Securosis

Research

Preliminary Results from the Data Security Survey

We’ve seen an absolutely tremendous response to the data security survey we launched last month. As I write this we are up to 1,154 responses, with over 70% of respondents completing the entire survey. Aside from the people who took the survey, we also received some great help building the survey in the first place (especially from the Security Metrics community). I’m really loving this entire open research thing. We’re going to close the survey soon, and the analysis will probably take me a couple weeks (especially since my statistics skills are pretty rudimentary). But since we have so much good data, rather than waiting until I can complete the full analysis I thought it would be nice to get some preliminary results out there. First, the caveats. Here’s what I mean by preliminary: These are raw results right out of SurveyMonkey. I have not performed any deeper analysis on them, such as validating responses, statistical analysis, normalization, etc. Later analysis will certainly change the results, and don’t take these as anything more than an early peek. Got it? I know this data is dirty, but it’s still interesting enough that I feel comfortable putting it out there. And now to some of the results: Demographics We had a pretty even spread of organization sizes: Organization size Less than 100 101-1000 1001-10000 10001-50000 More than 50000 Response Count Number of employees/users 20.3% (232) 23.0% (263) 26.4% (302) 17.2% (197) 13.2% (151) 1,145 Number of managed desktops 25.8% (287) 26.9% (299) 16.4% (183) 10.2% (114) 1,113 36% of respondents have 1-5 IT staff dedicated to data security, while 30% don’t have anyone assigned to the job (this is about what I expected, based on my client interactions). The top verticals represented were retail and commercial financial services, government, and technology. 54% of respondents identified themselves as being security management or professionals, with 44% identifying themselves as general IT management or practitioners. 53% of respondents need to comply with PCI, 48% with HIPAA/HITECH, and 38% with breach notification laws (seems low to me). Overall it is a pretty broad spread of responses, and I’m looking forward to digging in and slicing some of these answers by vertical and organization size. Incidents Before digging in, first a major design flaw in the survey. I didn’t allow people to select “none” as an option for the number of incidents. Thus “none” and “don’t know” are combined together, based on the comments people left on the questions. Considering how many people reviewed this before we opened it, this shows how easy it is to miss something obvious. On average, across major and minor breaches and accidental disclosures, only 20-30% of respondents were aware of breaches. External breaches were only slightly higher than internal breaches, with accidental disclosures at the top of the list. The numbers are so close that they will likely be within the margin of error after I clean them. This is true for major and minor breaches. Accidental disclosures were more likely to be reported for regulated data and PII than IP loss. 54% of respondents reported they had “About the same” number of breaches year over year, but 14% reported “A few less” and 18% “Many less”! I can’t wait to cross-tabulate that with specific security controls. Security Control Effectiveness This is the meat of the survey. We asked about effectiveness for reducing number of breaches, severity of breaches, and costs of compliance. The most commonly deployed tools (of the ones we surveyed) are email filtering, access management, network segregation, and server/endpoint hardening. Of the data-security-specific technologies, web application firewalls, database activity monitoring, full drive encryption, backup tape encryption, and database encryption are most commonly deployed. The most common write-in security control was user awareness. The top 5 security controls for reducing the number of data breaches were DLP, Enterprise DRM, email filtering, a content discovery process, and entitlement management. I combined the three DLP options (network, endpoint, and storage) since all made the cut, although storage was at the bottom of the list by a large margin. EDRM rated highly, but was the least used technology. For reducing compliance costs, the top 5 rated security controls were Enterprise DRM, DLP, entitlement management, data masking, and a content discovery process. What’s really interesting is that when we asked people to stack rank their top 3 most effective overall data security controls, the results don’t match our per-control questions. The list then becomes: Access Management Server/endpoint hardening Email filtering My initial analysis is that in the first questions we focused on a set of data security controls that aren’t necessarily widely used and compared between them. In the top-3 question, participants were allowed to select any control on the list, and the mere act of limiting themselves to the ones they deployed skewed the results. Can’t wait to do the filtering on this one. We also asked people to rank their single least effective data security control. The top (well, bottom) 3 were: Email filtering USB/portable media encryption or device control Content discovery process Again, these correlate with what is most commonly being used, so no surprise. That’s why these are preliminary results – there is a lot of filtering/correlation I need to do. Security Control Deployment Aside from the most commonly deployed controls we mentioned above, we also asked why people deployed different tools/processes. Answers ranged from compliance, to breach response, to improving security, and reducing costs. No control was primarily deployed to reduce costs. The closest was email filtering, at 8.5% of responses. The top 5 controls most often reported as being implemented due to a direct compliance requirement were server/endpoint hardening, access management, full drive encryption, network segregation, and backup tape encryption. The top 5 controls most often reported as implemented due to an audit deficiency are access management, database activity monitoring, data masking, full drive encryption, and server/endpoint hardening. The top 5 controls implemented for cost savings were reported as email filtering, server/endpoint hardening, access management, DLP, and

Share:
Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.