Survey On Security Investment Trends
whoisjoe writes "Information Security Magazine has an interesting article (although it's in PDF) on the trends and effects of security spending by organizations.
Basically, organizations tend to spend less per machine as they grow, and the effectiveness of their investment tends to depend more on the share of the IT budget than the absolute amount."
Typical of major corporations to try and drive the bottom line by cost cutting in areas that in todays tech environment are probably the most dangerous over the long term. Of course when something happens its simple to blame human error and crucify the IT department for not doing thier job.
"Hollowpoints: When you care enough to send the very best."
The problem from the clients I've interacted with over the years has rarely been that they spend too much due to wanted X dollars per machine, but in their failure to realize that they too may be vuilnerable to threats that they think can't happen. As in many cases in this industry, the bulk of the problem lies about 20 inches in front of the screen. I've often found that some money spent on education is what is needed the most.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
Hmmm. Only 215 "qualified respondents" that provided "reliable information". Then they divide them into small, medium, large, and very large sites. Assuming small networks outnumber large ones by a long shot, just how many "very large" networks (10,000+ machines) could they be getting results from?
Between the questionable statistics and the bizarre correlation between security and sex mentioned in the first paragraph, this article is nothing but a large serving of Buzzword Soup topped with noise and a sprinkling of anecdotal evidence, with yummy USA-Today-style pie charts for dessert.
It's Slashdot's evil twin... SlashNOT