In-depth

Are you spending too much on IT security?

Fed up with enterprises using lack of budget as an excuse for not securing data properly, Davey Winder investigates whether organisations could actually do more with less.

6 Apr 2012

"The European Commission's latest Data Protection Directive calls for mandatory data breach disclosure notifications," states Brewer. "That would require organisations to reveal when a breach occurs and exactly what data has been jeopardised."

When news of a data breach breaks, the sensitivity of the data concerned could prove inconsequential as far as the company bottom line is concerned.

The latest Symantec 'UK Cost of a Data Breach' report suggests that the average cost to a UK business has risen by 68% over the past five years, with the average cost per capita of a data breach now standing at a whopping 79 per record.

Perhaps the data sensitivity issue is a red herring. But, does this mean we should dismiss Thale's assertion that security budgets are being badly allocated? David Harley, senior research fellow at security vendor ESET, doesn't think so.

"[It is]highly probable that some businesses are overspending on security by over-engineering the defence of low-priority attack surfaces and relying on overpriced and under-performing panaceas du jour," Harley told IT Pro .

This is where the need for vendor-neutral security audits comes in. Something the Information Security Forum (ISF), along with several other industry watchers, reckon could become a mandatory requirement for the enterprise in the years to come.

"The issue then becomes how the organisation selects the most appropriate technology and vendor to meet their demands," says Logica's Martin.