Analytics

5/31/2018
09:00 AM
Kelly Sheridan
Kelly Sheridan
Slideshows
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

6 Security Investments You May Be Wasting

Not all tools and services provide the same value. Some relatively low-cost practices have a major payoff while some of the most expensive tools make little difference.
Previous
1 of 7
Next

(Image: Wutzkohphoto via Shutterstock)

(Image: Wutzkohphoto via Shutterstock)

Security budgets are growing and so are security costs, with drivers coming from all sides: data breaches that are more frequent and more expensive to remediate; preventative technologies that are costly to buy and maintain; and talent that remains both pricey and hard to find.

On a positive note, businesses today are better at understanding risks and allocating more of their attention and IT budgets (23%) to cybersecurity. Enterprises, as reported in new Kaspersky Lab research, believe their security budgets will grow by 15% over the next three years, as do businesses with less than 50 employees. SMBs are about the same, anticipating 14% growth in security spend by 2021, according to Kaspersky Lab.

But despite larger budgets, security teams still struggle to make ends meet. Increasingly advanced tools are expensive to buy and, oftentimes, more expensive to run. Enterprise victims allocate most ($193,000, on average) of their post-breach spending toward improving software and infrastructure, and SMBs hit with breaches spend $15,000 on the same expense, according to Kaspersky.

Maintaining advanced technology is also a challenge due to the growth of complex infrastructure and lack of both organizational and technical ability to manage it. More than one-third (34%) of organizations say the intricacy of IT systems is driving investments; the same amount say improving security expertise is a motivation to spend, according to Kaspersky.

The reason: many security technologies simply aren't worth their cost without the right resources to implement and run them, observes Tom Parker, group technology officer at Accenture Security. Oftentimes what Parker describes as "comfort purchasing" makes companies feel good about the money they spend on new technology and lures them into feeling confident they're making the right moves.

"The biggest concern I have, honestly, is ... [about the] false sense of security organizations often get by buying technology and not having a well-considered view of how that technology is performing in their environment," Parker adds.

Here, experts point to security technologies and processes that require more investment to be worth their cost. Not all tools and services provide the same value. Some relatively low-cost practices can have a major payoff; some of the most expensive tools make little difference.

Are there any components to your security strategy you felt haven't been worth their high cost? Feel free to add to the conversation in the comments.

 

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

Previous
1 of 7
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
6 Ways Greed Has a Negative Effect on Cybersecurity
Joshua Goldfarb, Co-founder & Chief Product Officer, IDRRA ,  6/11/2018
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
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-2018-12026
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
During the spawning of a malicious Passenger-managed application, SpawningKit in Phusion Passenger 5.3.x before 5.3.2 allows such applications to replace key files or directories in the spawning communication directory with symlinks. This then could result in arbitrary reads and writes, which in tur...
CVE-2018-12027
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
An Insecure Permissions vulnerability in SpawningKit in Phusion Passenger 5.3.x before 5.3.2 causes information disclosure in the following situation: given a Passenger-spawned application process that reports that it listens on a certain Unix domain socket, if any of the parent directories of said ...
CVE-2018-12028
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
An Incorrect Access Control vulnerability in SpawningKit in Phusion Passenger 5.3.x before 5.3.2 allows a Passenger-managed malicious application, upon spawning a child process, to report an arbitrary different PID back to Passenger's process manager. If the malicious application then generates an e...
CVE-2018-12029
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
A race condition in the nginx module in Phusion Passenger 3.x through 5.x before 5.3.2 allows local escalation of privileges when a non-standard passenger_instance_registry_dir with insufficiently strict permissions is configured. Replacing a file with a symlink after the file was created, but befor...
CVE-2018-12071
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
A Session Fixation issue exists in CodeIgniter before 3.1.9 because session.use_strict_mode in the Session Library was mishandled.