Group items tagged

The Government Accountability Office issued another scathing report saying that federal agencies still don't do enough to secure government IT assets. "Persistent weaknesses in information security policies and practices continue to threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of critical information and information systems used to support the operations, assets and personnel of most federal agencies," Gregory Wilshusen, GAO director of information security issues, wrote in a 66-page report issued Friday. "Recently reported incidents at federal agencies have placed sensitive data at risk, including the theft, loss, or improper disclosure of personally identifiable information of Americans, thereby exposing them to loss of privacy and identity theft." In a written response accompanying the report, federal CIO Vivek Kundra said OMB is committed to the vision of a secure federal government, and are taking steps to make that vision a reality. OMB, he said, has initiated a review of the language in the current reporting instructions to identify and clarify confusion in the annual reporting. OMB also is working with the CIO Council and the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to improve guidance to agencies. The GAO report also said that nearly all of the 24 major federal agencies last year had weaknesses in information security controls. "An underlying reason for these weaknesses is that agencies have not fully implemented their information security programs," Wilshusen said. "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."

1. You get what you pay for. 2. Americans do not take information or security as seriously as they do their love for profit & cost savings. If one does not value what they are trying to protect accurately, the investment one is prepared to make will always be insufficient. Then there are hindsight and rationalization (a.k.a. politicians) - Karl The Government Accountability Office issued another scathing report saying that federal agencies still don't do enough to secure government IT assets. "Persistent weaknesses in information security policies and practices continue to threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of critical information and information systems used to support the operations, assets and personnel of most federal agencies," Gregory Wilshusen, GAO director of information security issues, wrote in a 66-page report issued Friday. "Recently reported incidents at federal agencies have placed sensitive data at risk, including the theft, loss, or improper disclosure of personally identifiable information of Americans, thereby exposing them to loss of privacy and identity theft." In a written response accompanying the report, federal CIO Vivek Kundra said OMB is committed to the vision of a secure federal government, and are taking steps to make that vision a reality. OMB, he said, has initiated a review of the language in the current reporting instructions to identify and clarify confusion in the annual reporting. OMB also is working with the CIO Council and the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to improve guidance to agencies. The GAO report also said that nearly all of the 24 major federal agencies last year had weaknesses in information security controls. "An underlying reason for these weaknesses is that agencies have not fully implemented their information security programs," Wilshusen said. "As a result, agencies have limited assurance that controls are in place and operating as intended to protect their inf

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.

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.

The loss of personally identifiable information, such as an individual's Social Security number, name, and date of birth can result in serious harm, including identity theft. Identity theft is a serious crime that impacts millions of individuals each year. Identity theft occurs when such information is used without authorization to commit fraud or other crimes. While progress has been made protecting personally identifiable information in the public and private sectors, challenges remain. GAO was asked to testify on how the loss of personally identifiable information contributes to identity theft. This testimony summarizes (1) the problem of identity theft; (2) steps taken at the federal, state, and local level to prevent potential identity theft; and (3) vulnerabilities that remain to protecting personally identifiable information, including in federal information systems. For this testimony, GAO relied primarily on information from prior reports and testimonies that address public and private sector use of personally identifiable information, as well as federal, state, and local efforts to protect the security of such information. GAO and agency inspectors general have made numerous recommendations to agencies to resolve prior significant information control deficiencies and information security program shortfalls. The effective implementation of these recommendations will continue to strengthen the security posture at these agencies. Identity theft is a serious problem because, among other things, it can take a long period of time before a victim becomes aware that the crime has taken place and thus can cause substantial harm to the victim's credit rating. Moreover, while some identity theft victims can resolve their problems quickly, others face substantial costs and inconvenience repairing damage to their credit records. Some individuals have lost job opportunities, been refused loans, or even been arrested for crimes they did not commit as a result of identit

The loss of personally identifiable information, such as an individual's Social Security number, name, and date of birth can result in serious harm, including identity theft. Identity theft is a serious crime that impacts millions of individuals each year. Identity theft occurs when such information is used without authorization to commit fraud or other crimes. While progress has been made protecting personally identifiable information in the public and private sectors, challenges remain. GAO was asked to testify on how the loss of personally identifiable information contributes to identity theft. This testimony summarizes (1) the problem of identity theft; (2) steps taken at the federal, state, and local level to prevent potential identity theft; and (3) vulnerabilities that remain to protecting personally identifiable information, including in federal information systems. For this testimony, GAO relied primarily on information from prior reports and testimonies that address public and private sector use of personally identifiable information, as well as federal, state, and local efforts to protect the security of such information. GAO and agency inspectors general have made numerous recommendations to agencies to resolve prior significant information control deficiencies and information security program shortfalls. The effective implementation of these recommendations will continue to strengthen the security posture at these agencies. Identity theft is a serious problem because, among other things, it can take a long period of time before a victim becomes aware that the crime has taken place and thus can cause substantial harm to the victim's credit rating. Moreover, while some identity theft victims can resolve their problems quickly, others face substantial costs and inconvenience repairing damage to their credit records. Some individuals have lost job opportunities, been refused loans, or even been arrested for crimes they did not commit as a result of identit

Incident demonstrates that even agencies that put in security controls are still vulnerable The Federal Aviation Administration was doing such a good job at protecting data in its computer systems that the Office of Management and Budget chose it in January to be one of four agencies to guide other federal agencies in their cybersecurity efforts. Just a month later, FAA officials had to admit that hackers breached one of the agency's servers, stealing 48 files. Two of the files contained information on 45,000 current and former FAA employees, including sensitive information that could potentially make them vulnerable to identity theft. The security breach, although significant and potentially far reaching, is not necessarily a reflection on FAA's security measures. Rather, it demonstrates the problems of securing federal computer systems and difficulty in evading every potential attack. "Every agency is living through the same problems," but most are being less forthcoming about reporting them, said Alan Paller, director of the SANS institute. "FAA should get kudos for rapid action. Slamming them shows a complete lack of understanding about the state of security in federal agencies."

The Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) is notifying more than one million state residents that their personal data was stored on an unencrypted laptop that was stolen from an agency employee. The computer file contained the names, Social Security numbers, birth dates and home addresses of Oklahoma's Human Services' clients receiving benefits from programs such as Medicaid, child care assistance, nutrition aid and disability benefits, the agency announced Thursday. The computer, which was stolen when a thief broke into the car April 3 after the employee stopped on her way home from work, was password protected, and officials do not believe the burglar realized what he or she was stealing. Therefore, the risk of the data being accessed is minimal, according to the agency. "We feel this was not a situation where someone was targeting the agency or that information," DHS spokeswoman Mary Leaver told SCMagazineUS.com on Friday. "We feel it was random." Leaver said the state Office of Inspector General is conducting an investigation, out of which likely will come a mandatory review of information security policies. However, it is not believed the employee violated existing policy when the incident occurred, she said. News of the theft comes one day after the Ponemon Institute, in conjunction with Intel, released a study that found the average value of a lost laptop is $49,246. About 80 percent of the cost is related to the chance that a breach could occur, the study showed.

The global recession manifests itself in big and small ways, most gloomy, some quirky and often reflecting the inventive human spirit. Here is a look at some signs of the times. * With record defaults on consumer loans, collection agencies in the United States are going to extra lengths to recover the money. Illinois resident and Mercedes driver James Ricobene says an agency hired by JP Morgan Chase left a post on his daughter's MySpace page threatening action that could lead to prison, unless she contacted the agency within five days about its efforts to repossess her father's car. Ricobene has sued the collection agency and JP Morgan for libel, fraud and invasion of privacy.

A consumer reporting agency that failed to properly screen prospective customers and, as a result, sold at least 318 credit reports to identity thieves, has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law. Under the settlement, the company and its principal must ensure that they provide credit reports only to legitimate businesses for lawful purposes, use a comprehensive information security program, and obtain independent audits every other year for 20 years. The settlement also imposes a $500,000 penalty but suspends payment due to the defendants' inability to pay. According to the FTC, the defendants use sensitive financial data from other consumer reporting agencies to create reports that landlords use to assess potential renters. These reports contain consumers' names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, bank and credit card account numbers, credit histories, and other personal information. The Commission alleges that the company failed to properly screen new customers. The company allegedly requested only publicly-available information from applicants seeking credit reports, and it did not request supporting documentation to establish that an applicant was actually a landlord renting property. As a result, identity thieves posing as property owners were given an account with unlimited online access to credit reports, and the account was used to access at least 318 reports containing sensitive personal information. The FTC charged the defendants with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by furnishing credit reports to persons who did not have a permissible purpose to obtain them, and by failing to maintain reasonable procedures to prevent such impermissible disclosures and to verify their customers' identities and how they intended to use the information. The agency also charged them with violating the FTC Act by failing to employ reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect sensitive consumer inform

Six federal agencies issued a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) today to help financial institutions, creditors, users of consumer reports, and issuers of credit cards and debit cards comply with federal regulations on identity theft and discrepancies in changes of address. The "Red Flags and Address Discrepancy Rules," which implement sections of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act), were issued jointly on November 9, 2007, by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The rules require financial institutions and creditors to develop and implement written Identity Theft Prevention Programs and require issuers of credit cards and debit cards to assess the validity of notifications of changes of address. The rules also provide guidance for users of consumer reports regarding reasonable policies and procedures to employ when consumer reporting agencies send them notices of address discrepancy. The agencies' staff have jointly developed answers to these FAQs to provide guidance on numerous aspects of the rules, including which types of entities and accounts are covered; establishment and administration of an Identity Theft Prevention Program; address validation requirements applicable to card issuers; and the obligations of users of consumer reports upon receiving a notice of address discrepancy.

"The inspector general of the National Archives and Records Administration is investigating a potential data breach affecting tens of millions of records about U.S. military veterans, Wired.com has learned. The issue involves a defective hard drive the agency sent back to its vendor for repair and recycling without first destroying the data. The hard drive helped power eVetRecs, the system veterans use to request copies of their health records and discharge papers. When the drive failed in November of last year, the agency returned the drive to GMRI, the contractor that sold it to them, for repair. GMRI determined it couldn't be fixed, and ultimately passed it to another firm to be recycled. The incident was reported to NARA's inspector general by Hank Bellomy, a NARA IT manager, who charges that the move put 70 million veterans at risk of identity theft, and that NARA's practice of returning hard drives unsanitized was symptomatic of an irresponsible security mindset unbecoming to America's record-keeping agency."

"As many as 68,000 members of CalOptima, the Medicaid plan for Orange County, California, may be at risk of identity theft and fraud after several CDs containing their personal information disappeared while in transit, the agency reported. "CalOptima's claims scanning vendor sent the electronic media devices to CalOptima through the U.S. Postal service by certified mail," the agency said. "On Tuesday, October 13, 2009, CalOptima discovered the apparent loss of the devices when the external packaging materials were delivered by the U.S. Postal Service without the box containing the devices." The missing discs include patient information such as names, addresses, Social Security numbers, diagnoses, and billing codes. CalOptima said it notified state and federal agencies of the breach on October 14, and posted an alert on its Web site on October 15."

Federal regulators slapped hundreds of small telecommunications providers for not abiding by new rules designed to protect consumer phone records, proposing more than $13 million in total fines. The Federal Communications Commission proposed $20,000 fines on more than 650 small phone, pager and wireless providers Tuesday, accusing them of not filing paperwork that certifies they have put protections in place to protect customer phone data. "I have long stressed the importance of protecting the sensitive information that telecommunications carriers collect about their customers," said Michael Copps, the FCC's interim chairman, in a statement. "The broad nature of this enforcement action hopefully will ensure substantial compliance with our [privacy] rules going forward as the Commission continues to make consumer privacy protection a top priority." In April 2007, the FCC tightened privacy requirements on phone companies in response to consumer complaints about data brokers selling phone records they had obtained illegally through "pretexting," or getting information under false circumstances. The agency required telecom companies to increase security of phone records, requiring customers to provide a password before receiving account information over the phone or online. Phone companies are required to notify customers when changes are made to their accounts or if their information has been improperly accessed. Companies are required to file annual certifications that they have complied with those requirements. The FCC said hundreds of small companies didn't provide the information in 2008, although it noted it was the first year the agency had required the paperwork. The agency warned that future noncompliance could face "more severe penalties."

The U.S. government's director for cybersecurity resigned on Friday, criticizing the excessive role of the National Security Agency in countering threats to the country's computer systems. "He has tendered his resignation," Amy Kudwa, a Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman told Reuters. Former Silicon Valley entrepreneur Rod Beckstrom said in a resignation letter published by the Wall Street Journal it was a "bad strategy" to have the National Security Agency, which is part of the Department of Defense, play a major role in cybersecurity. Beckstrom headed the National Cybersecurity Center, which was created last March to coordinate all government cybersecurity efforts and answers to the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security said in a statement that it has a strong relationship with the NSA and continues to work closely with all of its partners to protect the country's cyber networks. Beckstrom wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Thursday in his resignation letter that the NSA currently dominates most national cyber efforts. "While acknowledging the critical importance of NSA to our intelligence efforts, I believe this is a bad strategy on multiple grounds," he wrote in the letter posted by the Wall Street Journal on its website. National Security Agency officials could not immediately be reached for comment. Beckstrom said in his letter that the cybersecurity group did not receive adequate support to accomplish its role during the previous administration of President George W. Bush, which only provided the center with five weeks of funding in the last year. His resignation will be effective March 13, the letter said. The newspaper said the Obama administration was conducting a 60-day review of the cybersecurity program started by Bush last year to protect government networks.

A group of federal agencies and private organizations, including the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security, has released a set of guidelines defining the top 20 things organizations should do to prevent cyberattacks. The Consensus Audit Guidelines (CAG) describe the 20 key actions, referred to as security controls, that organizations should take to defend their computer systems. The controls are expected to become baseline best practices for computer security, following further public- and private-sector review. CAG is being led by John Gilligan, formerly the CIO for both the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Department of Energy, and a member of the Obama transition team dealing with IT in the Department of Defense and various intelligence agencies. "We are in a war, a cyberwar," Gilligan said on a media conference call. "And the federal government is one of many large organizations that are being targeted. Our ability at present to detect and defend against these attacks is really quite weak in many cases." Borrowing an analogy he attributed to an unnamed federal CIO, Gilligan said, "We're bleeding badly and we really need triage and we need to focus on things that will keep this patient alive." The CAG initiative represents part of a larger effort, backed by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C., to implement recommendations from the CSIS Commission report on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency.

Don't expect a letter from Monster or Heartland Payment Systems letting you know they've lost your data. The breaches at Monster.com and Heartland Payment Systems are raising questions about the efficacy of data-loss disclosure laws enacted in at least 45 states. Back in 2007 we wrote about how the financial services industry lobbied hard to block proposed federal rules requiring organizations to notify individuals whose data they lose, and to permit consumers to freeze their credit histories. States such as California and Massachusetts have passed laws giving consumers these rights. But the Monster and Heartland capers have brought weaknesses in the legislation to center stage. I asked Lisa Sotto, head of privacy and information management at law firm Hunton & Williams, about this: Q: Heartland and Monster told me they intend to comply with all state laws. That said, they have not announced plans to notify individual victims. Is that OK? A: In the state breach notification laws, it is permissible to delay notification if a law enforcement agency determines that notification would impede a criminal investigation. If such a delay is requested by law enforcement, notification must be made after the law enforcement agency determines that notice would not compromise the investigation. I do not know if these companies received a delay request from a law enforcement agency. Q: Monster says it chose not to email individual victims because the bad guys could then replicate that message and use it as a phishing template. That makes sense. But is that allowed by state consumer protection laws? A: There are now 45-plus state laws and they are not uniform. Typically, notice is provided via first class mail, but there are provisions in the state laws allowing for electronic notice as well. Q: The only official notices from Heartland and Monster so far has been one-page disclosures posted on a web site. Does that cover them? A: There are provisions in the state laws al

It's unclear whether a report being prepared for President Barack Obama on federal information security preparedness will support recent calls for the creation of a new cybersecurity office within the White House, two lawmakers said last week. Instead, the report may recommend a more collaborative and cooperative strategy among federal agencies on the issue of cybersecurity without a single agency or department in charge, they said. Members of the U.S. House Cybersecurity Caucus met with Melissa Hathaway, acting senior director for cyberspace for the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council. Hathaway, who is conducting a 60-day review of federal cybersecurity preparedness on behalf of the president, Thursday presented a status report to members of the caucus. Speaking with reporters after the briefing, Rep. James Langevin (D-R.I.), co-chair of the caucus, and Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), chairwoman of a subcommittee within the Committee on Homeland Security, said it was unclear yet what Hathaway might recommend. Rather than "include another structure" within the White House, there may be a call for an increase in staffing within the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in a bid to improve its current role of overseeing government cyberaffairs, said Langevin. Chances are "there will not be one king," he said. Langevin co-chaired a commission at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan think tank, that has called for the creation of a centralized cybersecurity office in the White House to be named the National Office for Cyberspace. The new office could combine the National Cyber Security Center (NCSC) and the Joint Interagency Cyber Task Force, two existing agencies that are handing cybersecurity today. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also called for a new office dedicated to cybersecurity within the White House. Calls have been prompted by what is perceived as the inability of the U.S. De

The Federal Trade Commission had some sharp words for Internet advertising companies Thursday, saying that they simply are not disclosing how they collect information about users well enough. And the agency threatened that the industry had better get its act together - or else. Or else what? Well, that's a bit harder. The commission has limited ability to issue binding regulations on advertising practices, and the process is cumbersome. But if the agency were to say that its attempt over the last few years to have Internet companies voluntarily bolster their privacy standards has failed, it could encourage Congress to pass online privacy legislation. Indeed, two members of the commission - Pamela Jones Harbour, an independent, and Jon Leibowitz, a Democrat - issued statements saying that while they support the commission's action, they hope for further regulation and possibly legislation on the issue. What the commission issued Thursday was the final version of its principles for online behavioral advertising - that is, ads shown to you based on something you did in the past. The agency issued its first draft of these at the end of 2007 and spent more than a year digesting comments. These principles were meant to spur various Internet groups to create self-regulatory standards for their members. And one group, the Network Advertising Initiative, did publish new rules. The top recommendation was that users should be given clear notice about what information was collected and an easy way to tell sites to stop watching them. "What we observe is that, with rare exception, is not the rule for any Web sites," said Eileen Harrington, the acting director of the commission's bureau of consumer protection, in an interview Thursday. "It is far more commonplace to put the information in the midst of lengthy and hard-to-understand privacy policies."

GoogleApps is an upgade to the Los Angeles computer systems security? Doesn't that explain a lot?! Google Inc. this week came swinging at critics who have cited privacy and security concerns in calling on the city of Los Angeles to rethink its plan to implement the Google Apps hosted e-mail and office applications. In an interview yesterday, Matt Glotzbach, director of product management for Google Enterprise, said the angst voiced by consumer groups and others about the Los Angeles project is overstated and based on incomplete information. In fact, he contended that transitioning the applications to Google will strengthen the security of the city's data and better maintain its privacy. "From what I know of the city's operation, this is a security upgrade," Glotzbach said. "Those who may be unfamiliar with cloud computing see this as a security risk simply because it is new and because it is something different," he said. Glotzbach said he believes that at least some of the concerns raised originated from Google's competitors. Meanwhile top managers at the Los Angeles Information Technology Agency (ITA), which oversees technology implementations in the city, yesterday said the city is still committed to implementing Google Apps. The agency insisted that provisions are in place for addressing the security and privacy issues raised by critics. A spokesman for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the city council will sign off on the project only after it is assured that the privacy and security concerns have been properly addressed.

Google Inc. this week came swinging at critics who have cited privacy and security concerns in calling on the city of Los Angeles to rethink its plan to implement the Google Apps hosted e-mail and office applications. In an interview yesterday, Matt Glotzbach, director of product management for Google Enterprise, said the angst voiced by consumer groups and others about the Los Angeles project is overstated and based on incomplete information. In fact, he contended that transitioning the applications to Google will strengthen the security of the city's data and better maintain its privacy. "From what I know of the city's operation, this is a security upgrade," Glotzbach said. "Those who may be unfamiliar with cloud computing see this as a security risk simply because it is new and because it is something different," he said. Glotzbach said he believes that at least some of the concerns raised originated from Google's competitors. Meanwhile top managers at the Los Angeles Information Technology Agency (ITA), which oversees technology implementations in the city, yesterday said the city is still committed to implementing Google Apps. The agency insisted that provisions are in place for addressing the security and privacy issues raised by critics. A spokesman for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the city council will sign off on the project only after it is assured that the privacy and security concerns have been properly addressed.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) this month released preliminary recommendations that federal agencies -- and their contractors -- should follow to protect the confidentially of personally identifiable information (PII). U.S. government agencies should take a number of precautions when dealing with personal information residing in their organizations, according to the NIST document. The recommendations are intended to be for U.S. federal government agencies, and companies with which they work, but NIST said that other verticals may also find value in it. The report states that organizations should store only PII necessary to conduct business, develop an incident response plan for the event of a breach and encourage coordination for data-loss incidents among CIOs, information security officers and legal counsel.

"Want to know how much phone companies and internet service providers charge to funnel your private communications or records to U.S. law enforcement and spy agencies? That's the question muckraker and Indiana University graduate student Christopher Soghoian asked all agencies within the Department of Justice, under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed a few months ago. But before the agencies could provide the data, Verizon and Yahoo intervened and filed an objection on grounds that, among other things, they would be ridiculed and publicly shamed were their surveillance price sheets made public. Yahoo writes in its 12-page objection letter (.pdf), that if its pricing information were disclosed to Soghoian, he would use it "to 'shame' Yahoo! and other companies - and to 'shock' their customers.""