Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Symantec 2011 CIP Survey Global Results
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Symantec 2011 CIP Survey Global Results

1,555
views

Published on

Symantec’s 2011 Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Survey found a drop in awareness and engagement as measured by the CIP Participation Index. Companies show a CIP Participation Index of 82 …

Symantec’s 2011 Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Survey found a drop in awareness and engagement as measured by the CIP Participation Index. Companies show a CIP Participation Index of 82 percent in 2011, down 18 points from 2010. Critical infrastructure providers come from industries that are of such importance that if their cyber networks were successfully attacked and disabled, it would result in an actual threat to national security.

Published in: Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,555
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Critical Infrastructure Protection SurveyKey Findings
  • 2. Methodology• Survey performed by Applied Research• Surveyed CIP-specific industries – All industries from last year – Added 8 new industries this year (all on CIP list)• 3,475 respondents – 1,900 SMBs (5 – 499 employees) – 1,575 enterprises (>1,000 US, >500 ROW)• Spoke to person in charge of computers 2
  • 3. Key Findings• Lower awareness & engagement in government CIP programs• Slightly more ambivalence about government CIP programs• Organizations feel less prepared
  • 4. Lower Awareness & Engagement in Government CIPPrograms• Lower awareness of government CIP programs in their country (36% vs. 55%)• Less engaged in government CIP programs (37% vs. 56%)
  • 5. Slightly More Ambivalence About Government CIPPrograms• More are ‘neutral’ or have ‘no opinion’ about government CIP programs (42% vs. 26%)• Slightly less willing to cooperate (57% vs. 66%)
  • 6. Organizations Feel Less Prepared• Slight decrease in their self-assessment of readiness (-8%)• Self-assessment of safeguards shows decline in readiness (-5 to -10%)
  • 7. Recommendations: Protecting Critical Infrastructure• Develop and enforce IT policies, automate all compliance processes• Adopt a proactive, information-centric approach to protecting information and interactions• Manage systems by implementing secure operating environments• Protect the infrastructure by securing endpoints, messaging and Web environments• Ensure 24x7 availability• Develop an information management strategy that includes an information retention plan and policies
  • 8. Recommendations for Government• Continue to put forth the resources to establish government critical infrastructure programs• Partner with industry associations and private enterprise groups to disseminate information to raise awareness of CIP organizations and plans• Emphasize that security is not enough to stay resilient in the face of today’s cyberattacks