Despite the escalating levels and sophistication of cyber crime, survey finds that harm to brand is the most unwelcome prospect for security bosses Reputational damage is top of mind for information security leaders again. According to a global survey of more than 7,500 security professionals, 71 per cent said that avoiding harm to brand was their top priority, ahead of other hot topics, such as maintaining customer data privacy, controlling identity theft, and protection against breaches of laws and regulations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Howard Schmidt, a former White House security advisor, said the future of security lies in it being baked into systems, networks and processes. Schmidt added that consolidation in the sector was aiding that process with deals in the last couple of years, such as EMC buying RSA Security and Symantec combining with Veritas. <\/p>\n
ISC2 board director Richard Nealon said security chiefs need increasingly to play a role in broader risk management, and applauded the role of regulations in mandating more secure regimes at organisations. “Until now, we’ve led a blessed life and our biggest threat was people who didn’t have a lot of malice, motivation, technology or education… They were script kiddies or enthusiasts, and most of the threats came from that vector.”<\/p>\n
Now there is motivation and there is money to be made. They’ll produce a business plan, seek funding, allocate resources, and they basically do it for profit motives.<\/p>\n
“Security used to be mainly technology then process, so you would have a technology control such as anti-virus or intrusion-detection, and a process such as patching and updating.”<\/p>\n
ISC2 board director and consultant Peter Berlich said that although the profile of security is much greater than previously, the roles of chief security officers were still dependent on the nature of employers and industries.<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.cio.co.uk\/news\/index.cfm?RSS&ArticleID=2761<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-trends"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2199","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=2199"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2199\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4686,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2199\/revisions\/4686"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}