{"id":952,"date":"2012-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2012-09-05T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2012\/09\/05\/key-challenges-in-proactive-threat-management\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:38:28","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:38:28","slug":"key-challenges-in-proactive-threat-management","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2012\/09\/05\/key-challenges-in-proactive-threat-management\/","title":{"rendered":"Key challenges in proactive threat management"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>While resourcing was cited as a major issue this year, as compared to 2011 results, limited access and poor data fidelity were the top barriers preventing organizations from achieving a more sustainable, consistent security management program.  The Sensage report, which analyzes results over a three year period, indicates that the massive (and mostly manual) effort associated with collecting and interpreting security data has created a severe downturn in both the mood of security teams, as well as perception of their effectiveness by stakeholders.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&#8220;Given the responses highlighting the need for better data access, and revealing inconsistent measurement and process improvements, this year&#8217;s respondents appear to be much more honest, realistic and self-aware.   This is a significant change compared to previous years, as professionals are becoming more vocal about their dissatisfaction with traditional security practices&#8217; inability to provide the intelligence necessary to counter evolving threats and address organizations&#8217; changing requirements.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>When studying responses stating that professionals had &#8220;inconsistent&#8221; and &#8220;consistent&#8221; measurements and comparing them year over year, Sensage discovered that, while slightly more than 50% of the respondents felt they were inconsistently measuring in 2010 and 2011, 61% shared that challenge in 2012.<\/p>\n<p>While responses in 2010 and 2011 reflected a close split between those who consider their processes coordinated and those that don&#8217;t, that was not the case in 2012, where 66% of respondents felt that they were resorting to reactive triage or had no coordination at all.<\/p>\n<p>The bad news: A massive drop &#8212; from 18% in 2010 to 5% in 2012 &#8212; of those who felt they had a consistent and adequately staffed process improvement program.<\/p>\n<p>More bad news: When comparing respondents who maintain consistent process improvement, there was a significant drop, from 65% in 2011 to 40% in 2012.<\/p>\n<p>The bad news: A massive drop &#8212; from 18% in 2010 to 5% in 2012 &#8212; of those who felt they had a consistent and adequately staffed process improvement program.<\/p>\n<p>More bad news: When comparing respondents who maintain consistent process improvement, there was a significant drop, from 65% in 2011 to 40% in 2012.<\/p>\n<p>Worse news: 96% of 2012 respondents had no process, inconsistent process or consistent process that was understaffed.<\/p>\n<p>For more information: http:\/\/www.net-security.org\/secworld.php?id=13499<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-952","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/952","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=952"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/952\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3439,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/952\/revisions\/3439"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=952"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}