Security expert: ROI figures are meaningless

By Munir Kotadia and Chris Duckett, ZDNet Australia
Monday, February 18, 2008 12:00 PM

Return on investment figures, which are commonly used by vendors to justify the value of their products, are meaningless--especially when it comes to security, claims Bruce Schneier.

In his opening keynote at linux.conf.au last month, the security guru called ROI figures "complete bullshit". In a video interview, Schneier explained to ZDNet Asia sister site ZDNet.com.au why these cost justifications make no sense.

"If you ever see one of those ROI models, what they do is measure the cost of an attack and then multiply by the probability of an attack to give you how much money you should spend.

"This fails when you have very, very rare and very, very expensive events because you are effectively multiplying zero by infinity. If you have taken any infinity theory, which I don’t recommend, multiplying zero by infinity gives you every number," said Schneier.

He explained that the amount spent on a product can change significantly by simply playing with the equation.

"If the chance of you being attacked is one in a million and I change it to one in two million... I have halved the amount of money you should spend.

"Maybe your reputation is worth US$20 million, or maybe it is only worth US$10 million, or maybe it is worth US$40 million. Suddenly I can completely perturb your budget--because the numbers are so big and so small that minor changes...make huge changes to the product.

"I can make an ROI model say whatever I want. I could justify or not justify anything based on these very, very rare and very, very damaging events," he said.

Schneier also explained why many "bad" security products outsell "good" security products.

"We are in a market where the average consumer--even a savvy IT consumer--can’t tell the difference between a good product and a bad product.

"It is easy for functional requirements--if you want to know if your word processor does italics, you just check if it does italics. Functional requirements are easy to test. It is the non-functional requirements that all end in a 'y'--security, reliability, usability.

"So most people, companies, organizations, can’t tell the difference between a good product and a bad product and they are forced to rely on the seller. In those markets--they're called Lemon's markets--bad products drive out good products because bad products are cheaper," he added.


WORTHWHILE?

0

0 votes
Blog

Talkback 0 comments

There are currently no comments for this post.


Tech Jobs Now!

Search for your ideal tech job:

OpenAmplify developer's diary - part three: Topic intention comparisons

Web Development

Justin James chronicles his process of using Hapax's OpenAmplify Web service to create an application that can match documents with content that is similar or identical to the source document.


Read more »



 
Virtualize your way to cost savings
Build an infrastructure that is flexible, scalable, and economical, as you strive to become a truly agile business.

Red Hat Outlines Its Virtualization Strategy and Roadmap for 2009
» Watch the video




What Y2K can teach us about 2012

Blog thumbnail

Dec. 21, 2012. It's a big day on the calendar, particularly because some believe it marks the last day of the world as we know it. The apocalypse. Armageddon.

The..... by Eileen Yu

Read more »

Tags

  1. attack
  2. authentication and encryption
  3. blog
  4. data security
  5. e - mail
  6. hacking
  7. internet
  8. malware
  9. microsoft corp.
  10. network
  11. network security
  12. pc security
  13. researcher
  14. security
  15. security management
  16. software
  17. spam and phishing
  18. symantec corp.
  19. viruses and worms
  20. web