Considering some recent large scale data breaches on this great visualisation:
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/
- Home Depot is now running at $250m direct costs.
- Target over $150m
- Anthem expected > $100m
- JP Morgan > $250m / year in increased security spending and costs
- eBay lost or saw a reduction in activity in 15% of users and reduced annual revenue forecasts by $200m
When collating this I observed an interesting pattern. There are certain costs that are similar between them, but there were also other distinct classes of costs that depend much more on the specifics of the business...and only some of them are going to be covered by insurance (and then limited in total payout).
- Direct breach costs - notifying customers, identity theft protection, contractors and consultants for breach containment, analysis, and recovery.
- Lost revenue – hard to predict but given the extensive outage, damaged relationships, and loss of confidence that can occur it could be significant. Defections, attrition, and loss of customers at contract renewal, as well as more difficulty securing new business all add up. It's likely eBay recovered many of its lost users gradually over time - but they still expected it to hit their total revenue by 1% ($200m) in 2014. The B2C market is also likely more forgiving than the B2B market.
- Lost Trade Secrets and IP - could in the longer run impact on (2) above. Of course this is industry dependent but in some sectors could have long lasting financial or national security repercussions.
- Information security investment, a fire-sale investment in security tooling, consultants, resourcing etc. Complicated overlapping programs of work, a lot of expensive external consultants and contractors. Hiring in skills to avoid time taken to train, and to save face. Much of this will be recurring costs in software licence support contracts and salaries. It will also often impede responsiveness and agility - especially if rushed in.
- PR campaign in a desperate bid to reassure, retain customers, and protect brand value - and in order to combat (2) above and driving the need for (4).
- Regulators - are getting more power to hit businesses with larger fines. For example the EU proposal is considering fines up to 5% of global revenue for non-compliance.
- Lost Productivity - last, but by no means least, there's an immense opportunity cost. What value-adding activities would all the staff working on remediation, damage limitation, and reputational salvage have been working on? Is it going to delay product launches and updates, or technology refreshes? Perhaps it will even cost first mover advantage in a field, or delay cost and efficiency savings. (Thanks to Lance for pointing out this one in the comments)
Even a year ago it was sometimes hard to justify financially the investment in information security required to protect people's data; though of course there's also a moral duty. That is changing, as highlighted by the examples above. Opinions on this differ, this article doesn't believe we are there yet, however it looks at revenue - whereas it is perhaps better to consider profit. And however big the organisation, if you don't look after the millions, the billions can't look after themselves...
As data is pooled and concentrated, breaches are bigger, and costing more; regulators are getting bigger sticks, and top management are getting fired. It is now starting to make moral and financial sense to invest in a holistic security program to reduce your exposure.
breaches are bigger, and costing more; regulators are getting bigger sticks, and top management are getting fired.
Cheers
Andy