricing and contract bids.”

Clearswift has published a whitepaper, The GDPR Divide: Board Views vs Middle-Management, which is available for download here: http://pages.clearswift.com/GDPR-divide-guide-2018.html

 

About Clearswift

Clearswift is trusted by organizations globally to protect critical information, giving them the freedom to securely collaborate and drive business growth. Its unique technology supports a straightforward and ‘adaptive’ data loss prevention solution, avoiding the risk of business interruption and enabling organizations to have 100% visibility of their critical information 100% of the time. As a global organization, Clearswift is headquartered in the United Kingdom, with offices in the United States, Germany, Australia and Japan and an extensive partner network across the globe.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Russia Hacked Clinton's Computers Five Hours After Trump's Call
Robert Lemos, Technology Journalist/Data Researcher,  4/19/2019
Tips for the Aftermath of a Cyberattack
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/17/2019
Why We Need a 'Cleaner Internet'
Darren Anstee, Chief Technology Officer at Arbor Networks,  4/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-11498
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-24
WavpackSetConfiguration64 in pack_utils.c in libwavpack.a in WavPack through 5.1.0 has a "Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value" condition, which might allow attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via a DFF file that lacks valid sample-rate data.
CVE-2019-11490
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-24
An issue was discovered in Npcap 0.992. Sending a malformed .pcap file with the loopback adapter using either pcap_sendqueue_queue() or pcap_sendqueue_transmit() results in kernel pool corruption. This could lead to arbitrary code executing inside the Windows kernel and allow escalation of privilege...
CVE-2019-11486
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-23
The Siemens R3964 line discipline driver in drivers/tty/n_r3964.c in the Linux kernel before 5.0.8 has multiple race conditions.
CVE-2019-11487
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-23
The Linux kernel before 5.1-rc5 allows page->_refcount reference count overflow, with resultant use-after-free issues, if about 140 GiB of RAM exists. This is related to fs/fuse/dev.c, fs/pipe.c, fs/splice.c, include/linux/mm.h, include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h, kernel/trace/trace.c, mm/gup.c, and mm/hu...
CVE-2018-7576
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-23
Google TensorFlow 1.6.x and earlier is affected by: Null Pointer Dereference. The type of exploitation is: context-dependent.