HONEST Poll Results: How Much Should You Encrypt?

What is the Goldilocks Zone when it comes to encryption? Security Now community members speak out in our latest poll.

If the goal is to keep data out of unauthorized hands, should organizations simply encrypt every bit they possess?
Thats the essence of the question we posed in the most recent Security Now poll. Is it possible to miss encrypting important data? Or is it possible to encrypt too much? Executives responding to our poll are split, but only in the degree to which data should be encrypted. Its tough to find anyone in the community here who thinks encryption itself is a waste of time.
As always, we recognize the limitations of our methods. We understand the polls we conduct on our pages arent going to fuel academic research. Thats why its important we properly label the conclusions. I think its accurate to call them a Highly Opinionated, Not Especially Scientific Tally -- or, as I like to think of them: HONEST results.
More than half of those responding said encrypting everything is the way to go. Why take a chance, right? But community member (and Security Now contributing writer) Joe Stanganelli sounded a cautionary note in the comments when he wrote, I put Encrypt everything, but there are compelling arguments to be made against encrypting everything -- particularly in highly regulated industries where encryption can hamper accessibility to the point of potentially resulting in questionable compliance.
In addition to regulatory compliance questions there are undeniable costs in performance, resource utilization and software or service licensing when you encrypt everything. It can be the safest option but security has always been a matter of cost versus reward and many organizations may well find the scales tipped in the wrong direction when it comes to encrypting everything inside the perimeter.
Another 30% said encryption is the right answer, but need only be applied to an organizations most critical data. This is a widely used standard though it does carry with it an extra cost: An organization must go through its data to determine what is actually important. While it sounds like an exercise that should fall well within the bounds of obvious, there can be a great deal of nuance and legal or regulatory judgement that teams must apply before encryption can take place.
Of course, a handful of folks decided that throwing up their hands in frustration and defeat was the proper response. Its certainly easy to understand why they might reach such a conclusion -- encryption is a complex topic from both policy-making and technology points of view. Nevertheless, the growing number of public incidents indicates its a topic that each organization must deal with -- and deal with sooner, rather than later.
Keep an eye out for the next Security Now poll. Its going to deal with a question of an international nature -- one that may well have you questioning who deserves to be on your lists of friends and enemies.
Related posts:
Fortanix Has Series A Funding for Run-Time Encryption
Encryption: 6 Ways to Make It Matter
Delaware Requires Data Security in New Law
— Curtis Franklin is the editor of
SecurityNow.com
. Follow him on Twitter
@kg4gwa
.

Last News
▸ Debunking Machine Learning in Security. ◂ Discovered: 23/12/2024 Category: security	▸ Researchers create BlackForest to gather, link threat data. ◂ Discovered: 23/12/2024 Category: security	▸ Travel agency fined £150,000 for breaking Data Protection Act. ◂ Discovered: 23/12/2024 Category: security

**Cyber Security Categories**
Google Dorks Database	Exploits Vulnerability	Exploit Shellcodes

CVE List

Tools/Apps