Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

75% of Enterprises Have Suffered Cyber Attacks, Costing $2M+ On Average

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the that's-a-lot-of-green dept.

coomaria writes "OK, even allowing for the fact this comes from a newly published study (PDF) from a security company, that's still one heck of a statistic. The fact that it's Symantec, and so has access to perhaps more enterprises than most, makes it a double-heck with knobs on. Or how about this one for size: 'every enterprise, yes, 100 percent, experienced cyber losses in 2009.'"

11 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. I'm shocked by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is like the MPAA/RIAA claiming that "piracy" is costing their respective industries "billions" of dollars. Seriously - if you can't spot the conflict of interest you need to turn in your critical thinking hat.

    This is just marketing to increase sales of their "security" products. In fact if you go to the actual PDF linked to in the article it looks suspiciously like a sales brochure, presenting the "problem" and at the end showing how Symantec is the "solution".

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:I'm shocked by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They claimed it hard enough that analog HD is dead at the end of this year.

      Because they scream louder than everyone else they get all the attention.

      This screaming about how EVERYONE has suffered losses will be used to force through more draconian laws.... because nobody in the tech field is screaming back.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:I'm shocked by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is just marketing to increase sales of their "security" products.

      The reason conflict of interest is a problem is because we don't know whether it is "just" marketing or not.

      It's clearly marketing; whether it's true or not is a completely independent matter. Unless you have data which shows something to the contrary, don't dismiss it out of hand, just like you (clearly) don't accept it on their word.

    3. Re:I'm shocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      so Symantec compiles a report from the business' which use it's product and claim 100% have had a cyber loss, how is this a good thing for symantec? Reading it makes me realize and affirms how useless of a product they make. They will blame it on users but then I would ask what use is their product? Or any other security product currently being marketed out there, if user education is the best prevention, I wonder why we would still need them.

    4. Re:I'm shocked by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      nobody in the tech field is screaming back

      Why would they? As long as it doesn't cost them anything, it's not their fight. (Licensing costs, etc are passed directly on to the consumer)

      In fact otherwise working kit being obsoleted is good for the industry, as it helps drive sales of the new kit.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
  2. symantec by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just having and paying for symantec is a cyberloss, and that's before a cyber attack!

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  3. Re:Original report... by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can anyone tell me what a "brand-related risk" might be for security professionals

          Presumably that would be "not buying Symantec security products".

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  4. Re:Full Text by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And you might have heard on the commercial, 1 out of 4 women can't read a pregnancy test, so they made it easier to read. I'm pretty tired of advertising and mock white papers making it out like we're all stupid. Using Symantec security products won't make your business decisions smarter. What it will do is ensure that your minimum spending on security products is done with Symantec. A real white paper on security would have shown all options, and compared them to each other so you can not only make a decision to use security products and why you would do so, but which one suits your needs best.

    I think I'm at the point where if the ad, paper, or whatever describes me or other users or the demographic they are after as stupid, I will just shitcan it on principle.

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
  5. Here's why it's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You're seeing all of the counter arguments against the sales pitch. So now, when the sales people come in, you can either decimate their argument or decimate their argument with your boss.

    Other vendors will still use the BS to sell their horseshit and you will have a ready arsenal of things to consider so you won't fall for their crap.

    See? You and your peers get to tackle salesmen BS together.

    Think of it as techie How Tos for sales people.

  6. Define "cyber attack". And don't use average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Connect any web server to the internet and you'll see tons of connections from botnets trying randomly to exploit various old vulnerabilities. Technically, these are attacks, though you don't need to worry about them if you're patched up.

    So is this saying anything more than 75% of enterprises have a web server?

    And the average cost is a meaningless number, since averages are swayed by outliers. If you wanted a good statistic for this, you'd use the median. Alternatively, compute the average of (cost of attack / yearly revenue).

  7. Spam by Alcimedes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sweet, the first article that was so bad I just tagged it as spam. I'd worry about the future but the filters on the /. editors have been crap for years, surprised there aren't more of these.