That conclusion is based on a review of 550 security breaches reported in major U.S. news media outlets from 1980 to 2006. It showed that internal foul-ups such as putting personally identifiable information accidentally online, missing equipment, lost backup tapes or other administrative errors were responsible for 61% of the incidents.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
“What this shows is that a surprising number of incidents actually involve corporate mismanagement more than hackers,” said Philip Howard, assistant professor of communication at the University of Washington and co-author of the report.<\/p>\n
A report released last week by the IT Policy Compliance Group showed that human error is the overwhelming cause of losses of sensitive data — contributing to 75% of all occurrences, while malicious hacking activity contributed to just 20% of data losses. According to that report, the primary channels for data loss involve laptops and mobile devices as well as e-mail and instant messages. Even in incidents that were publicly blamed on external hackers, the reality is a bit more nuanced, Howard said.<\/p>\n
When it comes to just the volume of compromised records, though, external hackers accounted for some 45% of breached records, while 27% came from internal errors and 28% remained unattributed, Howard said. The university study also showed that there were more reported incidents in 2005 and 2006 — 424 — than the previous 25 years combined, when there were 126. But that’s likely because of breach-disclosure laws in California and several other states that require companies to notify consumers of incidents involving the potential compromise of their data, he said.<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.computerworld.com\/action\/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9013142&source=NLT_AM&nlid=1<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-statistics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1910","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1910"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1910\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4397,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1910\/revisions\/4397"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}