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

1/26/2016
09:00 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Post-Breach Costs And Impact Can Last Years

SANS study examines long-term effects of breach events.

The costs and implications of data breaches go far beyond the initial incident response and customer notification costs. In a new survey out by the SANS institute, only about one third of organizations are able to remediate breaches within a week of detection and the greatest financial impact from breaches extended months and even years beyond the event for the majority of organizations.

Conducted on behalf of Identity Finder, the SANS study took an in-depth dive into the post-breach ramifications of nearly 60 organizations. Coming from a fairly distributed range of organization sizes and industries, the study shows that even after remediation, over 60% of organizations still felt the impact from breaches. Meanwhile, the greatest financial impacts were felt long after the exposure occurred. Over 40% of organizations said they felt the biggest monetary pinch one- to 12 months after the fact.

These financial shocks often come from unexpected sources. For example, some organizations may recognize that there will need to be additional resources necessary to conduct forensics investigations during breaches, but don't realize they'll have to make unplanned purchases following an incident. Approximately 57% of respondents reported having to acquire additional tools for forensics or data recovery as a result of a breach.

Additionally, breaches frequently uncover root causes that require additional controls to prevent them from happening again and to keep the regulators at bay once an event brings their focus onto an organization. Nearly three-quarters of organizations needed to divert resources to bolster the development of administrative policies, and approximately 65% had to spend extra money on training and awareness programs following a breach. Additionally, 65% of organizations had to purchase technical tools outside the normal IT budget cycle, and over 60% needed to pick up physical controls in the wake of a breach. What's more, around a third of organizations realized they needed to add or change managed services to account for increased security after a breach.

"One could argue that these controls were needed anyway and that they should not be included in an accounting of post-breach costs. After all, having proactive security policies and procedures in place is always the best defense against a breach," wrote the report's author, Barbara Filkins. However, the fact that these purchases and resource allocations were sudden and unplanned invariably means they threw off the balance of budgeting and caused disruption in the flow of IT operations -- versus taking a pre-emptive and measured approach to increasing controls.

As things stand, fewer than half of organizations carry cyber insurance for breach events, and only about a third of organizations had enough coverage to completely cover post-breach costs, according to the report.

 

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
andrew_hay
100%
0%
andrew_hay,
User Rank: Author
1/26/2016 | 10:56:30 PM
Too small a sample size

"The survey sample began with 10 telephone interviews, which were followed by a 30-question survey taken by 59 participants involved in quantifying losses and responding to breaches of sensitive information. Of those, 26 experienced true breaches and finished the survey questions."

So the n value is 26? That is far too small a sample to draw any conclusions from. For example:

"Well over half of the survey respondents (64%) reported that the breach they described did not receive media attention."

The percentage sounds significant but it's really only 16 or 17 people.

RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
1/27/2016 | 8:22:47 AM
Re: Too small a sample size
That's a very good point. A study is further validated by the quantity of results. A more accurate percentage can be drawn and metrics extracted from a myriad of results.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
1/27/2016 | 8:25:27 AM
Brand Reputation
Brand Reputation can be a killer when it comes to costs from a breach, even more so than the up front cost of that breach. If you lose the confidence of your customer/client, your competitor may get the jump on you.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
1/28/2016 | 10:25:56 AM
Prestige
Main impact is on prestige of the company, that is basically long lasting situation, people would not forget for long period of time. At the same time while we will never forget Target for example we will continue to shop there. :--))
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
1/28/2016 | 10:28:01 AM
Re: Too small a sample size
I agree. Numbers may not be so reliable but it is still a number that was not randomly chosen. :--))
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
1/28/2016 | 10:30:49 AM
Re: Brand Reputation
Survey responders are generally not high in any surveys. This is the case in the other surveys results we have been seeing or hearing. Including political parties.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
1/28/2016 | 10:32:54 AM
Re: Brand Reputation
"Brand Reputation can be a killer ..."

Completely agree. Unless you do PR well enough that may simply be end of the brand.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
1/28/2016 | 10:33:07 AM
Re: Brand Reputation
Could you elaborate on your statement? Do you mean not high in count? I fail to see if this is the case how one could create accurate assumptions.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
1/28/2016 | 10:33:36 AM
Cyber insurance?
 

When we start insure our inability to secure ourselves that simply means everting will be unnecessarily expensive. Insurance industry is never a good thing for everyday individuals.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
1/28/2016 | 10:36:54 AM
Re: Brand Reputation
@Dr. T (10:32:54). Precisely, its amazing how an event such as a breach can tank sales. But very understandable...once you discover the logistics behind some breaches occur simply because of a lack of security best practices such as updating software that may be EOL, patching consistently, or overlooking other simple principles.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/5/2020
Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
How AI and Automation Can Help Bridge the Cybersecurity Talent Gap
Peter Barker, Chief Product Officer at ForgeRock,  6/1/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: What? IT said I needed virus protection!
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-9074
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
Huawei Smartphones HONOR 20 PRO;Honor View 20;HONOR 20 have an improper handling of exceptional condition Vulnerability. A component cannot deal with an exception correctly. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability by sending malformed message. This could compromise normal service of affected phones...
CVE-2020-9859
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
A memory consumption issue was addressed with improved memory handling. This issue is fixed in iOS 13.5.1 and iPadOS 13.5.1, macOS Catalina 10.15.5 Supplemental Update, tvOS 13.4.6, watchOS 6.2.6. An application may be able to execute arbitrary code with kernel privileges.
CVE-2020-11975
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
Apache Unomi allows conditions to use OGNL scripting which offers the possibility to call static Java classes from the JDK that could execute code with the permission level of the running Java process.
CVE-2020-12723
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
regcomp.c in Perl before 5.30.3 allows a buffer overflow via a crafted regular expression because of recursive S_study_chunk calls.
CVE-2020-1883
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
Huawei products NIP6800;Secospace USG6600;USG9500 have a memory leak vulnerability. An attacker with high privileges exploits this vulnerability by continuously performing specific operations. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can cause service abnormal.