back to article Security pros more confident about fending off ransomware, despite being battered by attacks

IT and security pros say they are more confident in their ability to manage ransomware attacks after nearly nine in ten (88 percent) were forced to contain efforts by criminals to breach their defenses in the past year. Global data released today from the Ponemon Institute, which examined the responses of 2,547 individuals who …

  1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "Ransomware is more pervasive and impactful than ever, with more organizations forced to suspend operations or experiencing major business failure because of attacks," - Trevor Dearing, Director of Critical Infrastructure at Illumio, which sponsored the research.

    So why are they more confident of fending off attacks?

    1. doublelayer Silver badge

      The people surveyed were more confident. The business that sells security software wants to make sure that people know that it's still a good idea to buy their software. Maybe you could attribute part of this to people being confident in the software they bought from these guys, or at least these guys would like you to think that. Still, the company's statements and those of the people unaffiliated with them don't have to agree.

      I don't think it's that surprising. Now that ransomware has existed for longer, more people have had an opportunity to think through what they would need to deal with it, to scare their directors into letting them do it, and to build some of the things they had in mind. Those don't prevent it altogether, but it does mean that they feel more confident about their ability to respond than they did when they had none of that.

      1. witty user name

        The question isn’t whether it’s surprising that people have misplaced and unearned self-confidence, though, but where it comes from. I’d like to see some research on that. That it isn’t surprising says very little about it.

        1. doublelayer Silver badge

          Then you may commission your own study asking people if they feel more, less, or equally confident than they did at a previous time of your choosing and then asking them why. Of course, if you do the study with a preexisting assumption, it may have some flaws. For example, you seem to have assumed that an increased confidence is "misplaced and unearned". Leaving aside questions like can you really earn confidence anyway, it makes an assumption that they could not have valid reasons for increased confidence. My example posits a few reasons that could be valid or invalid depending on which preventative actions they took, and that is far from the only possibility.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like