There's one way to prove that security is a necessary IT expense: hire hackers to successfully break into your own network. CFOs are treating security as a cost item to be controlled--and in some cases, even eliminated. That's the buzz at . . .
There's one way to prove that security is a necessary IT expense: hire hackers to successfully break into your own network. CFOs are treating security as a cost item to be controlled--and in some cases, even eliminated. That's the buzz at the recent CeBit trade show. Despite IT managers wanting to spend more on security, CFOs are putting the brakes on such spending. The latest thinking, apparently, is that the terrorist activity was more than a quarter ago, so it's history. In other words, CFOs are seeing all those security costs on the balance sheet--yet they're not seeing any security problems. (The fact that increased security is heading off problems is lost on them.)

This doesn't surprise me. I've been hearing similar sentiments from people in the US. Outside the IT community, it seems that security is either a business impediment or an unnecessary cost. As a result, CIOs and network managers are under constant pressure to do less, as a way to save money and reduce inconvenience.

The link for this article located at ZDNet AU is no longer available.