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:
pgpJaIgS3j6tD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/