I just realised how verbose I really am. I have written a few posts about what I think the future of Information Security will be in the future and it seems that I am in total agreement with Gartner. The problem is that it has taken me many posts and much typing to put onto the Internet what Gartner sums up in two sentences:
“The next generation data center is adaptive – it will do workloads on the fly,” [Neil MacDonald, vice president and fellow at Gartner] says. “It will be service-oriented, virtualized, model-driven and contextual. So security has to be, too.”
I particularly like the term "model-driven". I have been using "process-centric security" to describe my vision which I believe is an extension of "info-centric security".
Showing posts with label gartner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gartner. Show all posts
Friday, June 6, 2008
Monday, August 27, 2007
More on the TJX Stock
It appears that TJX have taken a bit of a knock but their share capital is $14 Billion.
This means that a hack that costs them $118 Million is peanuts. To them. It essentially ends up costing each shareholder 25c per share. I don't see any shareholder selling shares based on this hack attempt.
The other interesting thing is that while Javelin Strategy and Research said that:
according to research done in April, they have had to explain how just a couple of months later TJX has reported an increase in sales since they were hacked. Javelin explain that there is just not enough competition.
Gartner are also a bit boggled by this fact but they comment that:
I guess this proves that people are just not logical. It will probably take a lot more pain on their behalf before they say that they will avoid shopping at a store with bad card protection and then actually do it.
It also shows that TJX is just not a very good example of what effects a hacking incident can have on a business. They have a strong company, a lot of money to play with and the ability to entice customers back even after TJX has lost their private information.
This means that a hack that costs them $118 Million is peanuts. To them. It essentially ends up costing each shareholder 25c per share. I don't see any shareholder selling shares based on this hack attempt.
The other interesting thing is that while Javelin Strategy and Research said that:
"77 percent of consumers intended to stop shopping at merchants that incurred a data breach"
according to research done in April, they have had to explain how just a couple of months later TJX has reported an increase in sales since they were hacked. Javelin explain that there is just not enough competition.
Gartner are also a bit boggled by this fact but they comment that:
"Most TJX customers clearly care more about discounts than about card security, because they know banks will usually cover potential losses if a card is stolen and used, with the costs eventually shifted back to the retailers."Gartner go on to preach on how retailers should adhere to good security practices but the "... OR ELSE!" is a bit weak.
I guess this proves that people are just not logical. It will probably take a lot more pain on their behalf before they say that they will avoid shopping at a store with bad card protection and then actually do it.
It also shows that TJX is just not a very good example of what effects a hacking incident can have on a business. They have a strong company, a lot of money to play with and the ability to entice customers back even after TJX has lost their private information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)