Attacks/Breaches

9/26/2017
05:30 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Cybercrime Costs Each Business $11.7M Per Year

The most expensive attacks are malware infections, which cost global businesses $2.4 million per incident.

The average cost of cybercrime in 2017 was $11.7 million per organization, a 23% increase from $9.5 million in 2016 and a 62% increase over the past five years for global businesses.

In a new study, "The Cost of Cybercrime" by Accenture and the Ponemon Institute, researchers polled 2,182 security and IT pros across 254 organizations around the world. They found each company experiences 130 breaches per year, a 27.4% increase from 2016 and nearly double its count five years ago. And as cyber attacks increase, so too does their cost.

The study considered four key impacts of cybercrime: business disruption, data loss, revenue loss, and equipment damage. Forty-three percent of respondents said information loss is most damaging; the least is business disruption, which dropped from 39% in 2015 to 33% this year.

Malware infections are the most expensive type of cyber attack, at an average of $2.4 million per infection globally ($3.82 million in the United States). Web-based attacks, the second most expensive, cost $2 million per incident globally ($3.40 million per incident in the US).

Financial services and energy were the hardest-hit sectors in 2017, with average annual costs of $18.28 million and $17.20 million, respectively. Australia reports the lowest total average attack cost at $5.41 million, and the UK had the lowest year-over-year cost change ($7.21 million in 2016 to $8.74 in 2017). US companies spend more to address all types of cyber attacks.

Outside studies support the idea that cybercrime costs differ across businesses and industries. Forrester recently found data breach costs vary significantly by organization. Furthermore, publicly reported numbers typically represent short-term costs and don't always include regulatory fines, losses in productivity, lawsuits, brand damage, and additional security and audit requirements.

Costs may also vary depending on the type of data compromised. For example, a breach of intellectual property will have different costs than a breach of customer or employee data.

Companies investing to protect themselves may benefit from a change in strategy, experts suggest. Results indicate most spend the greatest bulk of their security budgets on advanced perimeter controls but don't see the investment pay off. Those deploying perimeter systems only see cost savings of $1 million, a sign of inefficiencies in resource allocation.

Security intelligence systems, which collect data from various sources to help identify and prioritize threats, are among the most effective tools for reducing cybercrime costs. These saved businesses about $2.8 million, more than all other technologies included in the survey.

The least popular tools are automation, orchestration, and machine learning technologies, which are deployed only among 28% of respondents. Yet these deliver the third-highest cost savings overall, at $2.2 million per organization.

Jeff Pollard, principal analyst serving security and risk professionals at Forrester, anticipates automation will become more common as security teams are overwhelmed with threat alerts from better detection tools. If you already receive 100 alerts per day and invest in a better detection tool, you'll be challenged to handle the additional alerts.

"If you were already struggling with the 100 you were dealing with … you're even further behind than you were before," he says. Vendors are starting to pop up in the orchestration space to help businesses prioritize the most critical threats and ease the burden on their teams.

Researchers advise investing in basic tools like security intelligence and advanced access management to lay the groundwork for a strong strategy. On top of that, businesses should go beyond compliance and conduct extreme pressure testing to detect vulnerabilities.

Related Content:

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two days of practical cyber defense discussions. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the INsecurity 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
What We Talk About When We Talk About Risk
Jack Jones, Chairman, FAIR Institute,  7/11/2018
Ticketmaster Breach Part of Massive Payment Card Hacking Campaign
Jai Vijayan, Freelance writer,  7/10/2018
7 Ways to Keep DNS Safe
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  7/10/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Locked device, Ha! I knew there was another way in.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-15137
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
The OpenShift image import whitelist failed to enforce restrictions correctly when running commands such as "oc tag", for example. This could allow a user with access to OpenShift to run images from registries that should not be allowed.
CVE-2017-17541
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
A Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Fortinet FortiManager 6.0.0, 5.6.4 and below versions, FortiAnalyzer 6.0.0, 5.6.4 and below versions allows inject Javascript code and HTML tags through the CN value of CA and CRL certificates via the import CA and CRL certificates feature.
CVE-2018-1046
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
pdns before version 4.1.2 is vulnerable to a buffer overflow in dnsreplay. In the dnsreplay tool provided with PowerDNS Authoritative, replaying a specially crafted PCAP file can trigger a stack-based buffer overflow, leading to a crash and potentially arbitrary code execution. This buffer overflow ...
CVE-2018-10840
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
Linux kernel is vulnerable to a heap-based buffer overflow in the fs/ext4/xattr.c:ext4_xattr_set_entry() function. An attacker could exploit this by operating on a mounted crafted ext4 image.
CVE-2018-10857
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
git-annex is vulnerable to a private data exposure and exfiltration attack. It could expose the content of files located outside the git-annex repository, or content from a private web server on localhost or the LAN.