Practice 000-732 free pdf download from killexams.com

killexams.com provides the Latest and 2022 updated 000-732 Exam dumps with Exam dumps Questions and Answers for new topics of IBM 000-732 exam topics. Practice our 000-732 cheat sheets and Exam Braindumps to Further, develop your insight and breeze through your test with High Marks. We 100 percent ensure your accomplishment in the Test Center, covering each of the points of the exam and practicing your Knowledge of the 000-732 exam.

Exam Code: 000-732 Practice test 2022 by Killexams.com team
DB2 9 DBA for z/OS
IBM test
Killexams : IBM test - BingNews http://www.bing.com:80/news/search?q=IBM+test&cc=us&format=RSS Search results Killexams : IBM test - BingNews http://www.bing.com:80/news/search?q=IBM+test&cc=us&format=RSS https://killexams.com/exam_list/IBM Killexams : Cybersecurity - what’s the real cost? Ask IBM
(Pixabay)

Cybersecurity has always been a concern for every type of organization. Even in normal times, a major breach is more than just the data economy’s equivalent of a ram-raid on Fort Knox; it has knock-on effects on trust, reputation, confidence, and the viability of some technologies. This is what IBM calls the “haunting effect”.

A successful attack breeds more, of course, both on the same organization again, and on others in similar businesses, or in those that use the same compromised systems. The unspoken effect of this is rising costs for everyone, as all enterprises are forced to spend money and time on checking if they have been affected too.

But in our new world of COVID-19, disrupted economies, climate change, remote working, soaring inflation, and looming recession, all such effects are all amplified. Throw in a war that’s hammering on Europe’s door (with political echoes across the Middle East and Asia) and it’s a wonder any of us can get out of bed in the morning.

So, what are the real costs of a successful cyberattack – not just hacks, viruses, and Trojans, but also phishing, ransomware, and concerted campaigns against supply chains and code repositories?

According to IBM’s latest annual survey, breach costs have risen by an unlucky 13% over the past two years, as attackers, which include hostile states, have probed the systemic and operational weaknesses exposed by the pandemic.

The global average cost of a data breach has reached an all-time high of $4.35 million – at least, among the 550 organizations surveyed by the Ponemon Institute for IBM Security (over a year from March 2021). Indeed, IBM goes so far as to claim that breaches may be contributing to the rising costs of goods and services. The survey states:

Sixty percent of studied organizations raised their product or services prices due to the breach, when the cost of goods is already soaring worldwide amid inflation and supply chain issues.

Incidents are also “haunting” organizations, says the company, with 83% having experienced more than one data breach, and with 50% of costs occurring more than a year after the successful attack.

Cloud maturity is a key factor, adds the report:

Forty-three percent of studied organizations are in the early stages [of cloud adoption] or have not started applying security practices across their cloud environments, observing over $660,000 in higher breach costs, on average, than studied organizations with mature security across their cloud environments.

Forty-five percent of respondents run a hybrid cloud infrastructure. This leads to lower average breach costs than among those operating a public- or private-cloud model: $3.8 million versus $5.02 million (public) and $4.24 million (private).

That said, those are still significant costs, and may suggest that complexity is what deters attackers, rather than having a single target to hit. Nonetheless, hybrid cloud adopters are able to identify and contain data breaches 15 days faster on average, says the report.

However, with 277 days being the average time lag – an extraordinary figure – the real lesson may be that today’s enterprise systems are adept at hiding security breaches, which may appear as normal network traffic. Forty-five percent of breaches occurred in the cloud, says the report, so it is clearly imperative to get on top of security in that domain.

IBM then makes the following bold claim :

Participating organizations fully deploying security AI and automation incurred $3.05 million less on average in breach costs compared to studied organizations that have not deployed the technology – the biggest cost saver observed in the study.

Whether this finding will stand for long as attackers explore new ways to breach automated and/or AI-based systems – and perhaps automate attacks of their own invisibly – remains to be seen. Compromised digital employee, anyone?

Global systems at risk

But perhaps the most telling finding is that cybersecurity has a political dimension – beyond the obvious one of Russian, Chinese, North Korean, or Iranian state incursions, of course.

Concerns over critical infrastructure and global supply chains are rising, with threat actors seeking to disrupt global systems that include financial services, industrial, transportation, and healthcare companies, among others.

A year ago in the US, the Biden administration issued an Executive Order on cybersecurity that focused on the urgent need for zero-trust systems. Despite this, only 21% of critical infrastructure organizations have so far adopted a zero-trust security model, according to the report. It states:

Almost 80% of the critical infrastructure organizations studied don’t adopt zero-trust strategies, seeing average breach costs rise to $5.4 million – a $1.17 million increase compared to those that do. All while 28% of breaches among these organizations were ransomware or destructive attacks.

Add to that, 17% of breaches at critical infrastructure organizations were caused due to a business partner being initially compromised, highlighting the security risks that over-trusting environments pose.

That aside, one of the big stories over the past couple of years has been the rise of ransomware: malicious code that locks up data, enterprise systems, or individual computers, forcing users to pay a ransom to (they hope) retrieve their systems or data.

But according to IBM, there are no obvious winners or losers in this insidious practice. The report adds:

Businesses that paid threat actors’ ransom demands saw $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the ransom amount paid.

However, when accounting for the average ransom payment – which according to Sophos reached $812,000 in 2021 – businesses that opt to pay the ransom could net higher total costs, all while inadvertently funding future ransomware attacks.”

The persistence of ransomware is fuelled by what IBM calls the “industrialization of cybercrime”.

The risk profile is also changing. Ransomware attack times show a massive drop of 94% over the past three years, from over two months to just under four days. Good news? Not at all, says the report, as the attacks may be higher impact, with more immediate consequences (such as destroyed data, or private data being made public on hacker forums).

My take

The key lesson in cybersecurity today is that all of us are both upstream and downstream from partners, suppliers, and customers in today’s extended enterprises. We are also at the mercy of reused but compromised code from trusted repositories, and even sometimes from hardware that has been compromised at source.

So, what is the answer? Businesses should ensure that their incident responses are tested rigorously and frequently in advance – along with using red-, blue-, or purple-team approaches (thinking like a hacker, a defender, or both).

Regrettably, IBM says that 37% of organizations that have IR plans in place fail to test them regularly. To paraphrase Spinal Tap, you can’t code for stupid.

Wed, 27 Jul 2022 20:21:00 -0500 BRAINSUM en text/html https://diginomica.com/cybersecurity-whats-real-cost-ask-ibm
Killexams : IBM Report: Data Breach Costs Reach All-Time High

For the twelfth year in a row, healthcare saw the costliest breaches among all industries with the average cost reaching $10.1 million per breach.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — IBM (NYSE: IBM) Security released the annual Cost of a Data Breach Report, revealing costlier and higher-impact data breaches than ever before, with the global average cost of a data breach reaching an all-time high of $4.35 million for studied organizations. With breach costs increasing nearly 13% over the last two years of the report, the findings suggest these incidents may also be contributing to rising costs of goods and services. In fact, 60% of studied organizations raised their product or services prices due to the breach, when the cost of goods is already soaring worldwide amid inflation and supply chain issues.

The perpetuality of cyberattacks is also shedding light on the “haunting effect” data breaches are having on businesses, with the IBM report finding 83% of studied organizations have experienced more than one data breach in their lifetime. Another factor rising over time is the after-effects of breaches on these organizations, which linger long after they occur, as nearly 50% of breach costs are incurred more than a year after the breach.

The 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report is based on in-depth analysis of real-world data breaches experienced by 550 organizations globally between March 2021 and March 2022. The research, which was sponsored and analyzed by IBM Security, was conducted by the Ponemon Institute.

Some of the key findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

  • Critical Infrastructure Lags in Zero Trust – Almost 80% of critical infrastructure organizations studied don’t adopt zero trust strategies, seeing average breach costs rise to $5.4 million – a $1.17 million increase compared to those that do. All while 28% of breaches amongst these organizations were ransomware or destructive attacks.
  • It Doesn’t Pay to Pay – Ransomware victims in the study that opted to pay threat actors’ ransom demands saw only $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the cost of the ransom. Factoring in the high cost of ransom payments, the financial toll may rise even higher, suggesting that simply paying the ransom may not be an effective strategy.
  • Security Immaturity in Clouds – Forty-three percent of studied organizations are in the early stages or have not started applying security practices across their cloud environments, observing over $660,000 on average in higher breach costs than studied organizations with mature security across their cloud environments.
  • Security AI and Automation Leads as Multi-Million Dollar Cost Saver – Participating organizations fully deploying security AI and automation incurred $3.05 million less on average in breach costs compared to studied organizations that have not deployed the technology – the biggest cost saver observed in the study.

“Businesses need to put their security defenses on the offense and beat attackers to the punch. It’s time to stop the adversary from achieving their objectives and start to minimize the impact of attacks. The more businesses try to perfect their perimeter instead of investing in detection and response, the more breaches can fuel cost of living increases.” said Charles Henderson, Global Head of IBM Security X-Force. “This report shows that the right strategies coupled with the right technologies can help make all the difference when businesses are attacked.”

Over-trusting Critical Infrastructure Organizations

Concerns over critical infrastructure targeting appear to be increasing globally over the past year, with many governments’ cybersecurity agencies urging vigilance against disruptive attacks. In fact, IBM’s report reveals that ransomware and destructive attacks represented 28% of breaches amongst critical infrastructure organizations studied, highlighting how threat actors are seeking to fracture the global supply chains that rely on these organizations. This includes financial services, industrial, transportation and healthcare companies amongst others.

Despite the call for caution, and a year after the Biden Administration issued a cybersecurity executive order that centers around the importance of adopting a zero trust approach to strengthen the nation’s cybersecurity, only 21% of critical infrastructure organizations studied adopt a zero trust security model, according to the report. Add to that, 17% of breaches at critical infrastructure organizations were caused due to a business partner being initially compromised, highlighting the security risks that over-trusting environments pose.

Businesses that Pay the Ransom Aren’t Getting a “Bargain”

According to the 2022 IBM report, businesses that paid threat actors’ ransom demands saw $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the ransom amount paid. However, when accounting for the average ransom payment, which according to Sophos reached $812,000 in 2021, businesses that opt to pay the ransom could net higher total costs – all while inadvertently funding future ransomware attacks with capital that could be allocated to remediation and recovery efforts and looking at potential federal offenses.

The persistence of ransomware, despite significant global efforts to impede it, is fueled by the industrialization of cybercrime. IBM Security X-Force discovered the duration of studied enterprise ransomware attacks shows a drop of 94% over the past three years – from over two months to just under four days. These exponentially shorter attack lifecycles can prompt higher impact attacks, as cybersecurity incident responders are left with very short windows of opportunity to detect and contain attacks. With “time to ransom” dropping to a matter of hours, it’s essential that businesses prioritize rigorous testing of incident response (IR) playbooks ahead of time. But the report states that as many as 37% of organizations studied that have incident response plans don’t test them regularly.

Hybrid Cloud Advantage

The report also showcased hybrid cloud environments as the most prevalent (45%) infrastructure amongst organizations studied. Averaging $3.8 million in breach costs, businesses that adopted a hybrid cloud model observed lower breach costs compared to businesses with a solely public or private cloud model, which experienced $5.02 million and $4.24 million on average respectively. In fact, hybrid cloud adopters studied were able to identify and contain data breaches 15 days faster on average than the global average of 277 days for participants.

The report highlights that 45% of studied breaches occurred in the cloud, emphasizing the importance of cloud security. However, a significant 43% of reporting organizations stated they are just in the early stages or have not started implementing security practices to protect their cloud environments, observing higher breach costs2. Businesses studied that did not implement security practices across their cloud environments required an average 108 more days to identify and contain a data breach than those consistently applying security practices across all their domains.

Additional findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

  • Phishing Becomes Costliest Breach Cause – While compromised credentials continued to reign as the most common cause of a breach (19%), phishing was the second (16%) and the costliest cause, leading to $4.91 million in average breach costs for responding organizations.
  • Healthcare Breach Costs Hit Double Digits for First Time Ever– For the 12th year in a row, healthcare participants saw the costliest breaches amongst industries with average breach costs in healthcare increasing by nearly $1 million to reach a record high of $10.1 million.
  • Insufficient Security Staffing – Sixty-two percent of studied organizations stated they are not sufficiently staffed to meet their security needs, averaging $550,000 more in breach costs than those that state they are sufficiently staffed.

To obtain a copy of the 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report, visit https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach.

Fri, 29 Jul 2022 02:15:00 -0500 CS Staff en text/html https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/research/ibm-report-data-breach-costs-reach-all-time-high/
Killexams : Twitter Account Hacked? Even Security Companies Have Trouble Getting Back In

The regular reports from antivirus testing companies around the world are extremely helpful when I’m evaluating a new or updated antivirus program. I know all the players, so receiving an email from a lab’s executive team is no surprise, but the request in one such recent email was unusual. Andreas Marx, CEO and co-founder of AV-Test Institute(Opens in a new window), wanted to know if I had any inside contacts at Twitter. It turned out that AV-Test Institute's main Twitter handle, @avtestorg(Opens in a new window), had been hacked, and his attempts to get help from Twitter were going unanswered.

How could this happen in a company with more than 15 years of experience in the security industry? Speaking with Marx and with Maik Morgenstern, technical director of AV-Test and its other CEO, I learned that even when you do everything right, you can still get hacked. As of this writing, the AV-Test account is still posting and retweeting random NFT spam, rather than providing support for AV-Test’s business and its customers.

After account takeover, Twitter feed is replaced by spam

After an account takeover, a Twitter feed is replaced by spam.


Neil J. Rubenking: How did you first learn the account was hacked?
Andreas Marx
: I got a WhatsApp message from a well-known security researcher, just about 10 minutes after the account was hacked on July 25, with screenshots of the compromised Twitter account. Shortly thereafter, we got further notifications from other parties.

What was your first reaction to the hack?
Well, I tried to log in to my mobile device with the Twitter account, but the @avtestorg account was no longer accessible. I tried to check the account on my PC, but I was not able to log in and just saw the compromised Twitter account there, too. (Twitter actually asked me to create a new account!)

In my email Inbox, I saw three mails from Twitter, all in Russian. One e-mail message from Twitter said, "Пароль был изменён" ("Password has been changed") with the information "Недавно вы изменили пароль своей учетной записи @avtestorg." ("You recently changed your @avtestorg account password."). Just two minutes later, this email message arrived: "Адрес электронной почты для @avtestorg изменен" ("Email address for @avtestorg changed"). It said to confirm by following a link sent to the new email and ended, “If you haven't made these changes, please contact Twitter support immediately."

Password change warning in Russian

Password change warning in Russian (Credit: PCMag)

I'm a German, and I've used Twitter in German language for the last decade, so it appears to me that someone changed the default language first.

To my surprise, the new email address for the account was blanked out (not fully visible), and I saw the message that only the new address needs to be confirmed. So, Twitter doesn't even ask if the person behind the current email address agrees with the account change.

What techniques did you use to try regaining access?
We immediately contacted the Twitter support and opened a case, “Regain access - Hacked or compromised," providing all details to reclaim our account. When nothing happened after two days we filed another case, with the same result so far: nothing.

What does Twitter recommend in a case like this?
Twitter suggests you contact their support via the website "I’m having problems with account access(Opens in a new window)."

What was Twitter’s response?
There is no response from Twitter so far, neither from the initial report via the website, nor from a second request two days later. We also tried to contact the support via @TwitterSupport, and tried to contact Twitter via email.

Well, “no response” is not entirely true. I've received a response from a bot who asked me, "Twitter would like your feedback. It should only take 2 minutes!" but that's from a third party.

What did you learn from this experience?
I have to admit that I'm still feeling totally lost. More than one week has passed by, and there has been no reaction. I actually expected a response from Twitter after my reports somehow, as the changes to the account and the postings are very unusual. At least the account should have been blocked in the short term, until further verification. The account is still there, and we have no access to it, so it might still be in use by the malicious actors.

Any advice for others to protect their Twitter accounts?
We used a strong password and 2FA (two-factor authentication) for protecting the account, but it looks like this was not enough. Maybe the attacker hasn't stolen the password, but taken over an active session, so they were already logged in and most of the security features are disabled then. I still don't understand why changing the email account wouldn't trigger a 2FA request. That's definitely a weakness of Twitter; other social networks handle this much better.

Recommended by Our Editors

My strong recommendation is actually for Twitter, not for other users. Before changing an email address for an account, please ensure that the current person behind this email address agrees to the transfer. For many other websites and social media platforms, a confirmation link or code is sent before the account can be transferred, or another form of 2FA is required to ensure that the account cannot easily be hijacked.

 And, Twitter, please be kind and respond to messages.


When even the experts can’t prevent an account takeover, you may figure that you’re just out of luck. In truth, there’s quite a bit you can do to make sure your Twitter account and other important accounts remain secure. Start with the basics. If you don’t already have a password manager, get one. Use it to change the passwords for your sensitive accounts to something unique and random. Don’t worry; the password manager remembers them for you.

Even though the hackers in this story seem to have done an end-run around multi-factor authentication, that doesn’t mean it’s not valuable. When you engage multi-factor for your important accounts, you make it a lot harder for anyone to hack into them. Chances are good that a random hacker will skip your account and go for something easier, like an account that has a password of “password” with no added authentication.

You can log out of all other Twitter sessions

(Credit: PCMag)

Marx mentioned that the hacker might have gained access through an active, unlocked Twitter session. You can help your security by always logging out when you’re done using Twitter, or at least making sure your computers and smart devices are thoroughly secured. You can also view active and past sessions directly from your Twitter account and click a simple link to shut down all sessions except your current one.

So, what are you waiting for? Log into your Twitter account right now and make sure you have multi-factor authentication protecting it. Check those other sessions—if any of them look wonky, pull the plug and shut 'em all down. And be sure you're protecting that account with a strong password, not your birthday or your dog's name.

Like What You're Reading?

Sign up for SecurityWatch newsletter for our top privacy and security stories delivered right to your inbox.

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletters at any time.

Wed, 03 Aug 2022 04:04:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.pcmag.com/news/twitter-account-hacked-even-security-companies-have-trouble-getting-back
Killexams : Amazon, IBM Move Swiftly on Post-Quantum Cryptographic Algorithms Selected by NIST

A month after the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) revealed the first quantum-safe algorithms, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and IBM have swiftly moved forward. Google was also quick to outline an aggressive implementation plan for its cloud service that it started a decade ago.

It helps that IBM researchers contributed to three of the four algorithms, while AWS had a hand in two. Google contributed to one of the submitted algorithms, SPHINCS+.

A long process that started in 2016 with 69 original candidates ends with the selection of four algorithms that will become NIST standards, which will play a critical role in protecting encrypted data from the vast power of quantum computers.

NIST's four choices include CRYSTALS-Kyber, a public-private key-encapsulation mechanism (KEM) for general asymmetric encryption, such as when connecting websites. For digital signatures, NIST selected CRYSTALS-Dilithium, FALCON, and SPHINCS+. NIST will add a few more algorithms to the mix in two years.

Vadim Lyubashevsky, a cryptographer who works in IBM's Zurich Research Laboratories, contributed to the development of CRYSTALS-Kyber, CRYSTALS-Dilithium, and Falcon. Lyubashevsky was predictably pleased by the algorithms selected, but he had only anticipated NIST would pick two digital signature candidates rather than three.

Ideally, NIST would have chosen a second key establishment algorithm, according to Lyubashevsky. "They could have chosen one more right away just to be safe," he told Dark Reading. "I think some people expected McEliece to be chosen, but maybe NIST decided to hold off for two years to see what the backup should be to Kyber."

IBM's New Mainframe Supports NIST-Selected Algorithms

After NIST identified the algorithms, IBM moved forward by specifying them into its recently launched z16 mainframe. IBM introduced the z16 in April, calling it the "first quantum-safe system," enabled by its new Crypto Express 8S card and APIs that provide access to the NIST APIs.

IBM was championing three of the algorithms that NIST selected, so IBM had already included them in the z16. Since IBM had unveiled the z16 before the NIST decision, the company implemented the algorithms into the new system. IBM last week made it official that the z16 supports the algorithms.

Anne Dames, an IBM distinguished engineer who works on the company's z Systems team, explained that the Crypto Express 8S card could implement various cryptographic algorithms. Nevertheless, IBM was betting on CRYSTAL-Kyber and Dilithium, according to Dames.

"We are very fortunate in that it went in the direction we hoped it would go," she told Dark Reading. "And because we chose to implement CRYSTALS-Kyber and CRYSTALS-Dilithium in the hardware security module, which allows clients to get access to it, the firmware in that hardware security module can be updated. So, if other algorithms were selected, then we would add them to our roadmap for inclusion of those algorithms for the future."

A software library on the system allows application and infrastructure developers to incorporate APIs so that clients can generate quantum-safe digital signatures for both classic computing systems and quantum computers.

"We also have a CRYSTALS-Kyber interface in place so that we can generate a key and provide it wrapped by a Kyber key so that could be used in a potential key exchange scheme," Dames said. "And we've also incorporated some APIs that allow clients to have a key exchange scheme between two parties."

Dames noted that clients might use Kyber to generate digital signatures on documents. "Think about code signing servers, things like that, or documents signing services, where people would like to actually use the digital signature capability to ensure the authenticity of the document or of the code that's being used," she said.

AWS Engineers Algorithms Into Services

During Amazon's AWS re:Inforce security conference last week in Boston, the cloud provider emphasized its post-quantum cryptography (PQC) efforts. According to Margaret Salter, director of applied cryptography at AWS, Amazon is already engineering the NIST standards into its services.

During a breakout session on AWS' cryptography efforts at the conference, Salter said AWS had implemented an open source, hybrid post-quantum key exchange based on a specification called s2n-tls, which implements the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol across different AWS services. AWS has contributed it as a draft standard to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

Salter explained that the hybrid key exchange brings together its traditional key exchanges while enabling post-quantum security. "We have regular key exchanges that we've been using for years and years to protect data," she said. "We don't want to get rid of those; we're just going to enhance them by adding a public key exchange on top of it. And using both of those, you have traditional security, plus post quantum security."

Last week, Amazon announced that it deployed s2n-tls, the hybrid post-quantum TLS with CRYSTALS-Kyber, which connects to the AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) and AWS Certificate Manager (ACM). In an update this week, Amazon documented its stated support for AWS Secrets Manager, a service for managing, rotating, and retrieving database credentials and API keys.

Google's Decade-Long PQC Migration

While Google didn't make implementation announcements like AWS in the immediate aftermath of NIST's selection, VP and CISO Phil Venables said Google has been focused on PQC algorithms "beyond theoretical implementations" for over a decade. Venables was among several prominent researchers who co-authored a technical paper outlining the urgency of adopting PQC strategies. The peer-reviewed paper was published in May by Nature, a respected journal for the science and technology communities.

"At Google, we're well into a multi-year effort to migrate to post-quantum cryptography that is designed to address both immediate and long-term risks to protect sensitive information," Venables wrote in a blog post published following the NIST announcement. "We have one goal: ensure that Google is PQC ready."

Venables recalled an experiment in 2016 with Chrome where a minimal number of connections from the Web browser to Google servers used a post-quantum key-exchange algorithm alongside the existing elliptic-curve key-exchange algorithm. "By adding a post-quantum algorithm in a hybrid mode with the existing key exchange, we were able to test its implementation without affecting user security," Venables noted.

Google and Cloudflare announced a "wide-scale post-quantum experiment" in 2019 implementing two post-quantum key exchanges, "integrated into Cloudflare's TLS stack, and deployed the implementation on edge servers and in Chrome Canary clients." The experiment helped Google understand the implications of deploying two post-quantum key agreements with TLS.

Venables noted that last year Google tested post-quantum confidentiality in TLS and found that various network products were not compatible with post-quantum TLS. "We were able to work with the vendor so that the issue was fixed in future firmware updates," he said. "By experimenting early, we resolved this issue for future deployments."

Other Standards Efforts

The four algorithms NIST announced are an important milestone in advancing PQC, but there's other work to be done besides quantum-safe encryption. The AWS TLS submission to the IETF is one example; others include such efforts as Hybrid PQ VPN.

"What you will see happening is those organizations that work on TLS protocols, or SSH, or VPN type protocols, will now come together and put together proposals which they will evaluate in their communities to determine what's best and which protocols should be updated, how the certificates should be defined, and things like things like that," IBM's Dames said.

Dustin Moody, a mathematician at NIST who leads its PQC project, shared a similar view during a panel discussion at the RSA Conference in June. "There's been a lot of global cooperation with our NIST process, rather than fracturing of the effort and coming up with a lot of different algorithms," Moody said. "We've seen most countries and standards organizations waiting to see what comes out of our nice progress on this process, as well as participating in that. And we see that as a very good sign."

Thu, 04 Aug 2022 09:03:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.darkreading.com/dr-tech/amazon-ibm-move-swiftly-on-post-quantum-cryptographic-algorithms-selected-by-nist
Killexams : How England aced their four spectacular Test chases this summer

This article is about the four Tests that were played earlier this English summer. A lot has been written about these amazing matches and how England took a sledgehammer to the conventional Test framework in them. This article is an analytical overview of these games, using measures that I have built over the years.

Let me first provide an overview of the four Tests in a tabular form. People will not have forgotten the numbers, but it is good to have a recap, to jog the memory.

At Lord's, New Zealand won the toss, batted first, and regretted that decision 30 minutes later. They slid to 7 for 3 and 45 for 7, and then recovered somewhat to 132. Not that England did any better, starting well to get to 59 without loss, but losing their way a finishing up with a lead of barely nine runs. Two innings were completed before the first drinks break on the second day. New Zealand recovered after an initial wobble in their second innings to post an impressive 285 and a tough target. England stumbled a few times but won by five wickets, with Joe Root anchoring the chase. England secured a TPP (Team Performance Points, out of 100) margin of 57.2 to New Zealand's 42.8 in the match. The scoring rate was, surprisingly, well above three for the Test.

In the second Test, England, determined to bat last, asked New Zealand to bat, and after 11 hours of hard grind, were staring at an imposing total of over 550. However, they took this as a challenge to be met, and posted a total of 539 themselves. The scoring rate of around four meant that nearly two days' play was available. Batting consistently well, New Zealand set a tough target of nearly 300 in five hours. England switched modes, imagined that there was a white ball being bowled, and got to it in exactly 50 overs. This time, the TPP margin was 58.1 vs 41.9.

At Headingley, New Zealand won the toss, batted, and made the par score of 329, batting circumspectly. It was the first time in the series that the scoring rate of three per over had not been not breached. Despite falling to 21 for 4 and 55 for 6, England, through Jonny Bairstow and Jamie Overton, eventually took a lead of 31. New Zealand posted a competitive second-innings total and set yet another tough target. England then switched to white-ball-mode again and made light of the target, winning by seven wickets. England's scoring rate in the Test was an amazing 5.4. The easy win made the TPP comparison a more emphatic 63.9 to New Zealand's 36.1.

Then came a change of opposition, at Edgbaston, but it was business as usual. India, asked to bat, put up an above-average 400-plus score. For the first time in the summer, there was a substantial first-innings lead, as England trailed by 132. No one really pushed on for a big score in India's second innings, though, and they finished on 245. However, that still meant England were set a huge target of 378. Buoyed by three successful chases of near-300 targets, England got to the mark with hours and wickets to spare, scoring at nearly five runs per over. It was a virtual replica of the previous Test, and England won by a TPP margin of 63.5 vs 36.5.

England scored at above five per over in three innings, went past four in six of the innings, and had an overall scoring rate of an impressive 4.6 in these four matches. Their tactics were clear: Let the other team bat and score whatever they can; we will try and match their first-innings score, and if we end up in deficit, it does not matter. We have the bowlers to dismiss them for a reasonable score. And, somewhere on the fourth or fifth day, we have, what Vithushan Ehantharajah called beautifully, the Number. And we will chase. It does not matter if we lose early wickets. We will motor on.

The amazing thing is that this strategy has worked, and how. It can be said that England have thrown down the gauntlet to the other teams, with their tactics and batting, daring them to counter them. And the two teams who came visiting earlier this summer failed.

Now we move on to the details. I will look at the first three innings of each match overall, and at the fourth innings in depth. I will be using a measure that I have developed, called WIP (Win-Percentage). This is the chance of a win for the batting team expressed as a percentage. I determine this at the beginning of each of the four innings. In addition, I determine the value at the fall of each wicket in the third and fourth innings. The methodology is explained below.

First Innings: This is calculated at the beginning of the match, and is based on the relative team strengths. For these four matches, since the three teams were matched very closely, I have pegged the WIP at 50%. If, say, Bangladesh had been the visiting team, this would have been different.

Second Innings: This depends on the first-innings score. The par score is the average first innings for the current period (2011-2022), which is 361. A first-innings score of 361 will have the WIP value at 50%. A higher score will make this below 50 and a lower score will move this to above 50. All values are subject to limits between 5% and 95%.

Third Innings: This depends on whether the team batting third has a lead or is behind, and the margin of the deficit. In general, the greater the lead, the higher the WIP value for the team leading, and vice versa. In addition, a team following on will have their WIP pegged at 5%.

Fourth Innings: This depends on the target that the team has been set. I determine a Base-RpW (Runs per Wicket) value using the formula "0.2*RpW-1+0.3*RpW-2+0.5*RpW-3" for a normal no-follow-on sequence. A brief explanation: 20% of the other team's first-innings RpW, 30% of own team's first innings RpW (because this reflects how this team batted first) and 50% of the most recent RpW (since this will be a clear indicator of how the pitch is behaving). The importance of the last-mentioned RpW will be obvious in matches like the first and second Tests in this article: 132 and 141 improving to 285, and 553 and 539 dropping to 284; the two scores in the 280s take on different hues in different contexts.

Then I determine how many wickets will be needed to reach the fourth-innings target. A requirement of below one wicket gets a WIP of 95%, around nine wickets gets a WIP of 50%, and 20-plus wickets gets a WIP of 5%. The rest are extrapolated between 5% and 95%.

WIPs during third and fourth innings at fall of wickets: A similar method is used. At the fall of, say, the first wicket, the runs required to reach the target are evaluated with the Base RpW and the fact that only nine wickets are available. At the fall of the second wicket, eight wickets, and so on.

With this introduction, let us move on to the snapshots of each Test, based on WIP values.

When England dismissed New Zealand for 132, their winning chances hit 81%. Then their own poor batting show got them down to 52%. New Zealand's good second-innings showing and the substantial target they set meant that England's chances stood at 35% at the start of the fourth innings. This was based on a Base-RpW of 21.1; the very low RpWs for the two first innings were partly compensated for by the good third-innings value. Over 13 wickets were needed to reach the target. The fall of the first wicket at 31 did not do much damage and the WIP stayed stable. The fall of the second wicket at 32 knocked the WIP down to 28%. After the third wicket it went down to 23% and at 69 for 4, to 19% - the lowest in the chase. The Root-Stokes stand took the score to 159 for 5 and the WIP improved to 44%, still below 50 - which makes sense since only the late-order batters were left. The stand between Root and Ben Foakes stand took them to the win. The high scoring rate meant that there were still 76 overs left to be played.

The second Test ended similarly but the trajectory of the WIP was strikingly different. The imposing New Zealand total of 553 set England's WIP at 24%. England's brave response got it back up to 48%, almost restoring parity. New Zealand's par response in the third innings led to an above average Base-RpW of 41.4, indicating that the chase was on. The relatively low target (in the context of the scores in the match) meant that England started the fourth innings at a rather comfortable 63%. This did not drop much as a few wickets fell mainly because the pitch was still very good. At 93 for 4, the WIP reached its lowest value in that innings, 58%. Then it went up to 91% and a rather comfortable win ensued. There were 22 overs still left in the game despite the high match aggregate of 1675 runs.

The Headingley Test has scores that were almost in the middle of those in the first two Tests. New Zealand's slightly below-par first-innings total of 329 gave England the edge at 54%. That was only slightly improved when England secured a small lead. The third-innings score in the vicinity of the two first-innings scores kept the England WIP around the 55% mark. The Base-RpW was at a par value of 33.7. One could say that this Test was dominated by par values. The loss of two England wickets at 17 and 51 in the chase only dampened their chances a little, and the loss of the third wicket was only a blip. There were 74 overs left in this match at the end, and it was the most comfortable win England had the whole summer.

India's first-innings total at Edgbaston was well above par and put England on the back foot at 43%. The substantial deficit of 132 pushed England further down to 29% at the halfway stage. England recovered somewhat thanks to their very good bowling show, dismissing India for 245. The Base-RpW was just below 30 and this meant that England started the fourth innings way below the midpoint: a WIP of 35% was a fair reflection of England's chances. The hundred partnership for the first wicket in the chase moved them up to 48%, but it was still anybody's game. The loss of two quick wickets then pushed England down to 34%.Then came the 250-plus stand that took England to the win. Again, like with two of the other three games, there were at least 70 overs left.

Now for a look at the key England partnerships in their chasing innings.

At Lord's, Joe Root and Ben Stokes effected a sedate stabilising partnership of 90, at a run rate of only three. But significantly, this moved England's win percent from 19 to 44. Then Root and Foakes, in a much faster partnership of 120 runs, scored at 4.13 and took England to a win. Root was the dominant batter in this partnership.

At Trent Bridge there was only one partnership of note - of 179 runs in 20 overs between Bairstow and Stokes, as good as any that a top T20 team can offer.

At Headingley, Ollie Pope and Root added 134 in quick time at nearly five runs per over, moving the win percent from 54% to 75%. Then Bairstow walked in and, in the company of Root, added 111 runs in less than 15 overs - an RpO of 7.65, slow only by the standards set in Nottingham.

Finally, at Edgbaston, in that huge chase, Alex Lees and Zak Crawley added 107 for the first wicket at nearly five runs per over. After the fall of a few wickets, Root and Bairstow took only 42 overs to hammer the Indian attack for 269 runs. When they came in, England were tottering at 34%.

There were seven important partnerships in these four innings. Most of these were put on at well above 4.5 runs per over. Root was part of five of these match-winning stands, while Bairstow was involved in three. In the first three innings of the season, when Bairstow did not click, it was Root who held firm. Stokes was involved in two. It is relevant that three of these successful chases had two partnerships each, indicating that these were team efforts.

Now let us move on to the numbers of the England players. I have considered the four Tests together as a super series.

Root and Bairstow were the two leading England batters - by a mile. Root scored over 550 runs at an average exceeding 110, while Bairstow scored over 600 runs at 102. It is not often that two batters have dominated a series like this. In addition, Bairstow scored at a strike rate of just over 100. This combination of 100-plus in both measures is like Halley's Comet - the rarest of rare events. The other batters scored below 300 runs at sub-50 averages. Stokes scored at a good clip. Pope had two good days. But it is clear that these were only supporting actors. Of the eight hundreds scored by England in these four Tests, Root and Bairstow made seven.

For New Zealand, Daryl Mitchell scored 538 runs at an average of 107.6, and Tom Blundell 383 runs at 76.7. Two noteworthy performances in losing causes. Rishabh Pant scored over 200 runs in the only Test played by India.

Matthew Potts took the most wickets in his first season in Tests - 18 at 26.7. James Anderson, the wily aging fox, took 17 wickets in three Tests at an excellent 18.3. Stuart Broad was expensive, as were Stokes and Jack Leach. Anderson was incisive, taking a wicket every 40 balls. The others finished close on either side of 60. Leach's competent performance was a surprise, although ten of his 14 wickets came in one Test. Broad had, overall, a not-so-great time. But it was clear that this was a series for the English batters, not bowlers. The bowlers performed competently, nothing more.

The England-South Africa series
It is great that South Africa will be visiting England for a three-Test series. But for what happened in the first half of the English summer, this would have been a series of no interest to the English fans, since their WTC qualification hopes are virtually zero. South Africa still have a fighting chance of qualifying. However, the overwhelming success of England in the four Tests has made the forthcoming series one of the most eagerly awaited in recent times. There are many questions to be answered.

- Will England keep chasing the "Number"?
- At some point, will the Stokes-McCullum brand of cricket become the norm?
- What can South Africa do that New Zealand and India could not?
- What will England's reaction be if the blueprint is changed and they need to set targets rather than chase them? How inventive will they be?

The last question is probably the most important one. Everything fell England's way in June and July. They won the toss twice, inserted the other team, saw 500-plus and 400-plus being scored, but still won. They lost the toss twice, saw the other team bat poorly once and competently once, matched the scores, and still won.

Let us look into a crystal ball a little. Let us say that Dean Elgar wins the toss at Lord's on August 17. When all the world is expecting that South Africa will bat, Elgar tells Ben Stokes that he will bowl. England, bolstered by yet another Root hundred, make 400. South Africa huff and puff their way to 380. England start their second innings on the fourth day.

- How do England tackle this in their new adventurous mode?
- How do they bat in the third innings?
- What target do their team go for? Do they offer something for South Africa?
- How many overs does Stokes leave his bowlers?
- Will England think "second new ball plus 20" or do they think different?
- How do England's bowlers, unused recently to defending a target, manage that challenge?
- If the target is 310, and South Africa are 200 for 3, do England try and shut shop?

Fascinating questions indeed. Interesting times ahead. Most serious cricket enthusiasts will be waiting with bated breath.

Talking Cricket Group
Any reader who wishes to join the general-purpose cricket ideas-exchange group of this name that I started last year can email me a request for inclusion, providing their name, place of residence, and what they do.

Email me your comments and I will respond. This email id is to be used only for sending in comments. Please note that readers whose emails are derogatory to the author or any player will be permanently blocked from sending in any feedback in future.

Sat, 06 Aug 2022 14:16:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.espn.co.uk/cricket/story/_/id/34360566/anantha-narayanan-how-england-aced-their-four-spectacular-test-chases-summer
Killexams : IBM Annual Cost of Data Breach Report 2022: Record Costs Usually Passed On to Consumers, “Long Breach” Expenses Make Up Half of Total Damage

IBM’s annual Cost of Data Breach Report for 2022 is packed with revelations, and as usual none of them are good news. Headlining the report is the record-setting cost of data breaches, with the global average now at $4.35 million. The report also reveals that much of that expense comes with the data breach version of “long Covid,” expenses that are realized more than a year after the attack.

Most organizations (60%) are passing these added costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices. And while 83% of organizations now report experiencing at least one data breach, only a small minority are adopting zero trust strategies.

Security AI and automation greatly reduces expected damage

The IBM report draws on input from 550 global organizations surveyed about the period between March 2021 and March 2022, in partnership with the Ponemon Institute.

Though the average cost of a data breach is up, it is only by about 2.6%; the average in 2021 was $4.24 million. This represents a total climb of 13% since 2020, however, reflecting the general spike in cyber crime seen during the pandemic years.

Organizations are also increasingly not opting to absorb the cost of data breaches, with the majority (60%) compensating by raising consumer prices separate from any other recent increases due to inflation or supply chain issues. The report indicates that this may be an underreported upward influence on prices of consumer goods, as 83% of organizations now say that they have been breached at least once.

Brad Hong, Customer Success Manager for Horizon3.ai, sees a potential consumer backlash on the horizon once public awareness of this practice grows: “It’s already a breach of confidence to lose the confidential data of customers, and sure there’s bound to be an organization across those surveyed who genuinely did put in the effort to protect against and curb attacks, but for those who did nothing, those who, instead of creating a disaster recovery plan, just bought cyber insurance to cover the org’s operational losses, and those who simply didn’t care enough to heed the warnings, it’s the coup de grâce to then pass the cost of breaches to the same customers who are now the victims of a data breach. I’d be curious to know what percent of the 60% of organizations who increased the price of their products and services are using the extra revenue for a war chest or to actually reinforce their security—realistically, it’s most likely just being used to fill a gap in lost revenue for shareholders’ sake post-breach. Without government regulations outlining restrictions on passing cost of breach to consumer, at the least, not without the honest & measurable efforts of a corporation as their custodian, what accountability do we all have against that one executive who didn’t want to change his/her password?”

Breach costs also have an increasingly long tail, as nearly half now come over a year after the date of the attack. The largest of these are generally fines that are levied after an investigation, and decisions or settlements in class action lawsuits. While the popular new “double extortion” approach of ransomware attacks can drive long-term costs in this way, the study finds that companies paying ransom demands to settle the problem quickly aren’t necessarily seeing a large amount of overall savings: their average breach cost drops by just $610,000.

Sanjay Raja, VP of Product with Gurucul, expands on how knock-on data breach damage can continue for years: “The follow-up attack effect, as described, is a significant problem as the playbooks and solutions provided to security operations teams are overly broad and lack the necessary context and response actions for proper remediation. For example, shutting down a user or application or adding a firewall block rule or quarantining a network segment to negate an attack is not a sustainable remediation step to protect an organization on an ongoing basis. It starts with a proper threat detection, investigation and response solution. Current SIEMs and XDR solutions lack the variety of data, telemetry and combined analytics to not only identify an attack campaign and even detect variants on previously successful attacks, but also provide the necessary context, accuracy and validation of the attack to build both a precise and complete response that can be trusted. This is an even greater challenge when current solutions cannot handle complex hybrid multi-cloud architectures leading to significant blind spots and false positives at the very start of the security analyst journey.”

Rising cost of data breach not necessarily prompting dramatic security action

In spite of over four out of five organizations now having experienced some sort of data breach, only slightly over 20% of critical infrastructure companies have moved to zero trust strategies to secure their networks. Cloud security is also lagging as well, with a little under half (43%) of all respondents saying that their security practices in this area are either “early stage” or do not yet exist.

Those that have onboarded security automation and AI elements are the only group seeing massive savings: their average cost of data breach is $3.05 million lower. This particular study does not track average ransom demands, but refers to Sophos research that puts the most recent number at $812,000 globally.

The study also notes serious problems with incident response plans, especially troubling in an environment in which the average ransomware attack is now carried out in four days or less and the “time to ransom” has dropped to a matter of hours in some cases. 37% of respondents say that they do not test their incident response plans regularly. 62% say that they are understaffed to meet their cybersecurity needs, and these organizations tend to suffer over half a million more dollars in damages when they are breached.

Of course, cost of data breaches is not distributed evenly by geography or by industry type. Some are taking much bigger hits than others, reflecting trends established in prior reports. The health care industry is now absorbing a little over $10 million in damage per breach, with the average cost of data breach rising by $1 million from 2021. And companies in the United States face greater data breach costs than their counterparts around the world, at over $8 million per incident.

Shawn Surber, VP of Solutions Architecture and Strategy with Tanium, provides some insight into the unique struggles that the health care industry faces in implementing effective cybersecurity: “Healthcare continues to suffer the greatest cost of breaches but has among the lowest spend on cybersecurity of any industry, despite being deemed ‘critical infrastructure.’ The increased vulnerability of healthcare organizations to cyber threats can be traced to outdated IT systems, the lack of robust security controls, and insufficient IT staff, while valuable medical and health data— and the need to pay ransoms quickly to maintain access to that data— make healthcare targets popular and relatively easy to breach. Unlike other industries that can migrate data and sunset old systems, limited IT and security budgets at healthcare orgs make migration difficult and potentially expensive, particularly when an older system provides a small but unique function or houses data necessary for compliance or research, but still doesn’t make the cut to transition to a newer system. Hackers know these weaknesses and exploit them. Additionally, healthcare orgs haven’t sufficiently updated their security strategies and the tools that manufacturers, IT software vendors, and the FDA have made haven’t been robust enough to thwart the more sophisticated techniques of threat actors.”

Familiar incident types also lead the list of the causes of data breaches: compromised credentials (19%), followed by phishing (16%). Breaches initiated by these methods also tended to be a little more costly, at an average of $4.91 million per incident.

Global average cost of #databreach is now $4.35M, up 13% since 2020. Much of that are realized more than a year after the attack, and 60% of organizations are passing the costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices. #cybersecurity #respectdataClick to Tweet

Cutting the cost of data breach

Though the numbers are never as neat and clean as averages would indicate, it would appear that the cost of data breaches is cut dramatically for companies that implement solid automated “deep learning” cybersecurity tools, zero trust systems and regularly tested incident response plans. Mature cloud security programs are also a substantial cost saver.

Mon, 01 Aug 2022 10:00:00 -0500 Scott Ikeda en-US text/html https://www.cpomagazine.com/cyber-security/ibm-annual-cost-of-data-breach-report-2022-record-costs-usually-passed-on-to-consumers-long-breach-expenses-make-up-half-of-total-damage/
Killexams : IBM Report: Consumers Pay the Price as Data Breach Costs Reach All-Time High

60% of breached businesses raised product prices post-breach; vast majority of critical infrastructure lagging in zero trust adoption; $550,000 in extra costs for insufficiently staffed businesses

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., July 27, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- IBM (NYSE: IBM) Security today released the annual Cost of a Data Breach Report,1 revealing costlier and higher-impact data breaches than ever before, with the global average cost of a data breach reaching an all-time high of $4.35 million for studied organizations. With breach costs increasing nearly 13% over the last two years of the report, the findings suggest these incidents may also be contributing to rising costs of goods and services. In fact, 60% of studied organizations raised their product or services prices due to the breach, when the cost of goods is already soaring worldwide amid inflation and supply chain issues.

60% of breached businesses studied stated they increased the price of their products or services due to the data breach

The perpetuality of cyberattacks is also shedding light on the "haunting effect" data breaches are having on businesses, with the IBM report finding 83% of studied organizations have experienced more than one data breach in their lifetime. Another factor rising over time is the after-effects of breaches on these organizations, which linger long after they occur, as nearly 50% of breach costs are incurred more than a year after the breach.

The 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report is based on in-depth analysis of real-world data breaches experienced by 550 organizations globally between March 2021 and March 2022. The research, which was sponsored and analyzed by IBM Security, was conducted by the Ponemon Institute.

Some of the key findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

  • Critical Infrastructure Lags in Zero Trust – Almost 80% of critical infrastructure organizations studied don't adopt zero trust strategies, seeing average breach costs rise to $5.4 million – a $1.17 million increase compared to those that do. All while 28% of breaches amongst these organizations were ransomware or destructive attacks.
  • It Doesn't Pay to Pay – Ransomware victims in the study that opted to pay threat actors' ransom demands saw only $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the cost of the ransom. Factoring in the high cost of ransom payments, the financial toll may rise even higher, suggesting that simply paying the ransom may not be an effective strategy.
  • Security Immaturity in Clouds – Forty-three percent of studied organizations are in the early stages or have not started applying security practices across their cloud environments, observing over $660,000 on average in higher breach costs than studied organizations with mature security across their cloud environments.
  • Security AI and Automation Leads as Multi-Million Dollar Cost Saver – Participating organizations fully deploying security AI and automation incurred $3.05 million less on average in breach costs compared to studied organizations that have not deployed the technology – the biggest cost saver observed in the study.

"Businesses need to put their security defenses on the offense and beat attackers to the punch. It's time to stop the adversary from achieving their objectives and start to minimize the impact of attacks. The more businesses try to perfect their perimeter instead of investing in detection and response, the more breaches can fuel cost of living increases." said Charles Henderson, Global Head of IBM Security X-Force. "This report shows that the right strategies coupled with the right technologies can help make all the difference when businesses are attacked."

Over-trusting Critical Infrastructure Organizations
Concerns over critical infrastructure targeting appear to be increasing globally over the past year, with many governments' cybersecurity agencies urging vigilance against disruptive attacks. In fact, IBM's report reveals that ransomware and destructive attacks represented 28% of breaches amongst critical infrastructure organizations studied, highlighting how threat actors are seeking to fracture the global supply chains that rely on these organizations. This includes financial services, industrial, transportation and healthcare companies amongst others.

Despite the call for caution, and a year after the Biden Administration issued a cybersecurity executive order that centers around the importance of adopting a zero trust approach to strengthen the nation's cybersecurity, only 21% of critical infrastructure organizations studied adopt a zero trust security model, according to the report. Add to that, 17% of breaches at critical infrastructure organizations were caused due to a business partner being initially compromised, highlighting the security risks that over-trusting environments pose.

Businesses that Pay the Ransom Aren't Getting a "Bargain"
According to the 2022 IBM report, businesses that paid threat actors' ransom demands saw $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the ransom amount paid. However, when accounting for the average ransom payment, which according to Sophos reached $812,000 in 2021, businesses that opt to pay the ransom could net higher total costs - all while inadvertently funding future ransomware attacks with capital that could be allocated to remediation and recovery efforts and looking at potential federal offenses.

The persistence of ransomware, despite significant global efforts to impede it, is fueled by the industrialization of cybercrime. IBM Security X-Force discovered the duration of studied enterprise ransomware attacks shows a drop of 94% over the past three years – from over two months to just under four days. These exponentially shorter attack lifecycles can prompt higher impact attacks, as cybersecurity incident responders are left with very short windows of opportunity to detect and contain attacks. With "time to ransom" dropping to a matter of hours, it's essential that businesses prioritize rigorous testing of incident response (IR) playbooks ahead of time. But the report states that as many as 37% of organizations studied that have incident response plans don't test them regularly.

Hybrid Cloud Advantage
The report also showcased hybrid cloud environments as the most prevalent (45%) infrastructure amongst organizations studied. Averaging $3.8 million in breach costs, businesses that adopted a hybrid cloud model observed lower breach costs compared to businesses with a solely public or private cloud model, which experienced $5.02 million and $4.24 million on average respectively. In fact, hybrid cloud adopters studied were able to identify and contain data breaches 15 days faster on average than the global average of 277 days for participants.

The report highlights that 45% of studied breaches occurred in the cloud, emphasizing the importance of cloud security. However, a significant 43% of reporting organizations stated they are just in the early stages or have not started implementing security practices to protect their cloud environments, observing higher breach costs2. Businesses studied that did not implement security practices across their cloud environments required an average 108 more days to identify and contain a data breach than those consistently applying security practices across all their domains.

Additional findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

  • Phishing Becomes Costliest Breach Cause – While compromised credentials continued to reign as the most common cause of a breach (19%), phishing was the second (16%) and the costliest cause, leading to $4.91 million in average breach costs for responding organizations.
  • Healthcare Breach Costs Hit Double Digits for First Time Ever– For the 12th year in a row, healthcare participants saw the costliest breaches amongst industries with average breach costs in healthcare increasing by nearly $1 million to reach a record high of $10.1 million.
  • Insufficient Security Staffing – Sixty-two percent of studied organizations stated they are not sufficiently staffed to meet their security needs, averaging $550,000 more in breach costs than those that state they are sufficiently staffed.

Additional Sources

  • To obtain a copy of the 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report, please visit: https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach.
  • Read more about the report's top findings in this IBM Security Intelligence blog.
  • Sign up for the 2022 IBM Security Cost of a Data Breach webinar on Wednesday, August 3, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. ET here.
  • Connect with the IBM Security X-Force team for a personalized review of the findings: https://ibm.biz/book-a-consult.

About IBM Security
IBM Security offers one of the most advanced and integrated portfolios of enterprise security products and services. The portfolio, supported by world-renowned IBM Security X-Force® research, enables organizations to effectively manage risk and defend against emerging threats. IBM operates one of the world's broadest security research, development, and delivery organizations, monitors 150 billion+ security events per day in more than 130 countries, and has been granted more than 10,000 security patents worldwide. For more information, please check www.ibm.com/security, follow @IBMSecurity on Twitter or visit the IBM Security Intelligence blog.

Press Contact:

IBM Security Communications
Georgia Prassinos
gprassinos@ibm.com

1 Cost of a Data Breach Report 2022, conducted by Ponemon Institute, sponsored, and analyzed by IBM
2 Average cost of $4.53M, compared to average cost $3.87 million at participating organizations with mature-stage cloud security practices

IBM Corporation logo. (PRNewsfoto/IBM)

Cision View original content to obtain multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ibm-report-consumers-pay-the-price-as-data-breach-costs-reach-all-time-high-301592749.html

SOURCE IBM

Tue, 26 Jul 2022 16:29:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://fox40.com/business/press-releases/cision/20220727NY26218/ibm-report-consumers-pay-the-price-as-data-breach-costs-reach-all-time-high/
Killexams : IBM Report: Consumers Pay the Price as Data Breach Costs Reach All-Time High

60% of breached businesses raised product prices post-breach; vast majority of critical infrastructure lagging in zero trust adoption; $550,000 in extra costs for insufficiently staffed businesses

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., July 27, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- IBM (NYSE: IBM) Security today released the annual Cost of a Data Breach Report,1 revealing costlier and higher-impact data breaches than ever before, with the global average cost of a data breach reaching an all-time high of $4.35 million for studied organizations. With breach costs increasing nearly 13% over the last two years of the report, the findings suggest these incidents may also be contributing to rising costs of goods and services. In fact, 60% of studied organizations raised their product or services prices due to the breach, when the cost of goods is already soaring worldwide amid inflation and supply chain issues.

60% of breached businesses studied stated they increased the price of their products or services due to the data breach

The perpetuality of cyberattacks is also shedding light on the "haunting effect" data breaches are having on businesses, with the IBM report finding 83% of studied organizations have experienced more than one data breach in their lifetime. Another factor rising over time is the after-effects of breaches on these organizations, which linger long after they occur, as nearly 50% of breach costs are incurred more than a year after the breach.

The 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report is based on in-depth analysis of real-world data breaches experienced by 550 organizations globally between March 2021 and March 2022. The research, which was sponsored and analyzed by IBM Security, was conducted by the Ponemon Institute.

Some of the key findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

  • Critical Infrastructure Lags in Zero Trust – Almost 80% of critical infrastructure organizations studied don't adopt zero trust strategies, seeing average breach costs rise to $5.4 million – a $1.17 million increase compared to those that do. All while 28% of breaches amongst these organizations were ransomware or destructive attacks.

  • It Doesn't Pay to Pay – Ransomware victims in the study that opted to pay threat actors' ransom demands saw only $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the cost of the ransom. Factoring in the high cost of ransom payments, the financial toll may rise even higher, suggesting that simply paying the ransom may not be an effective strategy.

  • Security Immaturity in Clouds – Forty-three percent of studied organizations are in the early stages or have not started applying security practices across their cloud environments, observing over $660,000 on average in higher breach costs than studied organizations with mature security across their cloud environments.

  • Security AI and Automation Leads as Multi-Million Dollar Cost Saver – Participating organizations fully deploying security AI and automation incurred $3.05 million less on average in breach costs compared to studied organizations that have not deployed the technology – the biggest cost saver observed in the study.

"Businesses need to put their security defenses on the offense and beat attackers to the punch. It's time to stop the adversary from achieving their objectives and start to minimize the impact of attacks. The more businesses try to perfect their perimeter instead of investing in detection and response, the more breaches can fuel cost of living increases." said Charles Henderson, Global Head of IBM Security X-Force. "This report shows that the right strategies coupled with the right technologies can help make all the difference when businesses are attacked."

Over-trusting Critical Infrastructure Organizations
Concerns over critical infrastructure targeting appear to be increasing globally over the past year, with many governments' cybersecurity agencies urging vigilance against disruptive attacks. In fact, IBM's report reveals that ransomware and destructive attacks represented 28% of breaches amongst critical infrastructure organizations studied, highlighting how threat actors are seeking to fracture the global supply chains that rely on these organizations. This includes financial services, industrial, transportation and healthcare companies amongst others.

Despite the call for caution, and a year after the Biden Administration issued a cybersecurity executive order that centers around the importance of adopting a zero trust approach to strengthen the nation's cybersecurity, only 21% of critical infrastructure organizations studied adopt a zero trust security model, according to the report. Add to that, 17% of breaches at critical infrastructure organizations were caused due to a business partner being initially compromised, highlighting the security risks that over-trusting environments pose.

Businesses that Pay the Ransom Aren't Getting a "Bargain"
According to the 2022 IBM report, businesses that paid threat actors' ransom demands saw $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the ransom amount paid. However, when accounting for the average ransom payment, which according to Sophos reached $812,000 in 2021, businesses that opt to pay the ransom could net higher total costs - all while inadvertently funding future ransomware attacks with capital that could be allocated to remediation and recovery efforts and looking at potential federal offenses.

The persistence of ransomware, despite significant global efforts to impede it, is fueled by the industrialization of cybercrime. IBM Security X-Force discovered the duration of studied enterprise ransomware attacks shows a drop of 94% over the past three years – from over two months to just under four days. These exponentially shorter attack lifecycles can prompt higher impact attacks, as cybersecurity incident responders are left with very short windows of opportunity to detect and contain attacks. With "time to ransom" dropping to a matter of hours, it's essential that businesses prioritize rigorous testing of incident response (IR) playbooks ahead of time. But the report states that as many as 37% of organizations studied that have incident response plans don't test them regularly.

Hybrid Cloud Advantage
The report also showcased hybrid cloud environments as the most prevalent (45%) infrastructure amongst organizations studied. Averaging $3.8 million in breach costs, businesses that adopted a hybrid cloud model observed lower breach costs compared to businesses with a solely public or private cloud model, which experienced $5.02 million and $4.24 million on average respectively. In fact, hybrid cloud adopters studied were able to identify and contain data breaches 15 days faster on average than the global average of 277 days for participants.

The report highlights that 45% of studied breaches occurred in the cloud, emphasizing the importance of cloud security. However, a significant 43% of reporting organizations stated they are just in the early stages or have not started implementing security practices to protect their cloud environments, observing higher breach costs2. Businesses studied that did not implement security practices across their cloud environments required an average 108 more days to identify and contain a data breach than those consistently applying security practices across all their domains.

Additional findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

  • Phishing Becomes Costliest Breach Cause – While compromised credentials continued to reign as the most common cause of a breach (19%), phishing was the second (16%) and the costliest cause, leading to $4.91 million in average breach costs for responding organizations.

  • Healthcare Breach Costs Hit Double Digits for First Time Ever– For the 12th year in a row, healthcare participants saw the costliest breaches amongst industries with average breach costs in healthcare increasing by nearly $1 million to reach a record high of $10.1 million.

  • Insufficient Security Staffing – Sixty-two percent of studied organizations stated they are not sufficiently staffed to meet their security needs, averaging $550,000 more in breach costs than those that state they are sufficiently staffed.

Additional Sources

  • To obtain a copy of the 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report, please visit: https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach.

  • Read more about the report's top findings in this IBM Security Intelligence blog.

  • Sign up for the 2022 IBM Security Cost of a Data Breach webinar on Wednesday, August 3, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. ET here.

  • Connect with the IBM Security X-Force team for a personalized review of the findings: https://ibm.biz/book-a-consult.

About IBM Security
IBM Security offers one of the most advanced and integrated portfolios of enterprise security products and services. The portfolio, supported by world-renowned IBM Security X-Force® research, enables organizations to effectively manage risk and defend against emerging threats. IBM operates one of the world's broadest security research, development, and delivery organizations, monitors 150 billion+ security events per day in more than 130 countries, and has been granted more than 10,000 security patents worldwide. For more information, please check www.ibm.com/security, follow @IBMSecurity on Twitter or visit the IBM Security Intelligence blog.

Press Contact:

IBM Security Communications
Georgia Prassinos
gprassinos@ibm.com

1 Cost of a Data Breach Report 2022, conducted by Ponemon Institute, sponsored, and analyzed by IBM
2 Average cost of $4.53M, compared to average cost $3.87 million at participating organizations with mature-stage cloud security practices

IBM Corporation logo.

SOURCE IBM

Tue, 26 Jul 2022 16:01:00 -0500 en-AU text/html https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/ibm-report-consumers-pay-price-040100120.html
Killexams : Consumers Pay The Price As Data Breach Costs Reach All-Time High: IBM Report

IBM Security today released the annual Cost of a Data Breach Report, revealing costlier and higher-impact data breaches than ever before, with the global average cost of a data breach reaching an all-time high of USD 4.35 million for surveyed organizations. 

With breach costs increasing nearly 13 per cent over the last two years of the report, the findings suggest these incidents may also be contributing to rising costs of goods and services. In fact, 60 per cent of studied organizations raised their product or services prices due to the breach, when the cost of goods is already soaring worldwide amid inflation and supply chain issues.

The perpetuality of cyberattacks is also shedding light on the “haunting effect” data breaches are having on businesses, with the IBM report finding 83 per cent of studied organizations have experienced more than one data breach in their lifetime. Another factor rising over time is the after-effects of breaches on these organizations, which linger long after they occur, as nearly 50 per cent of breach costs are incurred more than a year after the breach.

The 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report is based on in-depth analysis of real-world data breaches experienced by 550 organizations globally between March 2021 and March 2022. The research, which was sponsored and analyzed by IBM Security, was conducted by the Ponemon Institute.

Some of the key findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

•Critical Infrastructure Lags in Zero Trust – Almost 80 per cent of critical infrastructure organizations studied don’t adopt zero trust strategies, seeing average breach costs rise to USD 5.4 million – a USD 1.17 million increase compared to those that do. All while 28 per cent breaches amongst these organizations were ransomware or destructive attacks.

•It Doesn’t Pay to Pay – Ransomware victims in the study that opted to pay threat actors’ ransom demands saw only USD 610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the cost of the ransom. Factoring in the high cost of ransom payments, the financial toll may rise even higher, suggesting that simply paying the ransom may not be an effective strategy.

•Security Immaturity in Clouds – Forty-three percent of studied organizations are in the early stages or have not started applying security practices across their cloud environments, observing over USD 660,000 on average in higher breach costs than studied organizations with mature security across their cloud environments. 

•Security AI and Automation Leads as Multi-Million Dollar Cost Saver – Participating organizations fully deploying security AI and automation incurred USD 3.05 million less on average in breach costs compared to studied organizations that have not deployed the technology – the biggest cost saver observed in the study.

“Businesses need to put their security defenses on the offense and beat attackers to the punch. It’s time to stop the adversary from achieving their objectives and start to minimize the impact of attacks. The more businesses try to perfect their perimeter instead of investing in detection and response, the more breaches can fuel cost of living increases”, said Charles Henderson, Global Head of IBM Security X-Force. “This report shows that the right strategies coupled with the right technologies can help make all the difference when businesses are attacked.”

Over-trusting Critical Infrastructure Organizations 

Concerns over critical infrastructure targeting appear to be increasing globally over the past year, with many governments’ cybersecurity agencies urging vigilance against disruptive attacks. In fact, IBM’s report reveals that ransomware and destructive attacks represented 28 per cent of breaches amongst critical infrastructure organizations studied, highlighting how threat actors are seeking to fracture the global supply chains that rely on these organizations. This includes financial services, industrial, transportation and healthcare companies amongst others.

Despite the call for caution, and a year after the Biden Administration issued a cybersecurity executive order that centers around the importance of adopting a zero trust approach to strengthen the nation’s cybersecurity, only 21 per cent of critical infrastructure organizations studied adopt a zero trust security model, according to the report. Add to that, 17 per cent of breaches at critical infrastructure organizations were caused due to a business partner being initially compromised, highlighting the security risks that over-trusting environments pose.

Businesses that Pay the Ransom Aren’t Getting a “Bargain” 

According to the 2022 IBM report, businesses that paid threat actors’ ransom demands saw USD 610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the ransom amount paid. However, when accounting for the average ransom payment, which according to Sophos reached USD 812,000 in 2021, businesses that opt to pay the ransom could net higher total costs - all while inadvertently funding future ransomware attacks with capital that could be allocated to remediation and recovery efforts and looking at potential federal offenses.

The persistence of ransomware, despite significant global efforts to impede it, is fueled by the industrialization of cybercrime. IBM Security X-Force discovered the duration of studied enterprise ransomware attacks shows a drop of 94 per cent over the past three years – from over two months to just under four days. These exponentially shorter attack lifecycles can prompt higher impact attacks, as cybersecurity incident responders are left with very short windows of opportunity to detect and contain attacks. With “time to ransom” dropping to a matter of hours, it's essential that businesses prioritize rigorous testing of incident response (IR) playbooks ahead of time. But the report states that as many as 37 per cent of organizations studied that have incident response plans don’t test them regularly.

Hybrid Cloud Advantage

The report also showcased hybrid cloud environments as the most prevalent (45 per cent) infrastructure amongst organizations studied. Averaging USD 3.8 million in breach costs, businesses that adopted a hybrid cloud model observed lower breach costs compared to businesses with a solely public or private cloud model, which experienced USD 5.02 million and USD 4.24 million on average respectively. In fact, hybrid cloud adopters studied were able to identify and contain data breaches 15 days faster on average than the global average of 277 days for participants.

The report highlights that 45 per cent of studied breaches occurred in the cloud, emphasizing the importance of cloud security. However, a significant 43 per cent of reporting organizations stated they are just in the early stages or have not started implementing security practices to protect their cloud environments, observing higher breach costs . Businesses studied that did not implement security practices across their cloud environments required an average 108 more days to identify and contain a data breach than those consistently applying security practices across all their domains. 

Additional findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

•Phishing Becomes Costliest Breach Cause – While compromised credentials continued to reign as the most common cause of a breach (19 per cent), phishing was the second (16 per cent) and the costliest cause, leading to USD 4.91 million in average breach costs for responding organizations.

•Healthcare Breach Costs Hit Double Digits for First Time Ever– For the 12th year in a row, healthcare participants saw the costliest breaches amongst industries with average breach costs in healthcare increasing by nearly USD 1 million to reach a record high of USD 10.1 million.

•Insufficient Security Staffing – Sixty-two percent of studied organizations stated they are not sufficiently staffed to meet their security needs, averaging USD 550,000 more in breach costs than those that state they are sufficiently staffed.


Tue, 26 Jul 2022 12:00:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.businessworld.in/article/Consumers-Pay-The-Price-As-Data-Breach-Costs-Reach-All-Time-High-IBM-Report/27-07-2022-439052/
Killexams : IBM report: Middle Eastern consumers pay the price as regional data breach costs reach all-time high

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: IBM, the leading global technology company, has published a study highlighting the importance of cybersecurity in an increasingly digital age. According to IBM Security’s annual Cost of a Data Breach Report,  the Middle East has incurred losses of SAR 28 million from data breaches  in 2022 alone — this figure already exceeding the total amount of losses accrued in each of the last eight years. 

The latest edition of the Cost of a Data Breach Report — now in its 17th year — reveals costlier and higher-impact data breaches than ever before. As outlined by the study, the global average cost of a data breach has reached an all-time high of $4.35 million for surveyed organizations. With breach costs increasing nearly 13% over the last two years of the report, the findings suggest these incidents may also be contributing to rising costs of goods and services. In fact, 60% of studied organizations raised their product or services prices due to the breach, when the cost of goods is already soaring worldwide amid inflation and supply chain issues.

Notably, the report ranks the Middle East2 among the top five countries and regions for the highest average cost of a data breach. As per the study, the average total cost of a data breach in the Middle East amounted to SAR 28 million in 2022, the region being second only to the United States on the list. The report also spotlights the industries across the Middle East that have suffered the highest per-record costs in millions; the financial (SAR 1,039), health (SAR 991) and energy (SAR 950) sectors taking first, second and third spot, respectively.    

Fahad Alanazi, IBM Saudi General Manager, said: “Today, more so than ever, in an increasingly connected and digital age, cybersecurity is of the utmost importance. It is essential to safeguard businesses and privacy. As the digital economy continues to evolve, enhanced security will be the marker of a modern, world class digital ecosystem.” 

He continued: “At IBM, we take great pride in enabling the people, businesses and communities we serve to fulfil their potential by empowering them with state-of-the-art services and support. Our findings reiterate just how important it is for us, as a technology leader, to continue pioneering solutions that will help the Kingdom distinguish itself as the tech capital of the region.”

The perpetuality of cyberattacks is also shedding light on the “haunting effect” data breaches are having on businesses, with the IBM report finding 83% of studied organizations have experienced more than one data breach in their lifetime. Another factor rising over time is the after-effects of breaches on these organizations, which linger long after they occur, as nearly 50% of breach costs are incurred more than a year after the breach.

The 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report is based on in-depth analysis of real-world data breaches experienced by 550 organizations globally between March 2021 and March 2022. The research, which was sponsored and analyzed by IBM Security, was conducted by the Ponemon Institute.

Some of the key global findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

  • Critical Infrastructure Lags in Zero Trust – Almost 80% of critical infrastructure organizations studied don’t adopt zero trust strategies, seeing average breach costs rise to $5.4 million – a $1.17 million increase compared to those that do. All while 28% breaches amongst these organizations were ransomware or destructive attacks.
  • It Doesn’t Pay to Pay – Ransomware victims in the study that opted to pay threat actors’ ransom demands saw only $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the cost of the ransom. Factoring in the high cost of ransom payments, the financial toll may rise even higher, suggesting that simply paying the ransom may not be an effective strategy.
  • Security Immaturity in Clouds – Forty-three percent of studied organizations are in the early stages or have not started applying security practices across their cloud environments, observing over $660,000 on average in higher breach costs than studied organizations with mature security across their cloud environments. 
  • Security AI and Automation Leads as Multi-Million Dollar Cost Saver – Participating organizations fully deploying security AI and automation incurred $3.05 million less on average in breach costs compared to studied organizations that have not deployed the technology – the biggest cost saver observed in the study.

“Businesses need to put their security defenses on the offense and beat attackers to the punch. It’s time to stop the adversary from achieving their objectives and start to minimize the impact of attacks. The more businesses try to perfect their perimeter instead of investing in detection and response, the more breaches can fuel cost of living increases.” said Charles Henderson, Global Head of IBM Security X-Force. “This report shows that the right strategies coupled with the right technologies can help make all the difference when businesses are attacked.”

Over-trusting Critical Infrastructure Organizations 

Concerns over critical infrastructure targeting appear to be increasing globally over the past year, with many governments’ cybersecurity agencies urging vigilance against disruptive attacks. In fact, IBM’s report reveals that ransomware and destructive attacks represented 28% of breaches amongst critical infrastructure organizations studied, highlighting how threat actors are seeking to fracture the global supply chains that rely on these organizations. This includes financial services, industrial, transportation and healthcare companies amongst others.

Despite the call for caution, and a year after the Biden Administration issued a cybersecurity executive order that centers around the importance of adopting a zero trust approach to strengthen the nation’s cybersecurity, only 21% of critical infrastructure organizations studied adopt a zero trust security model, according to the report. Add to that, 17% of breaches at critical infrastructure organizations were caused due to a business partner being initially compromised, highlighting the security risks that over-trusting environments pose.

Businesses that Pay the Ransom Aren’t Getting a “Bargain” 

According to the 2022 IBM report, businesses that paid threat actors’ ransom demands saw $610,000 less in average breach costs compared to those that chose not to pay – not including the ransom amount paid. However, when accounting for the average ransom payment, which according to Sophos reached $812,000 in 2021, businesses that opt to pay the ransom could net higher total costs - all while inadvertently funding future ransomware attacks with capital that could be allocated to remediation and recovery efforts and looking at potential federal offenses.

The persistence of ransomware, despite significant global efforts to impede it, is fueled by the industrialization of cybercrime. IBM Security X-Force discovered the duration of studied enterprise ransomware attacks shows a drop of 94% over the past three years – from over two months to just under four days. These exponentially shorter attack lifecycles can prompt higher impact attacks, as cybersecurity incident responders are left with very short windows of opportunity to detect and contain attacks. With “time to ransom” dropping to a matter of hours, it's essential that businesses prioritize rigorous testing of incident response (IR) playbooks ahead of time. But the report states that as many as 37% of organizations studied that have incident response plans don’t test them regularly.

Hybrid Cloud Advantage

The report also showcased hybrid cloud environments as the most prevalent (45%) infrastructure amongst organizations studied. Averaging $3.8 million in breach costs, businesses that adopted a hybrid cloud model observed lower breach costs compared to businesses with a solely public or private cloud model, which experienced $5.02 million and $4.24 million on average respectively. In fact, hybrid cloud adopters studied were able to identify and contain data breaches 15 days faster on average than the global average of 277 days for participants.

The report highlights that 45% of studied breaches occurred in the cloud, emphasizing the importance of cloud security. However, a significant 43% of reporting organizations stated they are just in the early stages or have not started implementing security practices to protect their cloud environments, observing higher breach costs3 . Businesses studied that did not implement security practices across their cloud environments required an average 108 more days to identify and contain a data breach than those consistently applying security practices across all their domains. 

Additional findings in the 2022 IBM report include:

  • Phishing Becomes Costliest Breach Cause – While compromised credentials continued to reign as the most common cause of a breach (19%), phishing was the second (16%) and the costliest cause, leading to $4.91 million in average breach costs for responding organizations.
  • Healthcare Breach Costs Hit Double Digits for First Time Ever– For the 12th year in a row, healthcare participants saw the costliest breaches amongst industries with average breach costs in healthcare increasing by nearly $1 million to reach a record high of $10.1 million.
  • Insufficient Security Staffing – Sixty-two percent of studied organizations stated they are not sufficiently staffed to meet their security needs, averaging $550,000 more in breach costs than those that state they are sufficiently staffed.

Additional Sources

  • To obtain a copy of the 2022 Cost of a Data Breach Report, please visit: https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach. 
  • Read more about the report’s top findings in this IBM Security Intelligence blog.
  • Sign up for the 2022 IBM Security Cost of a Data Breach webinar on Wednesday, August 3, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. ET here.
  • Connect with the IBM Security X-Force team for a personalized review of the findings: https://ibm.biz/book-a-consult.

-Ends-

About IBM Security

IBM Security offers one of the most advanced and integrated portfolios of enterprise security products and services. The portfolio, supported by world-renowned IBM Security X-Force® research, enables organizations to effectively manage risk and defend against emerging threats. IBM operates one of the world's broadest security research, development, and delivery organizations, monitors 150 billion+ security events per day in more than 130 countries, and has been granted more than 10,000 security patents worldwide. For more information, please check www.ibm.com/security, follow @IBMSecurity on Twitter or visit the IBM Security Intelligence blog.

Wed, 27 Jul 2022 22:20:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.zawya.com/en/press-release/research-and-studies/ibm-report-middle-eastern-consumers-pay-the-price-as-regional-data-breach-costs-reach-all-time-high-q1wbuec0
000-732 exam dump and training guide direct download
Training Exams List