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

5/2/2019
03:30 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Security Doesn't Trust IT – and IT Doesn't Trust Security

How a rocky relationship between IT operations and cybersecurity teams can compound security risks.

IT operations and security teams share the bulk of responsibility for protecting organizations from digital threats. Unfortunately, lack of trust between the two can compromise security.

As part of its "Getting Your House in Order" report, commissioned by 1E, Vanson Bourne analysts polled 600 senior IT decision makers: 300 from IT operations and 300 from IT security across the US and UK. Their idea was to evaluate cybersecurity challenges from both teams. What they found is a "crisis of trust" causing existing security problems to grow more serious.

Sixty percent of respondents say they had suffered a "serious" security breach in the past two years; 30% have experienced more than one. The leading causes of breaches are lack of clear security protocols (52%) and unpatched software (51%), followed by a lack of collaboration between IT operations and security (42%), and a lack of patch automation (40%).

Most (93%) practitioners polled say they face challenges. Securing new technologies is at the top of the list, with 48% of respondents saying it was an issue, followed by restrictive budgets (39%) and a lack of understanding between IT operations and security (35%), which tied with legacy systems. Eighty percent of those surveyed say digital transformation drives cybersecurity risk, with 73% reporting they are now more dependent on software than they were 12 months ago.

Less than one-quarter of respondents think IT operations and security teams work well together to secure the organization. Experts point to poor cohesion and disparity in objectives: IT ops will typically push forward with projects, which are then slowed by security's precautions.

In most organizations, the change management process is owned by IT ops, which considers the business use case, effects on business processes, and how to make necessary changes. It's security's job to point out problems and IT's job to fix them. But data shows lack of trust here is causing friction: Nearly half (49%) of security pros say they can rely on IT to cover security alerts; even fewer feel IT can cover data breaches (48%) or keep software up to date (47%).

Software updates are a primary concern: Two-thirds of organizations' software is current, while 34% of endpoints remain vulnerable to threats; on average, respondents say they only have visibility of 64% of their total software estate. Further, 68% have migrated devices to Windows 10, which is now 4 years old. Windows 7 is reportedly losing support on Jan. 14, 2020, and 58% of respondents think failure to meet the cutoff will mean "significant security risk."

"If you don't have visibility into one-third of your endpoints, then how is security meant to trust you in patching all those machines and making sure they're safe?" says 1E CEO Samir Karayi. He's especially concerned about how teams struggle with visibility and software updates. "Those are a pretty fundamental sort of thing that operations need to be doing," he adds.

The rocky IT-security relationship affects the perception each team has of the other. Three-quarters of respondents think IT has a "keep the lights on" attitude that prioritizes availability over security. Nearly two-thirds say the security team knows how to keep the business secure, but IT operations teams make securing the organization more complicated. Nearly all (97%) said their businesses as a whole would benefit from better collaboration between IT and security.

"The steps in working together are pretty simple," Karayi says. "I think it's a mindset thing." Because they distrust one another, IT and security often end up buying and using different tools, which contributes to conflict. He suggests starting with transparency: getting the two groups together to discuss their goals and objectives, so everyone is on the same page.

It's also important to get the board involved. When it's time to talk budget, 90% of respondents say their organizations prioritize other issues over cybersecurity. Better reporting practices and performance measurements could help drive both funding and awareness for security.

Related Content:

 

 

 

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry's most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

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
BradleyRoss
50%
50%
BradleyRoss,
User Rank: Moderator
5/9/2019 | 5:17:45 PM
Not trusting
The meetings I attended involved ten or twelve people with every person saying that they were in charge.  The next statement was usually that whatever went wrong, it was somebody else's fault.

In several cases, Security set requirements that were expensive and useless, but then said that it was up to IT to find the funding for the changes.  If Security wants to set policy, it has to do a number of things

Set clear policies and enforce them on everybody, including the C-Suite and themselves

If Security wants to set policies, it has to justify the required expenditure and be honest about the expenditures.  If they can't justify the expenses to the top executives, how is IT going to do it.  If Security has to make themselves unpopular, that is their job.

Be willing to justify their requirements, listen to the users, and be willing to admit when they are wrong.

Recognize that there are many people in IT who actually are far more knowledgable about computer security than they are.  I shouldn't have to explain customer requirements on security to the security staff.  I had a person in Security who told me that he didn't understand a government document.  I went through it, and found a list of referenced documents in the first few pages that contained glossaries and background information.  His response was that nobody had told him to read the other document which contained background material and a glossary.  I repeated that the preface stated that you had to go by the other document.  He said that he didn't care what the preface said, he was only told to follow the rest of the document.

Don't tell people that they are just too stupid to understand how brilliant they are.  I've actually encountered that.

When you receive a letter from the customer stating that you used to have the best and the brightest, but they were replaced by people who were far less competent than those that they replaced but believed themselves to be far more competent, don't state that you don't understand what they are trying to say.

If you really want to impress people, make sure that you specify the character encoding on your web pages.  The little black diamonds with question marks inside don't help your credibility.  If you don't specify it, your browser will probably use either UTF-8 or ISO-8850-1 according to how the browser is set up, but that won't necessarily match what was used in the page.  If you don't know what I'm talking about,don't pass yourself off as a computer expert.

Finally, you have to realize that people who worry about losing control never had it in the first place and never will.
BradleyRoss
50%
50%
BradleyRoss,
User Rank: Moderator
5/9/2019 | 5:17:44 PM
Not trusting
The meetings I attended involved ten or twelve people with every person saying that they were in charge.  The next statement was usually that whatever went wrong, it was somebody else's fault.

In several cases, Security set requirements that were expensive and useless, but then said that it was up to IT to find the funding for the changes.  If Security wants to set policy, it has to do a number of things

Set clear policies and enforce them on everybody, including the C-Suite and themselves

If Security wants to set policies, it has to justify the required expenditure and be honest about the expenditures.  If they can't justify the expenses to the top executives, how is IT going to do it.  If Security has to make themselves unpopular, that is their job.

Be willing to justify their requirements, listen to the users, and be willing to admit when they are wrong.

Recognize that there are many people in IT who actually are far more knowledgable about computer security than they are.  I shouldn't have to explain customer requirements on security to the security staff.  I had a person in Security who told me that he didn't understand a government document.  I went through it, and found a list of referenced documents in the first few pages that contained glossaries and background information.  His response was that nobody had told him to read the other document which contained background material and a glossary.  I repeated that the preface stated that you had to go by the other document.  He said that he didn't care what the preface said, he was only told to follow the rest of the document.
Why Cyber-Risk Is a C-Suite Issue
Marc Wilczek, Digital Strategist & CIO Advisor,  11/12/2019
Unreasonable Security Best Practices vs. Good Risk Management
Jack Freund, Director, Risk Science at RiskLens,  11/13/2019
6 Small-Business Password Managers
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  11/8/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industry’s conventional wisdom. Here’s a look at what they’re thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-18980
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-14
On Signify Philips Taolight Smart Wi-Fi Wiz Connected LED Bulb 9290022656 devices, an unprotected API lets remote users control the bulb's operation. Anyone can turn the bulb on or off, or change its color or brightness remotely. There is no authentication or encryption to use the control API. The o...
CVE-2019-17391
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-14
An issue was discovered in the Espressif ESP32 mask ROM code 2016-06-08 0 through 2. Lack of anti-glitch mitigations in the first stage bootloader of the ESP32 chip allows an attacker (with physical access to the device) to read the contents of read-protected eFuses, such as flash encryption and sec...
CVE-2019-18651
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-14
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in 3xLogic Infinias Access Control through 6.6.9586.0 allows remote attackers to execute malicious and unauthorized actions (e.g., delete application users) by sending a crafted HTML document to a user that the website trusts. The user needs to have ...
CVE-2019-18978
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-14
An issue was discovered in the rack-cors (aka Rack CORS Middleware) gem before 1.0.4 for Ruby. It allows ../ directory traversal to access private resources because resource matching does not ensure that pathnames are in a canonical format.
CVE-2019-14678
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-14
SAS XML Mapper 9.45 has an XML External Entity (XXE) vulnerability that can be leveraged by malicious attackers in multiple ways. Examples are Local File Reading, Out Of Band File Exfiltration, Server Side Request Forgery, and/or Potential Denial of Service attacks. This vulnerability also affects t...