Businesses Spend 20% of IT Budgets on Security 141
Stony Stevenson writes "Security accounted for 20 percent of technology spending last year and it's expected to rise, according to a report released Tuesday. The Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) surveyed 1,070 organisations and found that on average, they spent one-fifth of their technology budgets on security-related spending in 2006. That's up from the 15 percent of IT budgets spent on security in 2005, and the 12 percent spent in 2004."
To bad most of it is Stupid Security. (Score:4, Insightful)
want to think they are safe but they never really consider the underlining problems with security.
90% of the Market is using the SAME FREAKING OS! So they work on blocking legit Web Mail so
Windows Viruses cant get in. Scanning all attachments to make sure there is no VBScript in Office
For Windows Documents. Trying to block sites that could possible be considered to have Windows Spyware.
Stop using freaking Windows all the time. Linux/Mac Workstations with VMWare to load Windows for those
Windows only apps, Stop wasting time with making Windows Console application and focus on Web Based Apps
Even if it is with
Of course gust going to a different OS isn't the only solution you need good firewalls and such. But...
The core of the problem is Windows. Get Rid of Windows or reduce it to more bit parts then your companies
security is so much better.
Yes PHB MBA wont get it, they are afraid of doing anything differently then the rest. IT people will resist
too because they don't know Linux or Macs as well as windows and are not willing to learn. But if you need
to focus on security you need be different then the rest.
You need to be flexible so If Macs or Linux becomes insecure (One to many features can cause that problem) then
your custom apps need to be multi-platform or at least cross compilable to move from one system to an other.
That is the correct direction for security. Not this Block you from getting you work done stuff.
pebkac security patch (Score:3, Insightful)
"Security" analysts (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't even get me started on social engineering and how circumventable many secured entry systems are. It's a sad thought that someone posing as a lowly janitor could have free rein in most data centers.
P.S. Security policy writers: why not start by giving your employees with access to high-security areas a way to disable their keycards 24 hours a day by phone (including some sort of challenge/response question for them to answer)? Simple, inexpensive and effective compared to a lost or stolen keycard falling into the wrong hands.
Re:To bad most of it is Stupid Security. (Score:5, Insightful)
The real threat is ignorance here. That includes buying unnecessary security equipment, operating and running the system itself, and improperly using software firewall and routing.
Thanks, Bill! (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:pebkac security patch (Score:3, Insightful)
On average, not nearly enough. Employee training practically always gets shortchanged, and I'm not just talking about computer security, or even just about computer technology generally. It's true across the board in most industries.
Worse, in a lot of industries, the money that _is_ budgetted for employee training gets mostly wasted on worthless nonsense, not spent on the training the employees could actually *use*.
Hahaha (Score:3, Insightful)
Twenty percent...
Oh, that's rich. Oh my. Oh. Hoo!
Flying Spaghetti Monster, I love surveys and statistics. I've worked in internal security for the past couple years at a big accounting firm and as a security consultant for many years before this.
Everyone knows they should be doing more to stay secure, but that fact is security doesn't do anything obviously positive for the bottom line. It's like flossing: most people floss when they have some chicken stuck between their molars but they don't do it every night. (Little tip for everyone trying to get money for security: give up on ROI; sell it like you're selling an insurance policy.)
When CIOs or CISOs get these surveys they fluff the numbers because they know they are supposed to be secure even if they have a hard time justifying security spending to the Board. "Oh yeah, we spent $X on Security. That's about 15-25% of our IT budget." What they don't say is that number includes the payroll (including salary, benefits, and payroll taxes) of all IT staff that have anything to do with security, audit, or regulatory compliance.
Contrast that with asking them what they spent on email they'd probably tell you about their Exchange license fees and maybe some server hardware. They'll leave out staffing costs, retention software and SAN, etc.
My guess is that the average IT budget is spending maybe -- MAYBE -- 10% on security, audit, and compliance related expenses.
I will admit here that I didn't RTFA. If the survey population was mostly US-based publicly traded companies that fall under SOX regulations the 20% number is a tiny bit more believable because CFOs and CEOs don't want to go to jail based on a fuckup by a minimum wage (in their frame of reference) IT staffer.
Security is tricky... (Score:5, Insightful)
But the trick is, a sufficiently well-planned attack can defeat security without anyone knowing it happened. So you can't really rely on a count like the number of detected intrusions (whether they were thwarted or not). The result of this fact is that there's a huge amount of crosstalk about "best practices" and what's Good Security and what's not. You could have a system that tracks N intrusions per year, and thwarts them all, but if there were 2N intrusions that were not detected (let alone thwarted)... you go around claiming you've got great security, but do you really?
This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to have security, obviously, but it does mean that security is a giant, tricky grey area.
Re:Hahaha (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, you run a company. How do you see the world? You see it in terms of money coming in
Now, let's take a look at some other internal functions in any company:
Sales & Marketing? Not a profit center, but without it there'll be no profits, plus which suits understand those departments. They generally haven't a clue how design and production work.
Accounting? Not a profit center
Customer support? Not a profit center. "Too bad our drain-bamaged customers can't handle all their own problems, we'd save a bundle. No, we're not going to upgrade the call center, matter of fact we're shipping it to India next month. Start training Habib here
Internal IT department? Not a profit center. "Too bad all those stupid people that work for us can't handle their own problems. We'd save a bundle. Also, you gotta watch those IT guys, always wanting to spend our money on the latest fancy computer toys."
So far as external threats are concerned
That's what I'm talking about. I'm sorry if you're an IT guy and took offense, but the facts are clear: IT and its very important offshoot, network security are simply not in the average PHBs top ten list of important areas to spend money. There are some corporations that get it, and make themselves into hard targets, but not enough. Not nearly enough. Part of the problem is that good security is more a matter of good people that it is good equipment.
Re:Hahaha (Score:2, Insightful)
In Short... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't believe business (we currently do) have "hiring/bonus/travel" freeze but don't think twice about spending money on MS Software specifically. I guess better to pay MS employees than your own.
Re:To bad most of it is Stupid Security. (Score:4, Insightful)
I am no fan of Microsoft- after much fighting with my boss over it, I'm the only person in a mid-sized web design company running Linux on his desktop, but the core problem has nothing to do with Windows- at least not solely.
The problem comes down to several things:
Incompetence of users: This is the only place the the end OS really makes a difference, but all in all, I'd rather see the morons using Windows than Linux, just because they are already familiar with it. It's pretty tough to convince the uppers to retrain an entire company. That time and effort could in fact be better spent working on virus protection, network monitoring, etc., which any responsible security team still needs to do.
Pre-existing infrastructure: Companies start small, usually with the IT department consisting of a guy who sort of knows how to build computers. As the company grows, the infrastructure is forced to expand with it. Generally, this invlolves hacks and patching things together until it reaches a breaking point and a real network engineer is brought in. The problem there is that he still needs to keep everything up and running. You can't exactly take down a network, lead/customer management database, external web applications, etc, rebuild them all from scratch, then move everybody over. If the company can't maintain a baseline of functionality, than a security/network overhaul won't do anybody any good.
Cluelessness of management: Spending money on security rarely affect's the company's bottom end directly. The only way to get them to take security seriously is to show them what it will cost them to not do so. This isn't as hard as it sounds though- if you can convince upper management to participate in creating company security policy, you can start to show them that A) security involves not just confidentiality, but also availability and integrity of assets- two aspects that are far more critical, particularly in upper management's eyes. B) Protection of those assets is the responsibility of management. Hiring a security guy will do no good unless he has support from the top. When something goes wrong, they may have a patsy, but they suddenly won't have that database of customer information.
It's nice to hear that companies are spending 20% of IT budgets on security, though I don't believe it. Regardless, there is definitely a positive trend. The companies are starting to realize that security isn't something you can pick up for the price of a firewall and a pentest- it's a cyclical process involving constant auditing, defining and refining processes in all aspects of the company (which is why management support is so critical), and most importantly, fixing problems WITHOUT interrupting the normal flow of business.
Evidently coffee must be = 21% of IT budgets (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:necessary precautions though? (Score:3, Insightful)
Insightful question.
Managers and the clueless (obviously not mutually exclusive sets!) are always looking for a "security product", the silver bullet.
The reality is that security is a process, not a product. You have to incorporate it into your policies, plans and products from the ground up.
Security "products" (firewalls, IDS, NMS, etc.) are the icing on the cake, but are pretty much meaningless on their own. This is clearly not what most managers want to hear, they want to spend some money and be done. That's why there is so much money to be made in security snake oil, because the reality of information security is that it is expensive, not in terms of buying stuff, but in terms of an ongoing commitment to incorporating the principles into everything you do.
Many times this translates into the fact that the easiest path to getting something done is not the best path. That is a difficult reality for management to relate to.
Honesty? (Score:4, Insightful)
Somehow I'm picturing companies answering surveys with 20%, stock investors are probably hearing 2%-5%, and the people who actually make decisions are really putting in about 7%-12%.
Y2K Redux (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me that we're seeing another Y2k scenario - there is a real issue, and let's all overreact. Y2K was a profitable business for many consulting firms, contractors, and software vendors. The Y2K situation was something that needed to be addressed but by scaring C-level executives there's great profit to be made!
Read one of the security journals, look at the marketing hype coming out of Symantec, McAfee, and any number of security consulting firms - the primary message is fear. Fear of some unquantifiable buggiman come to get your precious data. Precious little data on how many monsters are out to get your data, but you best be afraid. And I agree - there is reason to be concerned, but no reason to be hysterical and dedicate one fifth of your IT budget to the nebulous Security functions.
How many of these security consultants are brand new? How many are receiving certifications from the very same groups that are attempting to promote the opinion that there's a security crisis? Can you fix security problems yourself, within your own firm? Damn likely. Many IT groups underestimate their abilities (or their senior managers do), and outsource a job that could, perhaps, be done better in house.
I realize that we can't ignore the security issue, just as we couldn't ignore Y2K. But hysterically throwing money onto the problem won't solve the problem either. Don't waste your money if you can avoid it. Don't just fall for the drama of the moment if at all possible
Re:Thanks, Bill! (Score:3, Insightful)
A common misconception but easily corrected by paying attention.
Anyone who doesn't think market share is a significant contributor to a product's "security record", is a fool blinded by zealotry. There are so many critical aspects of "security" that are related to market share, it's simply an inescapable factor.
The Apache vs Microsoft ISS example where market share is skewed in the opposite direction shows the market share thing is either a feeble excuse or complete and utter marketing bullshit.
Those "paying attention" will notice that a) IIS has had better "security" for some time now and b) IIS and Apache have similar levels of marketshare. Even before then, cherrypicking an atypical example from a tiny subset of the market, does not make for a compelling argument (neither for nor against) in the general case. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Furthurmore you HAVE to bring technical aspects into the discussion for it to be anything other than worthless fortunetelling.
From a technical perspective, all the major platforms have been basically equivalent for over half a decade now (and before that, Windows NT was - "technically speaking" - streets ahead of unix variants, ironically refuting the whole "bad design" argument in one fell swoop). Further, the single biggest influence on security - users - is "non-technical".
Finally, your "marketshare is irrelevant" argument completely misses the point I was making - that even if all else was equal (ie: in any given situation, a Linux machine and a Windows machine had exactly the same probability of being compromised) you still expect to have "dozens" more Windows machines compromised than Linux machines, because they outnumber them ca. 40 to 1. Here, I'll even make a car analogy to emphasise the point; There are 100 identical cars in a garage. Ninety of them are owned by Caucasians, six by Asians, three by Negros and one by an Indian. Which ethnicity do you expect have the largest number of cars stolen from them ? Do you believe this is due to racism or statistics ?
Or, to put it another way, if you believe Windows - today - should have anything close to as "good" a "security record" as Linux, you fail at basic logic, reasoning and maths.
Re:increase in security budgets (Score:3, Insightful)