Even with ransomware being a consistent topic in the news, do you think most companies are still approaching security as a “nice-to-have”?

2.7k viewscircle icon5 Comments
Sort by:
Director of IT in Software4 years ago

Most of the times security is not seen as something that generates revenue. Small to medium businesses are focused on growth and how to make sales. Unless you are regulated or required to be compliant to some security standards to be able to do business in a certain area(state, industry) or with a vendor, companies don't invest adequately in security.

Now as organizations grow they are starting to realize the brand impact of being hit by ransomware or the penalties by leaking PII so they start to invest more and more.
Interestingly, the security budget always get enough funding after a security breach.

Founder and CIO4 years ago

If they have ever had an attack, they're probably more open to security spending, but I think you have to say, "These are the tools; this is what we need to do. I can't exactly tell you what it will save for you, but I know that a cyber attack is a brand issue." When your company gets attacked, you have a serious public relations issue you need to deal with. And they'll be receptive if they've either been in that situation, or if they had something big happen in their area recently that's caught their attention. But it is a challenge. There's a real tendency to keep saying, "We'll do it next year."

Lightbulb on2
VP, IT and Operations in Software4 years ago

Security does tend to be a nice-to-have. Oftentimes, even if you want to do an assessment, it gets trumped by something that's clearly generating revenue, like sales. For smaller companies, resources are very limited and early on you tend to be focused on revenue growth first, then security. You almost have to come up with a policy where you do an assessment every three months. It just becomes one of your standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Lightbulb on2 circle icon1 Reply
no title4 years ago

As far as compliance, etc., I can sell that to the board: “We need to be SOX compliant. We need to follow these SOPs in order to meet all these compliance needs.” But when it comes to potential threats, if I say, "We could potentially get this so I need to spend the money," they're not receptive.

Lightbulb on1
Head of Enterprise & Solution Architecture4 years ago

I’ve noticed in a few companies I’ve worked for—smaller-sized organizations—that CIOs and CTOs do not treat security as an absolute necessity. We know we need it, but we have so many other priorities to fund. These ransom attacks are increasing, but what's the price of the companies that are impacted? We'd rather take a risk rather than protect ourselves from something that may or may not happen.

Lightbulb on1

Content you might like

Yes, we’re pausing 11%

Yes, we’re scaling back47%

Yes, we’re scaling up23%

No, we’re not changing our approach20%

N/A, we have no current projects

View Results

Slow recovery response times35%

Data availability is limited51%

Too expensive to scale effectively50%

Difficult to manage for widespread use34%

Prone to misconfiguration13%

No - There are no drawbacks6%

View Results