Leaving an organization even momentarily exposed opens up the possibility of a cyber attack that could wield a crippling blow. The mistake some people make is that they believe such an opening is inevitable when switching technologies. Instead, they should realize that the exposure comes not at a mythical moment during cutover, but every single day that they have a sub-par technology in place.
There’s a common perception that implementing comprehensive IT security to protect against today’s sophisticated threats and attacks is a difficult and expensive task, and that the benefits of replacing current solutions (even if highly ineffective) are seldom worthwhile. This mindset has resulted in many businesses dealing with a virtual patchwork of disparate systems that are time consuming to manage and costly to keep running at a high-level of performance.
More importantly, they are ineffective, leaving organizations vulnerable to cyber attacks. Simply put, such myths and misconceptions are false. They are obstacles to implementing effective security solutions that can be a better fit for a company’s individual IT security environment.
This article aims to set the record straight by debunking five myths about implementing IT security, so that organizations considering a change can thrive in today’s ever-evolving threat landscape by ensuring that their security infrastructure remains cutting-edge.
This is a pretty common assumption. However, it is not necessarily always the case, for two primary reasons: 1) Changes do not necessarily cost more. In some cases, the total cost can be lower; and 2) Not all security technologies have the same ability to stop attacks – some simply have sub-par efficacy.
When asked whether they have had a clear record with zero IT security incidents over the last year, customers and prospects often must say no. However, despite the fact that businesses are dealing with an increase in malware, phishing attacks and other threats, the answer should and can be yes. This is not to say that everyone can achieve impenetrable security, but rather that such instances can be reduced to being extremely rare events.
This leads to a few important questions that many businesses fail to ask themselves when contemplating a security implementation: What is the business case for making a decision to either stay with what I have or make a switch? Is the investment in time and money being spent to help prevent a cyber security incident worthwhile? Are we free to work on other things?
When evaluating these questions, it is important for organizations to know that not all solutions are created equal. Saving money now by implementing a cheaper (or “free”) solution may seem like the best course of action in the short term. However, over time it almost inevitably results in additional costs associated with increasing security in other areas to compensate, time spent managing the solution — or in the worst-case scenario, experiencing a cyber security attack because the solutions implemented don’t catch everything they should.
Businesses need to look into the efficacy of solutions they are considering to choose the best option that will keep the bad guys out and their business running smoothly.
Any organization that is making the investment to implement a new security suite understands the risks that today’s threat landscape pose to businesses of all sizes, and the importance of having the most effective protection available. They know that by leaving their organization even momentarily exposed, they open up the possibility of a cyber attack stealing financial information, intellectual property and other data, with the outcome becoming a crippling blow to the organization.
The mistake some people make is that they believe such an opening is inevitable when switching technologies. Instead, they should realize that the exposure comes not at a mythical moment at the time of cutover, but every single day that they have a sub-par technology in place.
The truth is that a well-organized and planned implementation that requires a rip-and-replace can be conducted and completed without leaving the organization open to an attack at any point.
Switching from an old security system to a new solution can and should be done by replacing the incumbent product with a fully functioning product simultaneously. In addition, policies should be reconfigured before the rip occurs. By following these guidelines, organizations will ensure that its new solution is up and running properly without experiencing downtime that will leave an organization vulnerable to an attack.
If a security implementation is planned properly and uses the right tools, then it becomes yet another myth. Proper planning is important for any security implementation, but a rip-and-replace requires even more careful planning to ensure a smooth transition without user intervention.
One way to avoid impacting the end-user experience is by conducting major activities associated with an implementation during off-hours. This includes the removal of current security solutions and installing the new product on user PCs.
Automating the process of rip-and-replace using the proper tools also prevents the need for employees to manually install and reboot their system to ensure that it is protected. Another benefit with an automated process is that it ensures the new system is installed properly on every workstation without having to rely on individual end-users who are not security professionals to properly install it.
Performing these activities automatically and during off-hours frees employees to operate as they would normally, without experiencing any degradation to system performance.
This is a very understandable concern. Many business leaders are worried that an implementation of a new security suite requiring a rip-and-replace will cause a strain on their already extremely busy IT department, taking their attention away from focusing on other mission-critical IT projects. However, this doesn’t always have to be the case.
Today, it is possible to manage the implementation through a single console, making this process easy on an IT team. Organizations easily can remove the incumbent solution from all workstations and simultaneously implement the new solution, all the while managing the process from a “single pane of glass” view for all elements of IT security.
This strategy also eliminates the hassle associated with patchwork security that is harder to manage and, in most cases, costs an organization more money to operate.
While this myth is true for some software vendor solutions, it needn’t be the case. First and foremost, any cyber security company providing a security solution should provide an organization with free basic support during business hours. Organizations that want higher levels of support should have the option of purchasing at a level that offers them the right amount of support at the right times to suit their business needs.
Another factor to consider is that automatic software updates are a key component when choosing the right security solution. Keep in mind that some companies offer more frequent updates than other providers. This is another reason the efficacy and reputation of a security vendor is critical when deciding which provider is best for a business’ unique security environment.
Companies across all industries worldwide reported a total of 42.8 million detected attacks in 2014, according to the PWC Global State of Information Security Survey 2015. That’s a 48 percent increase in incidents since 2013.
Sophisticated attacks are on the rise, and while a security implementation — especially one that requires a rip-and-replace — can seem like a daunting task for any business, it is more important now than ever before to make sure that an organization’s security infrastructure can protect against a cyber attack.
With proper planning and understanding that the myths associated with a security implementation aren’t always the truth, an organization can realize the benefits of an efficient and powerful security solution that will provide advanced protection against known, unknown and advanced persistent threats