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

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.

"There's a known weakness in browsers which we wrote about in the book. Every time we talked with someone about it, they'd ask us why we didn't start a company that took advantage of the loophole, and the answer was, well, it's creepy. The loophole basically lets you see where else your visitors have been on the Internet. Well, it's now out in the open, in two forms: Beencounter, and Haveyourfriendsbeenthere. To be perfectly clear, the site won't show you everything your visitors surf-just whether or not they've been to a set of sites you define. Here's how it works:"

"Hackers are using a variety of weapons and exploiting errors such as default passwords and weak or misconfigured access control lists (ACLs), according to the latest Verizon Business Data Breach Investigations Report. The follow-up to April's 2009 Data Breach Investigation Report looks under the hood of the company's probes, analyzing how breaches happen and how to protect sensitive data. "Customers who read the 2009 Data Breach Investigation Report said they wanted to know how these attacks take place, give some examples from our caseloads and see if those circumstances can happen to them," said Wade Baker, Verizon Business research and intelligence principal. "

"Despite concerns from some privacy groups and U.S. lawmakers about behavioral advertising, most large advertising networks generally comply with a set of privacy and data-handling standards adopted by the Network Advertising Initiative a year ago, the NAI said in a report released Wednesday." ...NAI, whose members include Google, Yahoo and Advertising.com, should be praised for doing a compliance report after skipping it for several years, said Ari Schwartz, vice president and chief operating officer CDT. However, the group should consider using a third party to audit compliance of its privacy guidelines, instead of having NAI staff do the audits, he said. In addition, while NAI members appear to be following most of the guidelines, some of the privacy safeguards are "weak," including the data retention standard, he said. "There's no maximum for data retention -- they just have to state what their data retention policy is," Schwartz added. The NAI report doesn't lessen the need for new privacy laws, Schwartz said. Several online advertising networks are not members of NAI, and the recent public pressure has led to the NAI updating 8-year-old guidelines last year and issuing a compliance report for the first time in several years, although the group had promised regular reports, he said. "It seems that when there's regulatory pressure, they actually do comply with what they said they were going to do," he said. "We certainly wouldn't want to see any regulatory pressure lifted."

Worth a read. The story changes quite a bit from the top to bottom of the story.

China has denied allegations that it hacked into a Pentagon IT system and recovered plans for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The combat aircraft which is to be procured by Britain as well, is being produced by Lockheed Martin. In allegations first reported in the Wall Street Journal, hackers stole "several terabytes of data related to design and electronics systems". The most sensitive data however on weapons systems and its stealth technology was not breached since it is kept on computers not connected to the internet. IT experts have said that they suspect the hackers came from China although it will be difficult to identify their exact origins. Hacking into IT systems as complex as the DoD's would require the help and capabilities of another government. Recovering data on the JSF would allow countries or rogue groups who could face the aircraft in future conflicts to develop counter measures based on the aircraft's weaknesses. The Chinese strongly denied that the breach originated from their country. "China has not changed its stance on hacking. China has always been against hacking and we have cracked down very hard on hacking. This is not a Chinese phenomenon. It happens everywhere in the world," a spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry said. This is not the first time the JSF's security has been breached. Early on in the contract the DoD and Lockheed Martin admitted that there was no universal IT security policy for the 1,200 sub contractors and that leaks may have occurred. BAE subsequently admitted that their IT security for JSF material was lax and that leaks could have occurred. Britain is scheduled to buy 150 of the aircraft by 2018.

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.

Nearly one week after news emerged of the big data breach at Princeton, N.J.-based merchant acquirer Heartland Payment Systems Inc., it remains unclear how much damage actually happened and who did it. One report suggests Heartland's breach-related legal liabilities could approach $98 million, an estimate a Heartland spokesperson dismisses as speculative. The spokesperson tells Digital Transactions News on Monday that the so-called "sniffer" program secretly planted on one of Heartland's payment-processing platforms was not being used when investigators found it about two weeks ago. "It was inactive," the spokesperson says. "I want to be specific to say it was inactive," he adds, clarifying that the hackers hadn't deliberately disabled or deactivated it. Robert Carr, Heartland's chief executive, meanwhile, issued a statement calling for better industry cooperation and new operational procedures to prevent future data compromises, including industrywide, end-to-end encryption to fully protect cardholder data. Heartland uses encryption, but industry procedures leave data unencrypted during one brief point of the authorization process-a weakness that hackers have learned to exploit. Carr also said Heartland is working on its own system of end-to-end encryption.

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

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

The International Dimensions of Securing Cyberspace with Seymour Goodman, Professor of International Affairs and Computing at Georgia Tech.Hudson Institute hosts the fourth installment of its Telecommunications, Information, and Security Policy Seminar series. Drawing on his experience in the international dimension of cyberspace, Goodman leads a discussion on the extent of the internationalization of cyberspace, specific international problems and weaknesses that add to cyberspace insecurity, especially relating to Africa, and also discusses some forms of international cooperation that might help alleviate these problems.

IT practices such as identity management, email and URL filtering, virus scanning and electronic monitoring of employees can get companies that do business globally into a heap of trouble if deployed without an understanding of global data privacy laws. The warning was one of several alarms raised in a presentation on global privacy best practices by Gartner Inc. analysts Arabella Hallawell and Carsten Casper at the recent Gartner Risk Management and Compliance Summit in Chicago. Always a thorny issue, the protection of personally identifiable information (PII) is made more complicated in a world where there is limited agreement on how best to do that. According to the Gartner analysts, the world is divided into three parts when it comes to data privacy laws: countries with strong, moderate or inadequate legislation. The European Union, under the European Union Directive on Data Protection, possesses the strongest privacy regulations, followed by Canada and Argentina; Australia, Japan and South Africa have moderate to strong, recent legislation; laws in China, India and the Philippines are the least effective or laxly enforced. The United States has the dubious distinction of occupying two categories -- the strong column, due to the 45 state breach notification laws on the books, and the weak column, because of the lack of a federal law. Even among the three categories, nuances abound. Under the European Union Directive, member countries enact their own principles into legislation, and some laws (like Italy's) are more stringent than the directive's standards. Russia's very recent law is modeled after the strong EU laws, but how it will be enforced remains questionable. And in the U.S., state breach notification laws vary, with Nevada and Massachusetts proposing the most prescriptive data privacy legislation to date.

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.

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

Joshua Corman would seem an unlikely critic of IT security vendors. After all, he works for one. Yet Corman, principal security strategist for IBM's Internet Security Systems division, is speaking out about what he sees as eight trends undermining the ability of IT security practitioners to mount an effective defense against online outlaws. Having worked for the vendor side, Corman says he is uniquely positioned to grasp its weaknesses up close. And so, with a PowerPoint presentation on the "8 Dirty Secrets" of the market in hand, he has traveled to seminars and worked the phones, hoping to motivate a change for the better. Here is the breakdown of those 8 dirty secrets and what Corman sees as practical ways to keep the vendors honest. [Related podcast: The Dark Side of the Security Market] Click here to find out more! Dirty Secret 1: Vendors don't need to be ahead of the threat, just the buyer This is the problem that leads to the seven "dirty secrets" that follow. In essence, Corman said, the goal of the security market is to make money, not to ensure the customer's security. Tom Vredenburg, regional IM manager for Houston-based Wartsila Corp., said Corman's take is consistent with what he has experienced in the trenches. "Not only has security become a phantom deliverable, but the vendors themselves have become equally tough to pin down and evaluate. Are they software sellers or risk managers? Are they service providers or network designers? Am I buying partnerships or licenses? Most of them don't know themselves what they are -- only that they need to sell something that most people don't really want to buy in the first place -- insurance."

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