Data Protection Maturity Survey Results 2013

2013 Data Protection Maturity Survey Results
This research paper presents the survey findings and discusses the
trends from this year’s Data Protection Maturity survey. We also look
at how organizations can develop a best-practices approach to
data privacy, and look at some trends for the upcoming year.

January 2013
WP-EN-01-21-13


Overview

them, but also about compliance with statutory and

The job of protecting sensitive information has be-

industry regulations related to data privacy.

come more difficult in the last couple years. One
factor is the booming use of mobile devices, which

This research paper presents the survey findings, and

is putting considerable pressure on traditional net-

discusses the trends from this year’s Data Protection

work perimeter defenses. This growth also means

Maturity Survey. We will conclude by looking at how

that priceless corporate data is now as likely to be

organizations can develop a best-practices approach

outside of the corporate firewall as within its pro-

to data protection, and looking at some trends for the

tective reach. In addition, the adversaries intent in

upcoming year.

gaining illicit access to confidential data are growing in number and sophistication. In order to counter these trends, organizations need to develop and
maintain appropriate data protection best practices
that keep them compliant and secure.

In the 2013 results, we saw 6% of respondent organizations categorized as
having Optimal data protection maturity, with 26% classified as Operational,
41% labeled Standardizing, and 27% in
the Ad Hoc group.
In late-2012, Lumension conducted the 2nd annual
worldwide survey of organizational attitudes, policies and programs designed to protect sensitive
information – be it so-called “toxic” customer data
(PII) or valuable organizational intellectual property
(IP). Approximately 300 respondents from around
the globe representing organizations from very
small to 5000+ employees completed the survey,
which examined the challenges faced by organizations trying to protect data under their care today.
We not only asked about the threats they are facing

Changing IT Network Landscape
One cannot be in the IT security arena without having heard – or been impacted by – the “Bring Your
Own Device” (BYOD) or consumerization trends.
In fact, as Gartner states, [u]ser’s increasing attraction to unsupported electronic tools will push
IT organizations to offer new types of support.1 But
the extent to which it has been embraced – and
secured – varies greatly per our respondents.
Last year we saw an even split between those who
estimated the use of personally-owned devices in
the organization at 0 – 20% (46%) and those who
put it at 20 – 100% (45%). This year, we see the
gap reversing and widening somewhat, with more
organizations in the 20 – 100% (46%) than in the 0
– 20% range (42%). In both years we saw roughly 1
in 10 respondents admitting that they did not know
how many personally-owned devices were accessing organizational assets via the network, which
might be indicative of the risks associated with the
lack of comprehensive device visibility.

and how they are going about defending against

1. Gartner, Media Tablets and Beyond: The Impact of Mobile Devices on Enterprise Management (Jan-2012)

1

About 30% of organizations are reported to have minimal or no security
policies which address data protection concerns.

ening of access policies. In fact, this combined with
the increased use of personally-owned devices to
access organizational data and other resources,
suggest that organizations need to pay close attention to the changing IT network environment.

What portion of your organization’s regularly
used USB and mobile devices are personally
owned? Please consider flash drives, smartphones, tablets, etc.

Which of the following best describes your
firm’s policy for network access for personal
devices such as smart phones and tablets?
Open access is provided.

8.1%

We accept that personal devices will access corporate data and resources but
we try to educate users on the importance of security.
0 - 20%
42.2%

60 - 80%
9.7%
40 - 60%
13.6%
20 - 40%
11.7%

19.2%

20.1%

We do not currently allow them to access the network but may in the future.

80 - 100%
10.7%

A limited number of higher level employees are allowed to use their personal devices to access our corporate network.
Access for all devices is provided
through a DMZ or other isolated access
controls (e.g. email or web only).

Don’t know
12.0%

19.5%

14.9%

We do not currently allow them to access the network and there are no plans
to provide future access.

15.9%

Don’t know.

2.3%

We continued by looking into how employee-owned
mobile devices were administratively, legally or

And our respondents confirmed this when asked:

technically controlled within the organization. Once

“How are personal mobile devices, such as

again we see a majority of organizations (51%) ei-

phones and tablets, financially and administra-

ther currently blocking device access (31%) or us-

tively managed within your organization?” In 2012,

ing some sort of isolation controls (20%). It is in-

59% of respondents indicated these devices were

teresting to note that only “access with education”

classified as “Corporate Liability” – that is, they

increased – by a little over 6% – from last year’s

are an extension of the corporate network, with a

survey. While none of the other categories dropped

personal-use policy which is strictly defined. How-

significantly, in the aggregate we see a slight loos-

ever, in 2013 this dropped to 52%, with the biggest

2

How are personal mobile devices, such as phones and tablets, financially and administratively
managed whithin your organization?
Other (please specify)

Personal Liability with corporate stipend

Personal Liability

Personal Liability with corporate reimbursement

Corporate Liability

2012

2013

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

increase seen in the “Personal Liability” – without

fidentiality rules (63%) and mobile device policies

reimbursement or stipend. This gives a good indi-

(59%). Interestingly, the customer confidential-

cation of just how far organizations have come in

ity rules response dropped almost 9% from 2012,

embracing the BYOD movement. However, again

while none of the other responses changed appre-

highlighting the need for organizations to pay

ciatively. In fact, much like last year, just under 50%

closer attention to the changing IT environment,

of organizations have set out an explicit statement

there is a dark side to this “Personal Liability” de-

of what rights the company retains to data on per-

vice statistic – it suggests that there is minimal or

sonal devices. Taken as a whole, this suggests that

no access policy, which puts data privacy initia-

employment agreements may not have kept pace

tives at risk.

with the changes in the IT environment – potentially putting confidential or sensitive data at risk.

In order to better understand the data protection
guidelines within organizations today, we asked
about the restrictions included in employee agreements. An overwhelming majority of the respondents indicated that corporate confidentiality (81%)

The average reported security spend
ratio (relative to overall IT budget)
dropped from 6.1% in 2011 to 5.6%
in 2012.

clauses were included, followed by customer con-

3


Increasing Threats Landscape
Respondents were asked whether they had experienced any data security issues during the previous year
– by far the greatest issues were network intrusion by a virus or malware (58%), theft of IT assets such as
laptops (43%) and the accidental loss of data by employees (42%). These were the top-3 in 2012 as well.

Have you experienced any of the following incidents in the past year?
None
Industry- / Company-specific data espionage
Regulatory fines and lawsuits
Cyber attack on mobile platforms
Loss of sensitive data by 3rd party
Deliberate data theft by employees
USB-borne attack
General data theft by criminals
Targeted cyber attacks
Denial of Service (DoS) attacks
Software O/S vulnerability attacked
Accidental data loss by employees
Theft of IT assets (laptops, etc.)
Virus or malware network intrusion

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

It is interesting to note that the “none” category dropped

demonstrate the multitude of threat vectors and the

by almost 5% from 2012. However, the largest chang-

increasing magnitude and sophistication of attacks.

es from 2012 were seen in following categories:

This has led to an increasing feeling of endpoint in-

»» Virus or malware network intrusion...10% increase

security among IT professionals year on year, which

»» Targeted cyber attacks...7.5% increase

has risen from 59 percent to 67 percent since 2009. 2

»» Theft of IT assets (laptops, etc.)...6% increase
But in fact almost every category increased in some
amount, with only “cyber attack on mobile platforms” decreasing a bit. As such, these results mirror data presented in countless other reports which

The overwhelming perception that no
data protection regulations pertain suggests a fundamental disconnect between the regulatory landscape and our
respondents understanding of it.

2. Ponemon Institute, 2013 State of the Endpoint (Dec-2012)

4


Evolving Organizational Landscape
At the heart of it, most cyberattacks against an
organization are designed to obtain valuable information, regardless of the type of attack – be it
“standard” malware, phishing expeditions or even
so-called Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) attacks – or the motivations of the attacker, be they
cybercriminals bent on monetary gains, competitors seeking an edge, hacktivists sending a message, or even nation-states or their proxies. And
we’re seeing plenty of attacks, plenty of data
breaches, and plenty of costs associated with
these breaches:

»» According to the Ponemon Institute, 58% of
organizations have more than 25 malware
incidents each month, and another 20% are
unsure how many incidents they’re dealing with.3

»» The data breaches reported in 2012
increased almost 35% over 2011, according to
datalossdb.org. 4

»» The average cost of a data breach was about
$194 per record in 2011; of this, about 70%
were indirect costs such as lost business,
customer churn, etc. 5

»» About 70 – 80% of an organization’s market
value is based on intangible assets such as IP.6

while only about 21% indicated they did not. This
is roughly unchanged from the results we saw in
2012. On the other side, about 77% of our respondents proclaim that data security is a strategic initiative across the enterprise, while only about 12%
suggest it is not. This too is basically unchanged
from the results we saw in 2012. Interestingly, we
see weak correlation between the responses to
these two questions, which might indicate that just
because data security is a strategic initiative does
not mean that our respondents see it being adequately funded. Equally interesting was the drop in
average reported security spend ratio (relative to
overall IT budget) from 6.1% to 5.6% – not a large
decrease, but it does shed a certain light on what
our respondents considered sufficient resources.

How much do you agree with this statement?

“My organization has sufficient resources to
achieve compliance with data security policies and best practices.”
Strongly
Disagree
2.1%
Strongly Agree
Disagree
15.8%
18.8%

Protecting against data breaches requires a commitment from management and of resources. Almost 62% of our respondents indicate that they
have sufficient resources to achieve compliance

Unsure
17.5%

Agree
45.9%

with data security policies and best practices,

3. Ponemon Institute, 2013 State of the Endpoint (Dec-2012)
4. Based on data retrieved 11-Jan-2013.
5. Ponemon Institute, 2011 Cost of Data Breach Study (Mar-2012)
6. Ocean Tomo, http://www.oceantomo.com/about/intellectualcapitalequity

5


Uncertain Regulatory Landscape

“Data security is a strategic initiative across
the enterprise.”

The survey looked into compliance with relevant
legal and industry regulations concerning data

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree 2.1%
10.3%
Unsure
10.6%

protection. Data privacy and data breach notification rules have been on the books for some
time now, and the regulatory environment is ever-changing as government and industry grapple

Strongly Agree
35.3%

with these issues.
Indeed, it seems our respondents are uncertain or
unaware about what statutory and industry regula-

Agree
41.8%

tions apply to their organizations. On average, just
over 25% of respondents claimed to be compliant
to any of the regulations, with planned compliance
at just about half that. This means that on average
roughly 60% of respondents did not think any of

But overall, these results bode well for the matu-

these regulations were applicable.

rity of organizational data privacy efforts. In general it seems that those setting and funding or-

Is your organization compliant with the following regulations, or do you plan to be compliant within the next 24 months?

ganizational strategy with respect to these efforts
understand the need for commitment in order to
avoid the top- and bottom-line impacts that arise

currently compliant

from a data breach.

compliance planned

not applicable

UK DPA
FSA (UK)
EC Directive
EU Privacy Directive
PCI DSS
Basel II
HIPAA / HITECH
SOX / GLBA / Red Flag
Data Privacy Laws**
Other (please list)
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

**Includes State / National data privacy, data protection and/or data breach notification laws.

6

Digging deeper, we find that just over 25% of re-

That notwithstanding, the overwhelming percep-

spondents state their organization are not com-

tion that none of the data privacy regulations per-

pliant with any data protection regulations, while

tain (both individually and in aggregate) suggests

about half of those folks suggest none of them are

a fundamental disconnect between the regulatory

actually applicable. However, as we noted in last

landscape and our respondents understanding of

year’s study, almost all jurisdictions have some

it. Organizations hoping to meet their data protec-

sort of data privacy law that applies, not only to

tion obligations need to understand all the regula-

confidential customer data but employee data as

tions which apply.

well – so these results are hard to understand.
True, the regulatory landscape is changing rapidly.
In 2012 we saw numerous new statutory regulations
coming on line (e.g., the “final rule” for HITECH or
the PDPA in Malaysia) or being pushed through the
legislative process (e.g., the work in the EU on the
GDPR), as well as changes to many industry regulations (such as the recently updated PCI DSS).
That said, most jurisdictions around the world have
some sort of data protection law which applies not
only to customer data but also employee personal
information. In addition, we’re starting to see governments becoming concerned about cyberespionage, at least when it comes to so-called critical
infrastructure; for instance, the recently signed US
National Defense Authorization Act gives the DOD
90 days to establish procedures for defense contractors to disclose cyber breaches.

The biggest threat issues seen in 2012
were: network intrusion by a virus or
malware (58%), theft of IT assets such
as laptops (43%) and the accidental
loss of data by employees (42%).

Rising to the Challenge
So, we see how respondents perceive the rising
threat environment, the evolving organizational
environment and the uncertain regulatory environment. But how are they coming to terms with the
data privacy challenges in light of all this? To find
out, we asked the survey respondents how they
were creating organization-wide data protection
policies, educating employees about these policies, and enforcing them via technical means.

Creating Data Protection Policies
We asked about the policies currently being used
in their organizations. Only 23% of respondents indicated that their organizations adhere to a bestpractice approach of formally developing extensive
security policies in which procedures, guidelines
and technology standards are actively utilized.
Almost twice as many (46%) indicated that they
have multiple security policies covering a majority
of data privacy concerns. Perhaps more worrying
are the 22% and 8% of organizations which have
minimal or no security policies which address data
protection concerns.

7

What type of IT data protection policies exist?
None.

7.8%

A minimal high-level security policy
which address less than 25% of data

21.8%

A minimal high-level security policy
which address less than 25% of data

45.8%

Exhaustive, extensive, formally developed security policies, procedures,
guidelines and technology standards are
actively utilized.

23.4%

Other.

Educating Employees
Next we wanted to know the level of data protection
training employees get, which directly impacts their
understanding of the importance of those policies.
Here we see nearly half (49%) of respondents said
that their organizations have formal, ongoing training covering IT security best practices. Although
this is good news, it means that the other half have
either informal or ad hoc training (24%), one-time
training (16%) or no training at all (8%).

1.3%

While these numbers are essentially unchanged
from 2012, we did see a slight increase in both the
middling and none responses, while the sharpest (yet still minor) drop was seen in the minimal
response. None of this is terribly encouraging,
especially in light of the increasing complexity in
organizational IT environments and increasingly

What type of data protection training is offered
at your organization?
Formal, ongoing training covering IT security best practices.

48.8%

Informal or ad hoc: reactive, typically
event-driven notices sent to employees.

24.4%

One-time training, typically when the
employee first joins the company.

16.2%

None.

8.2%

Other (please specify)

2.4%

sophisticated threat environment – both, to some
extent, driven by the BYOD trend.

Roughly 1 in 10 respondents admit that
they did not know how many personallyowned devices were accessing organizational assets.

Here again we see that these numbers are in essence unchanged from 2012, with the exception of
the formal category which jumped 7.5% — good
news indeed. The biggest decreases (albeit only
about 4%) were seen in the informal and none categories. All this is encouraging because, as noted
last year, having a detailed data privacy policy is
worth little if employees are unaware of it – or the
implications of violating that policy.

Continued »
8


Enforcing Data Protection Policies

cases these results are basically unchanged from

As IT security professionals know, having a strong

last year; the only area we saw a significant in-

data protection policy and an educated workforce

crease was in the email encryption category, which

are two important legs of a good data security

climbed about 5%.

strategy. The third is having the technical means
to enforce those policies – after all, policies are

Looking forward, we learned that full DLP (36%),

worthless if they are more theory than practice

Mobile Device Management (MDM, at 33%) and

and if security best practice transgressions are not

DLP “lite” and port / device control (26% each) are

halted before they cause any damage.

the top technology plans for the next two years.
This matches with what we learned last year, with

Therefore we asked what data security technolo-

the exception of full DLP – implementation plans

gies are being used in organizations today. Much

for full DLP jumped about 16%, which was by far

like last year, the three most commonly – and rel-

the biggest change we saw year-over-year. On

atively well understood – deployed technologies

the other side of that coin, both full DLP (43%)

were removable media or file encryption (56%),

and DLP “lite” (52%) were also noted as technolo-

port / device control (51%) and whole disk encryp-

gies for which there are no plans, along with DRM

tion (50%). On the other side, the three least com-

(59%) – exactly as seen in 2012, although the

monly deployed technologies were Data Rights

percentage of respondents mentioning full DLP

Management (DRM, at 17%), Data Loss Preven-

dropped by 14%.

tion (DLP) “lite” (22%), and full DLP (22%). In both

Which of the following technologies does your organization currently use, or plan to deploy
within the next 24 months?
currently deployed

plan to deploy

no plans

Removable media or file encryption
Port / Device control
Mobile device management
Whole disk encryption
Email encryption
Application data encryption (e.g. database)
DLP Lite (limited keyword / regex filtering )
Full DLP )Data Loss / Leak Prevention)
DRM (Digital Rights Management)
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

9

A piecemeal approach to data protection can be worse than none at all as it offers a false sense of security that data is safe. Poorly configured endpoints represent a major source of vulnerabilities and IT teams
will want to ensure that all removable devices that are plugged in are visible and controlled, that all data
is automatically encrypted and that data privacy policies are enforced at a user level.

A View of US Corporate Data Protection Maturity
Formal maturity models, such as Common Capability Maturity® Model Integration (CMMI) from Carnegie-Mellon University and the UK’s Office of Government and Commerce (OGC) Portfolio, Programme

and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3®) have been developed over time to assess organizational and process maturity.
Lumension developed a simplified Data Protection Maturity Model to analyze the survey data. Within
the model, the survey questions were classified into one of three broad categories: Technical Controls,
Administrative Controls or Organizational Motivation. Effective in-place Technical Controls were the
highest weighted category as these controls best represent pragmatic data protection action beyond
what might simply be unrealized corporate intention. The Model also incorporates some regional dependence accounting for the compliance regulations which vary across the globe. Based on complete
survey responses, each individual response was given a weighted score to create a composite Maturity
Score. The Maturity Scores are represented by the individual diamond-shaped points in the graphic
below. This Maturity Score classifies the respondent organization’s maturity level.

Continued »

10


In 2012, we highlighted results for the UK Data Protection Model. This year, the results for North American respondents are shown. Respondent organizations were categorized into one of four maturity bins:
Optimal (6%), Operational (26%), Standardizing (41%) or Ad Hoc (27%).

Data Protection Maturity - North American Respondents
Maturity Level

Maturity Score vs. Corporate Size

Optimal

Respondent %

Individual Corporate Maturity
Corporate Maturity Trendline

Exhaustive Policies
Robust Technical Controls
Corporate and Financial Priority

6%

Operational
Well Developed Policies
Strong Technical Controls
Strong Organisational Commitment

26%

Standardizing
Partial Technical and Legal Policies
Modest Technical Controls
Moderate Organisational
Commitment

41%

Ad Hoc
No or Few Established Policies
Limited Technical Controls
Weak Organisational Commitment

27%

1-9

10-49

100-499

1000-1999

5000+

Corporate Size

Direct comparison are of course difficult, but there is a striking homogeneity in data protection maturity
across organizations of all sizes within the US in this year’s survey when compared to the much steeper
rise from Ad Hoc for the smallest UK organizations to Operational for the largest UK organizations
based on the 2012 survey.
To view the full survey results or learn about technologies to improve your organization’s data protection
program, please visit www.lumension.com/data-protection-maturity.

Continued »
11


Conclusion

Policy: develop official policies with legal and liable

As the old bromide goes, the only thing that is con-

guidelines for both organization and employees. A

stant is change. IT departments are in the midst of

comprehensive data protection policy should be

some significant changes, driven by both organiza-

put in place to cover all devices no matter whether

tional and end user needs. Increasing use of per-

they are owned by the company or staff. IT policies

sonal devices to access organizational data and

should be regularly reviewed and updated to fortify

increasingly sophisticated attacks from motivated

against ever evolving exploit techniques.

adversaries are just two of these that impact the
protection of sensitive organizational and customer

Training: educate end users and staff regularly

data. In the last year, 58% of our respondents indi-

to ensure awareness of these policies and the

cated that their organization had been infiltrated by

importance of data protection. The approach of

a virus or malware, while another 42% had employ-

simply ensuring that staff, upon commencement

ees accidentally lose data.

of employment, sign-up to a policy which might
have remained unchanged for several years is no

The growth in the BYOD model and the gradual

longer adequate.

erosion of the traditional organizational network
boundary serves to remind us that a best-in-class

Technical control: do not forget low hanging fruit.

approach to data protection should not only fo-

Enforcement starts at a simple level – ensure that

cus on comprehensive administrative policies and

anti-malware software is up-to-date and promptly

pragmatic technical controls, but must also find its

deploy security patches. Investigate encryption

origin in the core of the organization. Indeed, orga-

technologies fundamental to providing protection

nizations must engage on multiple fronts to provide

for your data. Small and mid-market companies

superior data privacy:

may find it easier to implement solutions such as
device control to eliminate additional risk without

Visibility: understand, through surveys and tech-

requiring the effort and overhead of a full DLP so-

nical measures, how consumer devices are being

lution. As financial constraints allow, implement

utilized within the organization. This is needed as

increasingly sophisticated technical controls which

a baseline to understand basic risk and behavior

concentrate on reinforcing the business’ mission

and to recruit executive buy-in for future measures.

and have strategic commitment from above.

Cultural indoctrination: make data protection core to
the mission of the organization with executive backing. Data protection awareness and understanding
should be as “everyday” as locking the front door.

12


About Lumension Security, Inc.
Lumension Security, Inc., a global leader in endpoint management and security, develops, integrates and markets security
software solutions that help businesses protect their vital information and manage critical risk across network and endpoint
assets. Lumension enables more than 5,100 customers worldwide to achieve optimal security and IT success by delivering a
proven and award-winning solution portfolio that includes Vulnerability Management, Endpoint Protection, Data Protection,
Antivirus and Reporting and Compliance offerings. Lumension
is known for providing world-class customer support and services 24x7, 365 days a year. Headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona,
Lumension has operations worldwide, including Texas, Florida,
Washington D.C., Ireland, Luxembourg, Singapore, the United
Kingdom, and Australia. Lumension: IT Secured. Success Optimized.™ More information can be found at www.lumension.com.

Lumension, “IT Secured. Success Optimized.”, and the Lumension logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of
Lumension Security, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Global Headquarters
8660 East Hartford Drive, Suite 300
Scottsdale, AZ 85255 USA
phone: +1.480.970.1025
fax: +1.480.970.6323

www.lumension.com
Vulnerability Management | Endpoint Protection | Data Protection | Compliance and IT Risk Management

13

Data Protection Maturity Survey Results 2013

More Related Content

What's hot (15)

Similar to Data Protection Maturity Survey Results 2013 (20)

More from - Mark - Fullbright (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Data Protection Maturity Survey Results 2013