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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

7/28/2016
09:50 AM
Connect Directly
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

KPMG Study: Breaches Up, Security Spending Down

81 percent admitted to a recent breach but less than half said they'd invested more in security as a result

Finally, some numbers to put to one of business's biggest security disconnects: More than 80 percent of "C" suite executives admitted their companies have been breached in the last two years, but less than half said they've actually invested in any kind of information security product or service as a result.

The findings were part of a KPMG LLP's Consumer Loss Barometer report, released this week, which surveyed 403 CIOs, CISOs, CTOs and CIOs.

Respondents in the retail sector counted the most breaches, with 89% reporting yes, followed by automotive (85%), and banking and technology companies (76%). On the spending side, 66% of banking respondents said they'd made some sort of security investment, followed by technology (62%), retail (45%), and automotive (32%).

The disconnect between the high volume of breaches and low amount of security spending reflects a growing sense of overwhelm, particularly among CXOs, according to Greg Bell, KPMG's cyber US leader.

"We started using the term 'cyber fatigue' about 18 months ago and it's only accelerated," Bell says. It's not just an increase in the volume of breaches companies are experiencing, but also new kinds of risk that CXOs must learn about – and respond to strategically.

"Security should not be a function of IT but of business innovation," Bell says, underscoring one of the mantras from the report. "As you offer a new product, partner with new partners, or introduce services to a broader, global market, they all require a shift in security control," he adds. "If you don't align it with how the business is growing and innovating, you may be spending your security investment incorrectly."

To back that up, Bell points to an unnamed insurance company he talked to where the CISO was spending a lot of money to protect the company's dealer network. But another executive from the same company told Bell the medium-term plan was to get rid of dealers in favor of an app. The money spent on endpoint protection for the dealers was pointless and wasteful.

Bell also cited the changing nature of the automotive industry, where a strategic focus on security has lagged in comparison to other industry sectors. He also points to advancements in the infotainment elements of vehicles, not to mention GPS and autonomous driving features that have changed how consumers buy. "Consumers are also concerned about hacking and 80% don't want to buy a car that's associated with being hacked," Bell says. More than half of all auto companies lack an executive solely responsible for security – no CISO or its equivalent. "Auto makers aren’t aligning their spending with what their customers are thinking about," Bell says.

Infosec professionals regularly deal with projects where they start to deploy some new security product, only to have something better -- and cheaper -- come along as they near completion with now-older technology. By aligning security spending with innovation and the larger business strategy, companies can rescue infosec professionals who struggle to justify their expenditures, Bell says.

There's also concern among executives around security as they watch (and approve) lots of money getting spent to address vulnerabilities and improve safeguards, according to Bell. But yet the number of threats, hacks and actual breaches continues to increase. So while organizations may need to spend more on prevention and detection, there's nothing that can ever completely eliminate the threats. "That's been a mixed message to executives," says Bell, "and we need to articulate that better."

Terry Sweeney is a Los Angeles-based writer and editor who has covered technology, networking, and security for more than 20 years. He was part of the team that started Dark Reading and has been a contributor to The Washington Post, Crain's New York Business, Red Herring, ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
8/1/2016 | 7:30:37 AM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
@Ryan: For that matter, how do you feel about the relationship between the CISO, the CCO, and the CPO?  In many organizations, one of these does the job of another -- if not all three.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
7/31/2016 | 10:15:55 PM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
Also a divorce of the roles is probably for the best.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
7/31/2016 | 10:08:15 PM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
I've put a lot of thought into this conflict of interest in the past between the CIO's goals and the CISO's. As you stated in your article, the success metrics for each is different. Cyber Security is more of a cost saving mechanism than a revenue earning mechanism, and unfortunately for InfoSec professionals the latter is held in higher regard.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/30/2016 | 7:26:56 AM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
Indeed, even the federal government has taken note of the CIO-CISO conflict of interest.  Capitol Hill Republicans have proposed having the CISO of the Department of Health and Human Services answer to the General Counsel, as can be seen in this report from last year: energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/114/Analysis/20150806HHSinformationsecurityreport.pdf

Now, a bipartisan bill before Congress proposes separating the office of the DHHS CISO entirely -- completely divorcing the role of the CIO.  See, e.g., fcw.com/articles/2016/05/27/hhs-ciso-hearing.aspx
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/30/2016 | 7:23:30 AM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
@RyanSepe: The notion isn't novel -- and one of the primary justifications for it is that the CISO and the CIO have an inherent conflict of interest.

I wrote about it for InformationWeek last year, in fact: informationweek.com/strategic-cio/cyber-security-and-the-cio-changing-the-conversation/a/d-id/1320660
GonzSTL
50%
50%
GonzSTL,
User Rank: Ninja
7/29/2016 | 3:47:59 PM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
Personally, I think that cybersecurity has come to the point where it really is its own discipline. When it comes to protecting an organization, cybersecurity has to have an equal voice at the table, and any tiebreaker should come from the one who is responsible for the organization as a whole. That usually falls on the shoulders of the CEO. Anytime you place security under another line, it takes a back seat and no longer has a fair voice at the table. For instance, if the CISO falls under the CIO, there is an inherent conflict of interest. IT is tasked with delivering technology to enable the business, whereas security needs to ensure that the technology is safely delivered (an oversimplification, I know, but it illustrates the point). If a situation arises where those come into conflict, IT generally overrules security. I have seen this happen. I have seen a CIO reclassify a security position because IT needed another FTE and did not have an open req. How does that help security? In that particular case, the security position that was reclassified was never reinstated or replaced. It was a permanent loss for security.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
7/29/2016 | 1:54:47 PM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
That's an interesting point of view that I have yet to hear having the CISO under the CFO. Definitely seems plausible. Typically what I have seen is the CISO under the CIO. Do you think it would be more beneficial to have the CISO under the CFO, like you stated, or on the same level as the CFO all under the CEO?
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
7/29/2016 | 1:52:20 PM
Re: 20% ?
Yes, I have heard variations of this same premise elsewhere. I do agree with this to a certain extent. I think what it comes down to was how severe was the hack.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/29/2016 | 1:29:13 PM
Re: Proactivity vs Reactivity
@Dr.T: Yet another (of many) reasons the CISO should report directly to the CFO.  If security comes more directly under the CFO's purview, the fallout of a breach or data loss/compromise will hit the CFO more directly.  Then they'll start budgeting better.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/29/2016 | 1:27:23 PM
Re: 20% ?
An MIT Professor and cybersecurity expert I know, Stuart Madnick, always has this quip to share at every presentation he gives: "There are two types of organizations: Those that know they've been hacked, and those that don't know they've been hacked."
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
Data Leak Week: Billions of Sensitive Files Exposed Online
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  12/10/2019
Intel Issues Fix for 'Plundervolt' SGX Flaw
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  12/11/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-5252
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-14
There is an improper authentication vulnerability in Huawei smartphones (Y9, Honor 8X, Honor 9 Lite, Honor 9i, Y6 Pro). The applock does not perform a sufficient authentication in a rare condition. Successful exploit could allow the attacker to use the application locked by applock in an instant.
CVE-2019-5235
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-14
Some Huawei smart phones have a null pointer dereference vulnerability. An attacker crafts specific packets and sends to the affected product to exploit this vulnerability. Successful exploitation may cause the affected phone to be abnormal.
CVE-2019-5264
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
There is an information disclosure vulnerability in certain Huawei smartphones (Mate 10;Mate 10 Pro;Honor V10;Changxiang 7S;P-smart;Changxiang 8 Plus;Y9 2018;Honor 9 Lite;Honor 9i;Mate 9). The software does not properly handle certain information of applications locked by applock in a rare condition...
CVE-2019-5277
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
Huawei CloudUSM-EUA V600R006C10;V600R019C00 have an information leak vulnerability. Due to improper configuration, the attacker may cause information leak by successful exploitation.
CVE-2019-5254
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
Certain Huawei products (AP2000;IPS Module;NGFW Module;NIP6300;NIP6600;NIP6800;S5700;SVN5600;SVN5800;SVN5800-C;SeMG9811;Secospace AntiDDoS8000;Secospace USG6300;Secospace USG6500;Secospace USG6600;USG6000V;eSpace U1981) have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. An attacker who logs in to the board m...