Vulnerabilities / Threats

4/5/2018
02:45 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Unpatched Vulnerabilities the Source of Most Data Breaches

New studies show how patching continues to dog most organizations - with real consequences.

Nearly 60% of organizations that suffered a data breach in the past two years cite as the culprit a known vulnerability for which they had not yet patched.

Half of organizations in a new Ponemon Institute study conducted on behalf of ServiceNow say they were hit with one or more data breaches in the past two years, and 34% say they knew their systems were vulnerable prior to the attack. The study surveyed nearly 3,000 IT professionals worldwide on their patching practices.

Patching software security flaws by now should seem like a no-brainer for organizations, yet most organizations still struggle to keep up with and manage the process of applying software updates. "Detecting and prioritizing and getting vulnerabilities solved seems to be the most significant thing an organization can do [to prevent] getting breached," says Piero DePaoli, senior director of marketing at ServiceNow, of the report.

"Once a vuln and patch are announced, the race is on," he says. "How fast can a hacker weaponize it and take advantage of it" before organizations can get their patches applied, he says.

Most of the time, when a vuln gets disclosed, there's a patch for that. Some 86% of vuln reports came with patches last year, according to new data from Flexera, which also tallied a 14% increase in flaws compared with 2016.

The dreaded zero-day flaw that gets exploited prior to an available patch remains less of an issue, according to Flexera. Only 14 of the nearly 20,000 known software flaws last year were zero-days, and that's a decrease of 40% from 2016.

Even so, organizations typically first must undergo a patching rollout process, which includes testing out a patch before going live with it. Nearly three-fourths of organizations recently surveyed by 0patch say they worry that software updates and patches could "break" their systems when applied. Then there are the usual challenges of any downtime, legacy system patching, and compatibilities with existing applications and operating systems.

And according to the findings in the Ponemon report, most organizations believe adding more staff is the solution to their patching problems: 64% plan to hire additional dedicated staffers to support their patching operation in the next 12 months, which represents a 50% increase in headcount for half of those organizations.

Organizations spend some 320 hours a week on vulnerability response, the report found, which is equivalent to eight full-time people. "But it may not be practical to hire" more people, especially given the shortage of security talent, he notes.

About 37% of the breached organizations say they don't even scan for vulnerabilities. "That was one of the most surprising results. In order to detect vulnerabilities, you need to scan for them" at the least, DePaoli says.

ServiceNow recommends that organizations assess the effectiveness of their vulnerability response process; prioritize patching based on risk of exploitation; unite security and IT staffs so they have a common view of vulnerabilities and IT configuration data; automate as much of the process as possible; and retain existing staff with a "high-performance" and optimized operation.

Related Content:

 

Interop ITX 2018

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop ITX. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the security track here. Register with Promo Code DR200 and save $200.

Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Weaponizing IPv6 to Bypass IPv4 Security
John Anderson, Principal Security Consultant, Trustwave Spiderlabs,  6/12/2018
'Shift Left' & the Connected Car
Rohit Sethi, COO of Security Compass,  6/12/2018
Why CISOs Need a Security Reality Check
Joel Fulton, Chief Information Security Officer for Splunk,  6/13/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-12557
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-19
An issue was discovered in Zuul 3.x before 3.1.0. If nodes become offline during the build, the no_log attribute of a task is ignored. If the unreachable error occurred in a task used with a loop variable (e.g., with_items), the contents of the loop items would be printed in the console. This could ...
CVE-2018-12559
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-19
An issue was discovered in the cantata-mounter D-Bus service in Cantata through 2.3.1. The mount target path check in mounter.cpp `mpOk()` is insufficient. A regular user can consequently mount a CIFS filesystem anywhere (e.g., outside of the /home directory tree) by passing directory traversal sequ...
CVE-2018-12560
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-19
An issue was discovered in the cantata-mounter D-Bus service in Cantata through 2.3.1. Arbitrary unmounts can be performed by regular users via directory traversal sequences such as a home/../sys/kernel substring.
CVE-2018-12561
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-19
An issue was discovered in the cantata-mounter D-Bus service in Cantata through 2.3.1. A regular user can inject additional mount options such as file_mode= by manipulating (for example) the domain parameter of the samba URL.
CVE-2018-12562
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-19
An issue was discovered in the cantata-mounter D-Bus service in Cantata through 2.3.1. The wrapper script 'mount.cifs.wrapper' uses the shell to forward the arguments to the actual mount.cifs binary. The shell evaluates wildcards (such as in an injected string:/home/../tmp/* string).