On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:42 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > It matters a lot less than you think. Go look at Sony's stock price while > they > were having their security issues - it was already sliding *before* PSN > got hacked, > but continued sliding at the *exact same rate* for several months, with no > visible >
Indeed. It is surprising to me that customers don't care more about this than they do. But the customer, in the end, doesn't seem particularly concerned about their personal data. If they did they would stop buying, revenue would fall, and stock price would fall. As high priority as the IT Sec people usually think it should be, or as high > priority as a cold hard-line analysis of business cost/benefts says it > should > be? IT people tend to be *really* bad at estimating actual bottom-line > costs. > I can perfectly understand the cold rationalizing of ROI on issues of security expense. I am much less forgiving of companies who constantly say (and they all do) that they take great care with your data, won't share it with anyone else, implement great security, etc. Then they are owned by some stupid means such as a flawed and out of date Internet-facing webapp and proven to be liars. I wish there were far more punitive punishments for customers to pursue to help shift the ROI towards providing more security. Bob
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
