Group items tagged

When the director of IT at a Boston-based, midsize pharmaceutical firm was first approached to participate in a data leakage audit, he was thrilled. He figured the audit would uncover a few weak spots in the company's data leak defenses and he would then be able to leverage the audit results into funding for additional security resources. "Data leakage is an area that doesn't get a lot of focus until something bad happens. Your biggest hope is that when you raise concerns about data vulnerability, someone will see the value in allowing you to move forward to protect it," the IT director says. But he got way more than he bargained for. The 15-day audit identified 11,000 potential leaks, and revealed gaping holes in the IT team's security practices. (Read a related story on the most common violations encountered.) The audit, conducted by Networks Unlimited in Hudson, Mass., examined outbound e-mail, FTP and Web communications. The targets were leaks of general financial information, corporate plans and strategies, employee and other personal identifiable information, intellectual property and proprietary processes. Networks Unlimited placed one tap between the corporate LAN and the firewall and a second tap between the external e-mail gateway and the firewall. Networks Unlimited used WebSense software on two servers to monitor unencrypted traffic. Then it analyzed the traffic with respect to company policy. Specifically, Networks Unlimited looked for violations of the pharmaceutical firm's internal confidentiality policy, corporate information security policy, Massachusetts Privacy Laws (which go into effect in 2010), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and Security and Exchange Commission and Sarbanes-Oxley regulations. Auditor Jason Spinosa, senior engineer at Networks Unlimited, says that while he selected the criteria for this audit, he usually recommends that companies take time to determine their policy settings based on their risk

Here are five interesting factoids regarding information security culled from documents and statements accompanying President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget: The current number of positions filled in the federal IT workforce totals 17,785, with 8,407 of them - or 47 percent - deemed IT security. The Department of Homeland Security seeks $75.1 million more in the coming year to develop and deploy cybersecurity technologies for the entire government to counter continuing, real-world national cyber threats and apply effective analysis and risk mitigation strategies to detect and deter threats. Homeland Security also seeks $37.2 million, a $6.6 million increase, to address critical capability gaps identified in the government's Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative. Specifically, says DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, this effort would seek and/or develop technologies to secure the nation's critical information infrastructure and networks. Nearly half of the federal workforce - 2.7 million individuals - have been issued credentials that provide for digital signature, encryption, archiving of documents, multi-factor authentication and reduced sign-on to improve security and facilitate information sharing. The total federal IT budget for 2010, including funds earmarked to secure data and systems, tops $75.8 billion, up $5.1 billion or 7.2 percent from the current fiscal year.

Weak security policies and practices in nearly all 24 major federal agencies in 2008 have resulted in exposing personally identifiable information of Americans, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). "An underlying reason for these weaknesses is that agencies have not fully implemented their information security programs," according to the GAO report, issued Monday. "As a result, agencies have limited assurance that controls are in place and operating as intended to protect their information resources, thereby leaving them vulnerable to attack or compromise." Federal agencies have reported some progress, providing awareness training for employees and testing system contingency plans, the GAO said. Still, employees with significant security responsibilities are not getting enough security training and known vulnerabilities remain wide open. The GAO conducts a periodic review of information security policies and procedures at federal agencies. Inspectors general review agency conformity to the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) and report their findings to Congress.

Too many companies leave themselves vulnerable to employees' ignorance or purposeful flouting of the rules when it comes to information security, suggests a survey conducted by (ISC)2. Focused on the 'basics' of policy management, the survey revealed that organisations are becoming confident in their ability to comply with the policies and procedures set out to secure their organisations. Analysis of the results, however, reveal education efforts to be immature, with most concerns relating to accountability and company-wide understanding of what is required. The survey questioned 737 information security professionals last month about their organisation's efforts in policy and awareness management. A great majority, 80 percent, said their company's ability to comply with security policy was satisfactory, good or very good, leaving only 20 percent saying they were dissatisfied. However, this confident stance was tempered by concerns from nearly half of the respondents over a lack of training (48 percent) and poor employee understanding of policy (46 percent); a lack of defined accountability (42 percent); and an unsupportive company culture (48 percent). These obstacles to compliance with policy were cited by significantly more respondents than other issues of traditional concern, including a lack of budget, which only 22 percent were concerned about, and the ability to procure the latest technology, which concerned only 19 percent of respondents. "The challenges are shifting from the systems to the people," says John Colley, CISSP, managing director for EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) for (ISC)2. "The relatively little concern expressed over budgets suggests security continues to be viewed as a business imperative, even in the current economic climate. Unfortunately, security requirements are not yet well understood, or worse flouted, often with management support, in order to get a job done. There is a colossal task ahead to ensure all emplo

Ignorant People are a big security risk.

In this expert videocast, you will learn about Web 2.0 software, the threats they pose, and whether the benefits outweigh the risks. Key areas covered include the threats posed by services like Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn, as well as wikis and blogs. Our expert also dives into particular attack vectors and scenarios that are becoming popular, defensive policy, and technology best practices and Web 2.0 trends to monitor going forward. Speaker David Sherry CISSP, CISM - CISO, Brown University As chief information security officer of Brown University, David Sherry is charged with the development and maintenance of Brown's information technology security strategy, IT policies and best practices, security training and awareness programs, as well as ongoing risk assessment and compliance tasks. Sherry has 20 years of experience in information technology. He most recently worked at Citizens Bank where he was vice president for enterprise identity and access management, providing leadership for compliance and security governance. He had also served as Citizens' vice president for enterprise information security, overseeing the company's security operations and controls. He has taught classes at colleges in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island, as well as spoken on identity management strategy and implementation at industry conferences. He holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in business management.

Point by Marcus Ranum THERE'S AN OLD SAYING, "Sometimes things have to get a lot worse before they can get better." If that's true, then breach notification laws offer the chance of eventual improvements in security, years hence. For now? They're a huge distraction that has more to do with butt-covering and paperwork than improving systems security. Somehow, the security world has managed to ignore the effect voluntary (?) notification and notification laws have had in other fields-namely, none.We regularly get bank disclosure statements, stock plan announcements, HIPAA disclosures, etc.-and they all go immediately in the wastebasket, unread.When I got my personal information breach notification from the Department of Veterans Affairs, it went in the trash too. Counterpoint by Bruce Schneier THERE ARE THREE REASONS for breach notification laws. One, it's common politeness that when you lose something of someone else's, you tell him. The prevailing corporate attitude before the law-"They won't notice, and if they do notice they won't know it's us, so we are better off keeping quiet about the whole thing"-is just wrong. Two, it provides statistics to security researchers as to how pervasive the problem really is. And three, it forces companies to improve their security. That last point needs a bit of explanation. The problem with companies protecting your data is that it isn't in their financial best interest to do so. That is, the companies are responsible for protecting your data, but bear none of the costs if your data is compromised. You suffer the harm, but you have no control-or even knowledge- of the company's security practices. The idea behind such laws, and how they were sold to legislators, is that they would increase the cost-both in bad publicity and the actual notification-of security breaches, motivating companies to spend more to prevent them. In economic terms, the law reduces the externalities and forces companies to deal with the true costs of

Legislation to reform the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 will be introduced in the Senate on Tuesday, a Senate staffer who helped draft the bill told a panel at the RSA Conference in San Francisco on Thursday. Erik Hopkins' presentation provided further evidence that the White House could assume greater control in coordinating federal government security. In the panel - The New FISMA: Security Finally Transcends Compliance - Hopkins offered a diagram illustrating the bill that showed a cyber office reporting directly to the president. Hopkins, who works for the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, was the third federal official addressing conference attendees to suggest the White House will be given more authority in safeguarding federal government information systems. On Wednesday, Obama administration cybersecurity advisor Melissa Hathaway - who last week submitted to the president an assessment of federal cybersecurity policy - said the White House must lead federal government cybersecurity efforts. A day before, National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander said NSA would not lead the nation's cybersecurity efforts, suggesting a greater role for the White House. Hopkins said the benefits of FISMA reform includes improved coordination of security efforts, better economies of scale and greater situational awareness of security threats such as knowing where they originate and how the government will respond.

Brief descriptions and links to professional certifications in information security, physical security, audit, investigations, business continuity and more. Certifications provide a way to expand and/or demonstrate professional expertise. A wide variety of certifications are available in security and related disciplines. This directory will compile brief descriptions of certs in information and physical security, business continuity, audit and other areas, with links to details from the issuing organizations. Notes: -- This list will be updated and expanded at The Security Certification Directory on csoonline.com. -- Vendor-specific security certifications will be added in the near future.

Woonsocket-based CVS Caremark Corp., the largest U.S. drugstore chain, has agreed to pay $2.25 million to settle federal charges that company employees compromised customer privacy by throwing prescription records and drug bottles into open trash bins. The Federal Trade Commission said its investigation with the Health and Human Services Department followed media reports that trash bins behind CVS pharmacies contained pill bottles bearing patient names, credit-card and insurance information, and Social Security numbers. The company also did not have adequate policies for disposing of that information, and did not sufficiently train employees to dispose of the information properly, the agencies said. The items that were not properly discarded included pill bottles, medication instruction sheets, computer order forms, payroll information, job applications and credit-card and insurance information. Those labels and forms contained personal information including Social Security numbers and credit card and insurance information, and in some cases, driver's license numbers and account numbers. Names of the patients' doctors were also included. The settlement "will restore appropriate privacy protections to tens of millions of people across the country," FTC chairman William Kovacic said in a statement. "It also sends a strong message" that organizations "are required to secure consumers' private information," he said.

Congress has been dithering over the adoption of a federal data security breach notice law for the last several years without coming to an agreement on a national standard for reporting breaches in the security of personal and financial data, but on February 17, data breach notice provisions applicable to health information were signed into law as part of the HITECH Act provisions of the massive economic stimulus legislation, H.R. 1 (111th Cong., 1st Sess. Feb. 17, 2009). Beginning no later than September 16 of this year, "covered entities" under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) will be required to give notice of breaches in the security of protected health information, and "business associates" of HIPAA-covered entities will be required to report such breaches to the covered entities. §13402(a) & (b). Currently, California and Arkansas are the only states that require that notification be given in the case of a breach in the security of medical or health insurance information. The HIPAA Privacy Rule currently does not contain a requirement that individuals be notified in the event of such as breach. However, some covered entities interpret the existing HIPAA Privacy Rule requirement that covered entities mitigate harmful effects of uses or disclosures of health information in violation of either the Privacy Rule or the entity's policies and procedures as suggesting that such notice be given, and many covered entities currently provide such notification.

Twenty-three of the 24 major U.S. government agencies contain weaknesses in their information security programs, potentially placing sensitive data at risk to exposure, according to a government report issued this week. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) studied how the agencies were responding to the regulations described in the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA). The mandate requires government entities to develop and implement an agencywide information security program. Inspectors general conduct annual reviews of agency progress. The GAO review, which took place between last December and this month, concluded that, partly based on inspectors general and federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports, that 23 of 24 agencies contain lax controls to ensure that only approved users can access system data. Meanwhile, 22 of 24 agencies described information security as a "major management challenge," according to the report.

"In light of a spike in identity theft and the frequency with which personal information is stored on portable devices, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) have expanded Generally Accepted Privacy Principles (GAPP) to include protocols for securing and disposing of personal information. "Safeguarding personal information is one of the most challenging responsibilities facing an organization, whether such information pertains to employees or customers," said Everett C. Johnson, CPA, chair of AICPA/CICA Privacy Task Force and a past international president of ISACA, a global information technology association. "We've updated the criteria of our privacy principles to minimize the risks to personal information." GAPP offers guidance and best practices on securing portable devices, breach management and ensuring continued effectiveness of privacy controls. The guidance additionally covers disposal and destruction of personal information. The principles are designed for chief privacy officers, executive management, compliance officers, legal counsel, CPAs and CAs offering technology advisory services. "Portable tools such as laptops and memory sticks provide convenience to employees but appropriate measures must be put in place to secure them and the data they contain," said Donald Sheehy, CA.CISA, CIPP/C, associate partner with Deloitte (Canada) and a member of the AICPA/CICA Privacy Task Force. "We must stay abreast of technological advances to assure that proper measures are put into place to defend against any new threats." Created by the AICPA/CICA Privacy Task Force, GAPP is designed to help an organization's management team assess an existing privacy program or address privacy obligations and risks. The principles provide a framework for CPAs and CAs to offer privacy services to their clients and employers, such as advisory services, privacy risk assessments and attestation or

Both panels that advise the national coordinator for health IT plan to focus on privacy and security standards needed to support meaningful use of electronic health records when they meet later this month, according to notices in today's Federal Register. The Health IT Policy Committee, led by Dr. David Blumenthal, the national coordinator for health IT, will direct more of its discussion at its upcoming Sept. 18 meeting on health information privacy and security as it makes progress in defining meaningful use under the stimulus law, according to the notice. Likewise, the companion Health IT Standards Committee, which meets Sept. 15, will concentrate on refining standards recommendations made by its privacy and security work group. At the Standards Committee's previous meeting Aug. 20, its privacy and security workgroup presented standards for authentication, authorization, auditing and secure data transmission of health information in EHR products as well as the infrastructure that hosts them. The work of the panel includes protecting data inside an enterprise as well as data exchange between enterprises, "because security is an end to end process," noted Dr. John Halamka, the committee's chairman in a post on his blog, "Life as a Healthcare CIO."

Hackers, possibly from Asia, have stolen about a decade's worth of personal information on current and former UC-Berkeley students, the university announced Friday. The breaches involved records dating to 1999 at the school's health center that included Social Security numbers, health insurance information, immunization history and the names of treating physicians. No other treatment-related records were stolen, the university said, although self-reported medical histories of students who studied abroad were hacked. The school on Friday sent e-mails and letters to 160,000 people, including about 3,400 Mills College students who used or were eligible for University of California-Berkeley medical services. About 97,000 people are most at risk because their names and Social Security numbers could be connected by the hackers, said Steve Lustig, the university's associate vice chancellor for health and human services. "What's been taken is bits of data that the thief might put together into an identity," he said. The university traced the hackers back to Asia, possibly China, but the exact origin could not be pinpointed. UC and FBI investigators are probing the breaches, which apparently occurred over several months. An FBI spokesman said the agency was informed of the hacking immediately, but declined to provide more information. The thefts were discovered about a month ago, but system administrators did Advertisement not realize the breadth of the attack until April 21. The hackers disguised their work as routine operations and then left taunting messages for UC-Berkeley employees, said Shelton Waggener, the university's associate vice chancellor for information technology. The thieves accessed the information through the university Web site, he said. "You should think of it as a public building," Waggener said. "They got into the building properly, but then they broke into secure areas." Administrators at Mills College, which contracts with UC-Berkeley for

In Deloitte's sixth annual Global Security Survey, people are the problem. "[P]eople continue to be an organization's greatest asset as well as its greatest worry," Adel Melek, global leader of security and privacy services at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, said in the report. "That has not changed from 2007. What has changed is the environment. The economic meltdown was not at its peak when respondents took this survey. If there was ever an environment more likely to facilitate an organization's people being distracted, nervous, fearful, or disgruntled, this is it. To state that security vigilance is even more important at a time like this is an understatement." On one level, that couldn't be more obvious: It's not as if anyone worries about squirrels hacking servers; security has always been about people. (Robots, the report says, are unlikely to replace the human workforce during the lifetime of anyone reading the report. Finally, some good employment news.) Yet despite the obviousness of the problem, the obvious solution -- complete denial of access -- doesn't work. People use computers and computers are more useful when connected and it just gets worse from there. That may explain why identity and access management remained top of mind for survey respondents. Deloitte's survey, drawn from major financial companies around the globe, focuses on governance, investment, risk, use of security technologies, quality of operations, and privacy. It includes some good news -- external breaches have declined sharply over the past year -- and troublesome news -- fewer companies say they have the commitment and funding to address regulatory compliance. In terms of risk, specifically information systems failure, people are identified as the most significant vulnerability. "Human error is overwhelmingly stated as the greatest weakness this year (86%), followed by technology (a distant 63%)," the report states. It attributes the rising risk to increased adoption of new techno

It was only a matter of time! Auditor accuracy being examined in lawsuit may signal change in PCI and other compliance processes.

When CardSystems Solutions was hacked in 2004 in one of the largest credit card data breaches at the time, it reached for its security auditor's report. In theory, CardSystems should have been safe. The industry's primary security standard, known then as CISP, was touted as a sure way to protect data. And CardSystems' auditor, Savvis Inc, had just given them a clean bill of health three months before. Yet, despite those assurances, 263,000 card numbers were stolen from CardSystems, and nearly 40 million were compromised. More than four years later, Savvis is being pulled into court in a novel suit that legal experts say could force increased scrutiny on largely self-regulated credit card security practices. They say the case represents an evolution in data breach litigation and raises increasingly important questions about not only the liability of companies that handle card data but also the liability of third parties that audit and certify the trustworthiness of those companies. "We're at a critical juncture where we need to decide . . . whether [network security] auditing is voluntary or will have the force of law behind it," says Andrea Matwyshyn, a law and business ethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School who specializes in information security issues. "For companies to be able to rely on audits . . . there needs to be mechanisms developed to hold auditors accountable for the accuracy of their audits." The case, which appears to be among the first of its kind against a security auditing firm, highlights flaws in the standards that were established by the financial industry to protect consumer bank data. It also exposes the ineffectiveness of an auditing system that was supposed to guarantee that card processors and other businesses complied with the standards. Credit card companies have touted the standards and the auditing process as evidence that financial transactions conducted under their purview are secur

Privacy is a central element of the FTC's consumer protection mission. In recent years, advances in computer technology have made it possible for detailed information about people to be compiled and shared more easily and cheaply than ever. That has produced many benefits for society as a whole and individual consumers. For example, it is easier for law enforcement to track down criminals, for banks to prevent fraud, and for consumers to learn about new products and services, allowing them to make better-informed purchasing decisions. At the same time, as personal information becomes more accessible, each of us - companies, associations, government agencies, and consumers - must take precautions to protect against the misuse of our information. The Federal Trade Commission is educating consumers and businesses about the importance of personal information privacy, including the security of personal information. Under the FTC Act, the Commission guards against unfairness and deception by enforcing companies' privacy promises about how they collect, use and secure consumers' personal information. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Commission has implemented rules concerning financial privacy notices and the administrative, technical and physical safeguarding of personal information, and it aggressively enforces against pretexting. The Commission also protects consumer privacy under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

Reports on Tuesday of a New Zealand man who purchased a secondhand MP3 player containing the personal information of U.S. soldiers highlighted the federal government's continuing inability to protect private information on unauthorized, third-party storage devices. New Zealander Chris Ogle bought a used MP3 player in Oklahoma about a year ago, according to New Zealand's public television station, ONE News. A few weeks ago, when he plugged the player into his computer to download a song, Ogle found 60 military files stored on the device, which included names, addresses, and phone and Social Security numbers of U.S. soldiers. The files also contained what appears to be a mission briefing and lists of equipment deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the files are dated 2005. ONE News reported that some of the phone numbers on the player are still active. "The more I look at it, the more I see and the less I think I should be," Ogle told ONE News. Ogle offered to return the MP3 player to U.S. officials if requested. Privacy experts say the breach is just the latest example of the federal government's inability to manage the security risk posed by removable storage devices. In November the Defense Department banned the use of removable storage devices after reports that hardware that can be inserted into a USB drive could infect the computer with viruses and worms. A Pentagon spokesman said the military is aware of the latest report form New Zealand, but does not know of any action the department has taken. Michael Maloof, chief technology officer for the information security firm TriGeo Network Security in Post Falls, Idaho, said individuals do not view devices like MP3 players as computers that can store large amounts of private data. "Myself and security experts have been saying for some time that phones and MP3 players are really mass storage devices," he said. The military should "ban all mass storage devices. It may make some people unhappy, but you see the

One of the more interesting panel discussions at the IDC Cloud Computing Forum on Feb 18th in San Francisco was about managing the complexities of security, privacy and compliance in the Cloud. The simple answer according to panelists Carolyn Lawson, CIO of California Public Utilities Commission, and Michael Mucha, CISO of Stanford Hospital and Clinics is "it ain't easy!" "Both of us, in government and in health, are on the front-lines," Lawson proclaimed. "Article 1 of the California Constitution guarantees an individual's right to privacy and if I violate that I've violated a public trust. That's a level of responsibility that most computer security people don't have to face. If I violate that trust I can end up in jail or hauled before the legislature," she said. "Of course, these days with the turmoil in the legislature, she joked, "the former may be preferable to the later." Stanford's Mucha said that his security infrastructure was built on a two-tiered approach using identity management and enterprise access control. Mucha said that the movement to computerize heath records nationwide was moving along in fits and starts, as shown by proposed systems likeMicrosoft (NSDQ: MSFT)'s Health Vault and Google (NSDQ: GOOG)'s Personal Health Record. "The key problem is who is going to pay for the computerized of health records. It's not as much of a problem at Stanford as it is at a lot of smaller hospitals, but it's still a huge problem." Mucha said that from his perspective security service providers in the cloud and elsewhere are dealing with a shrinking security parameter or fence, which is progressing from filing cabinets, to devices, to files, and finally to the individual, who under the latest Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rules has certain rights, including rights to access and amend their health information and to obtain a record of when and why their Protected Health Information (PHI) record has bee