Home page logo
/

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Fwd: Rate Stratfor's Incident Response
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:01:28 -0500

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:41:48 CST, Laurelai said:

Well that's what you get when you let profit margins dictate security
policy.

You *do* realie that in the US, most corporations are legally *required* to let
profit margins dictate *all* policy, security and otherwise?  The corporate
officers are required to maximise shareholder value, and in fact can be (and
often *are*) sued if they decide "Project XYZ would make a boatload of money,
but we're killing it off because it's morally wrong" or similar.  The exception
is if they reincorporate as a "benefit corporation", which has only been
available for a year or two, in only several states, and apparently only 100
corporations (out of the hundreds of thousands in the US) have taken this path so far...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-benefit-corporations-20120104,0,5492616,print.story

Bottom line: In most corporations, the CSO *can't* spend more money on security
unless he can show increased profits by doing so.   So if you're the CSO and want
to spend $15M more on security, you have to show how doing so will result in
a better return for the shareholders.  And as I pointed out earlier in this thread,
even the big hacks at Sony and TJX didn't affect *the shareholders*, so under current
US corporate law, those companies actually did what they were *required* to do.

Attachment: _bin
Description:

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault