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

8/16/2017
02:00 PM
Tom Kellermann
Tom Kellermann
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

The Day of Reckoning: Cybercrimes Impact on Brand

Why the security industry needs to invest in architecture that defends against reputational damage as well as other, more traditional threats.

American cyberspace has become a brave new world. The second quarter of 2017 ushered in a wave of cyber attacks, many of which directly impacted the operational and reputational risk of multinational corporations. FedEx Corp, Danish shipping company AP Moller-Maersk S/A are among six corporations which reported financial damage from cyber attacks last quarter, according to the Poneman Institute, which also projects collateral damage associated with these attacks will surpass the cost of the loss of customer data by year end. 

This new face of cybercrime directly impacts a corporation’s reputation. Recently Oxford Economics, which studied severe breaches at 65 listed companies, found that breaches tend to lead to share prices falling by an average of 1.8%.   

Major breaches over the past decade have also forced a consensus that compliance with security standards does not equate to cybersecurity. Consequently, security awareness within the C-suite is paramount for mitigating cyber-risk. But if responsibility to protect brands from cyber threats extends beyond those in technology, whose responsibility is it to protect the brand - the IT department or the marketing department? According to a study by Ponemon and Centrify released in February, 66% of IT practitioners do not think that brand protection is their responsibility while 45% of IT practitioners and 42% of CMOs believe that brand protection is not taken seriously by the C-suite. A full 71% of CMOs believe the biggest cost of a security incident is the loss of brand value; nearly half of the IT practitioners surveyed (49%) report brand diminishment as the biggest loss, according to the study. 

What do the consumers think about security? According to Ponemon, 31% of consumers will discontinue a relationship due to a data breach, but even higher numbers - 65% - will lose trust in the company. While IT professionals and CMOs agree that brand protection is directly impacted by cyber attacks, there is a disconnect about who should allocate resources to mitigate intrusions. According to a recent survey of chief marketing officers, CMOs currently oversee 11% of a corporation’s budget, most of which is allocated to digital marketing campaigns. It is imperative that a percentage of these monies be reallocated to cybersecurity. 

How Cybercrime is Metastasizing

Avoiding a network breach is a corporation’s ultimate measure of cybersecurity success, though the supposition that an adversary is already on one’s network is foundational for mitigating cybercrime. When a breach occurs, the exfiltration process is not immediate — a hacker must maneuver, explore, and collect information before she finds that which is valuable. Gone are the days of smash and grab cyber burglaries. Cybercriminals have transitioned from burglary to home invasion.

The more dwell time the adversary has in the environment, the longer it takes to detect and contain a data breach, the more costly it becomes to resolve, and the harder a brand’s reputation is hit. Victim organizations are experiencing multiple criminal schemes of monetization. Data is stolen and subsequently the brand is used against its constituency via watering hole attacks and business email compromise campaigns. In our ever more connected world, reputational risk has metastasized in 2017.

This explosion further illustrates the formidable dark side of globalization and cybercrime. As billions of people become connected, not all are ethical individuals.  The criminal world has migrated online; in the United Kingdom over 50% of crimes involve a cyber component, according to a 2016 National Crime Agency cybercrime assessment.

ROI of Brand Protection

The Ponemon Institute 2017 Cost of Data Breach Study diagnosed the relationship between the ROI associated with brand protection. The study calculates that costs of a data breach are in excess of $17 million. The cost breakdown takes into consideration customer turnover, amplified customer acquisition efforts, and general "reputation losses and diminished goodwill." The number one factor that impacts the cost is the time it takes to identify and contain a data breach. According to Ponemon, "the relationship between how quickly an organization can identify and contain data breach incidents impacts the financial consequences." 

The bottom line is that we must realize that there is a significant, unquantified loss associated with brand degradation, and that reputational risk management requires investing in a cybersecurity architecture that maximizes brand protection.

At the end of October, top experts on breaches and branding will be meeting with enterprise security professionals to explore the impact that data compromises may have on business. To find out more, go to Zero Day Con, and learn more about the direct correlation between cybersecurity investment and brand protection. 

Related Content:

Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable CISOs and IT security experts in a setting that is conducive to interaction and conversation. Click for more info and to register.

 

Tom Kellermann is the chief cybersecurity officer for Carbon Black Inc. Prior to joining Carbon Black, Tom was the CEO and founder of Strategic Cyber Ventures. On January 19, 2017 Tom was appointed the Wilson Center's Global Fellow for Cyber Policy in 2017. Tom previously ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
RDP Bug Takes New Approach to Host Compromise
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/18/2019
The Problem with Proprietary Testing: NSS Labs vs. CrowdStrike
Brian Monkman, Executive Director at NetSecOPEN,  7/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-10101
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
ServiceStack ServiceStack Framework 4.5.14 is affected by: Cross Site Scripting (XSS). The impact is: JavaScrpit is reflected in the server response, hence executed by the browser. The component is: the query used in the GET request is prone. The attack vector is: Since there is no server-side valid...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
Voice Builder Prior to commit c145d4604df67e6fc625992412eef0bf9a85e26b and f6660e6d8f0d1d931359d591dbdec580fef36d36 is affected by: CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection'). The impact is: Remote code execution with the same privileges as the...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
Jeesite 1.2.7 is affected by: SQL Injection. The impact is: sensitive information disclosure. The component is: updateProcInsIdByBusinessId() function in src/main/java/com.thinkgem.jeesite/modules/act/ActDao.java has SQL Injection vulnerability. The attack vector is: network connectivity,authenticat...
CVE-2018-18670
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
GNUBOARD5 5.3.1.9 has XSS that allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the "Extra Contents" parameter, aka the adm/config_form_update.php cf_1~10 parameter.
CVE-2018-18672
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
GNUBOARD5 5.3.1.9 has XSS that allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the "board head contents" parameter, aka the adm/board_form_update.php bo_content_head parameter.