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 8/10/2020
Researcher Finds New Office Macro Attacks for MacOS
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  8/7/2020
Exploiting Google Cloud Platform With Ease
Dark Reading Staff 8/6/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-8720
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
Buffer overflow in a subsystem for some Intel(R) Server Boards, Server Systems and Compute Modules before version 1.59 may allow a privileged user to potentially enable denial of service via local access.
CVE-2020-12300
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
Uninitialized pointer in BIOS firmware for Intel(R) Server Board Families S2600CW, S2600KP, S2600TP, and S2600WT may allow a privileged user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via local access.
CVE-2020-12301
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
Improper initialization in BIOS firmware for Intel(R) Server Board Families S2600ST, S2600BP and S2600WF may allow a privileged user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via local access.
CVE-2020-7307
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
Unprotected Storage of Credentials vulnerability in McAfee Data Loss Prevention (DLP) for Mac prior to 11.5.2 allows local users to gain access to the RiskDB username and password via unprotected log files containing plain text credentials.
CVE-2020-8679
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
Out-of-bounds write in Kernel Mode Driver for some Intel(R) Graphics Drivers before version 26.20.100.7755 may allow an authenticated user to potentially enable denial of service via local access.