Group items tagged

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."

On September 12, 2009, Maine's Act to Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices Against Minors (the "Act") will take effect. The Act prohibits businesses from knowingly collecting or receiving a minor's health-related information or personal information for marketing purposes without first obtaining verifiable parental consent. Businesses are also prohibited from using any health-related information or personal information regarding a minor for the purpose of marketing a product or service to the minor. Pursuant to the Act, the use of information in such a manner is a predatory marketing practice, which may be sanctioned as an unfair trade practice. The law also allows individuals subject to unlawful data collection or predatory marketing practices to bring a private right of action against violators. For businesses, the implications of Maine's new data collection and marketing restrictions are far-reaching. The scope of the law covers both online and off-line marketing activities, and the broad definition of personal information includes a minor's name in combination with any information concerning the minor. In light of the Act's restrictive requirements and considerable scope, businesses would be well-advised to evaluate their current marketing practices and age verification mechanisms. The text of the law is available here.

CSOs in healthcare organizations know that the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, signed into law in February 2009, includes new privacy requirements that experts have called "the biggest change to the health care privacy and security environment since the original HIPAA privacy rule." These include: New requirements that widen the definition of what Personal Health Information (PHI) information must be protected and extend accountability from healthcare providers to their business associates; Lower thresholds, shorter timelines, and stronger methods for data breach victim notification; Effective immediately, increased and sometimes mandatory penalties with fines ranging from $25,000 to as much as $1.5 million; More aggressive enforcement including authority to pursue criminal cases against HIPAA-covered entities or their business associates. No doubt, the HITECH Act raises the stakes for a data breach. But regulations aside, data breaches can hurt your organization's credibility and can carry huge medical and financial risks to the people whose data is lost. We've managed hundreds of data breaches and helped thousands of identity theft victims. Through this we've learned firsthand that compliance doesn't necessarily equal low risk for data breach. For the well being of the business and patients, healthcare organizations and their partners need to take the most comprehensive approach to securing PHI.

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

Goodwin Procter Experts Discuss Data Privacy and Security Best Practices at IAPP Privacy Academy BOSTON, Sept. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- According to a new survey conducted by Goodwin Procter LLP and the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), companies face three significant challenges - cost, time and number of vendors involved - in complying with new data security rules issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts earlier this year. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has issued rules, which take effect on March 1, 2010, that impose significant data security requirements on entities possessing personal information of state residents, including entities based outside Massachusetts. The intent of the rules is to protect sensitive data and safeguard the public's privacy.

A new privacy law in Maine is facing a court challenge from media organizations as well as a coalition of online companies including AOL, News Corp. and Yahoo. The new law, officially titled "An Act To Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices against Minors," prohibits companies from knowingly collecting personal information or health-related information from minors under 18 without their parents' consent. The measure also bans companies from selling or transferring health information about minors that identifies them, regardless of how the data was collected. Wednesday, opponents asked the federal district court in Maine to issue an injunction against the measure, slated to take effect Sept. 12. In its court papers, the groups opposing the law say it has consequences far beyond limiting the marketing of health-care information. They contend the measure would "prevent common marketing practices used to serve teens information on colleges, test prep services, class rings, etc." The groups who are suing include the Maine Independent Colleges Association, Maine Press Association, Reed Elsevier and NetChoice -- a coalition of Web companies like AOL, eBay, Yahoo, IAC, News Corp. and Overstock.com.

"The school's policy seems to violate the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), says Susannah Baruch of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University. "Most generally," she says, "GINA prohibits health insurers and employers from using your genetic information against you." The law went fully into effect Nov. 21, and it prevents health insurers from collecting genetic information to make decisions about the insurance people get or how much it costs. The law also says an employer can't use it to make decisions about hiring, firing or job promotions. There are a few exceptions. The law doesn't apply to employers with fewer than 15 workers. And while it covers health insurance, it doesn't apply to life or long-term care insurance."

"Bankers are playing with fire by increasing risk when taxpayer tolerance with financial bailouts has worn perilously thin, the International Monetary Fund warned. Managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn reckons bankers may be in the throes of a "Mardi Gras" party of renewed speculation ahead of a looming regulatory crackdown. Yet the return of their old habits is dangerous. If a new financial crisis occurred in a few years" time, the public would be unwilling to support another round of massive bailouts, he told the Confederation of British Industry. Democracy itself could be threatened if banks went back to taxpayers with their caps in their hands. "In an atmosphere of increasing optimism, we see signs of old habits coming back. Risk-taking is on the rise," said Strauss-Kahn. "Right now, regulatory uncertainty is throwing up some perverse incentives. For example, it might be encouraging a risk-taking culture -- a Mardi Gras effect whereby financial institutions party now in expectation of lean times to come. "Clearly, this is dangerous, not least for emerging markets. And we may run out of time -- if we wait too long to implement these reforms, it might be too late." A second wave of rescues may simply not get through national legislatures, he added: "The political reaction would be very strong, putting some democracies at risk." IMF figures show the aftershocks of the 2008 crisis are far from over, with firms recognising only half of their losses worldwide. Yet despite the fragility of the financial sector, there is mounting evidence that traders are making hay before tougher regulatory standards come into force. Investment banking profits have soared this year, as firms make the most of ultra-low interest rates, money-printing operations and huge government bond issuance programmes. Strauss-Kahn argued countries need to act quickly to remove "regulatory uncertainty" -- ensuring bankers do not make the most of the current confusion over future standards

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation said it sued the Justice Department and other U.S. agencies to get information about their policies for using social networks including Facebook and Twitter in investigations, data collection and surveillance. The civil rights group said in a complaint filed yesterday in federal court in San Francisco that the government has used social-networking sites in conducting investigations and hasn't clarified the scope of that use or whether there are any restrictions or oversight to prevent abuses. The EFF said in its complaint that it is seeking the information to "help inform Congress and the public about the effect of such uses and purposes on citizens' privacy rights and associated legal protections." It cited news articles that reported police searching Facebook photos for evidence of underage drinking and an FBI search of an individual's home after the person sent messages on Twitter during the G-20 Summit notifying protesters of police movements. Facebook, based in Palo Alto, California, is the world's largest social networking site with more than 300 million users who post photos, messages and other information on their own free Facebook pages. Twitter, based in San Francisco, is a free Web service with 58 million users that lets people send 140- character messages, called "tweets," to multiple followers. EFF, also based in San Francisco, filed Freedom of Information Act requests with federal agencies in October. None of the agencies had completed processing the requests by the applicable 20-day deadline, according to the complaint. The lawsuit seeks a court order for the government to process the requests and produce documents."

It's become the familiar refrain this year. Each time we see a major data breach related to payment card data, the breached entity says 'Gee, well we were told we were PCI compliant - how could this happen?' The PCI marketing machinery then gets into motion, reminding us all that PCI compliance is but a snapshot in time - not a warrantee against future breaches. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of consumers have their personal information exposed to potential compromise. They probably don't know or care what PCI is. They just want to know 'Why wasn't I protected?' Fair question, and it deserves an answer.

Compared to other key corporate executives, CEOs appear to underestimate the IT security risks faced by their own organizations, according to a survey of C-level executives released today by the Ponemon Institute. The Ponemon survey (download PDF) of 213 CEOs, CIOs, COOs and other senior executives reveals what appears to be a perception gap between CEOs and other senior managers concerning information security issues. For instance, 48% of CEOs surveyed said they believe hackers rarely try to access corporate data. On the other hand, some 53% of other C-level executives believe that their company's data is under attack on a daily or even hourly basis. The survey also found that the top executives were less aware of specific security incidents at their companies than other C-level executives and are more confident that data breaches can be easily avoided. Ponemon found that CEOs tend to view data protection efforts as vital to maintaining good customer satisfaction levels and to the company's brand image. The other managers, however, were more likely to say that the most important role for data security efforts is to satisfy regulatory requirements. The survey also found that CEOs and other top managers differed in their opinion of who is responsible for protecting corporate data. While eight out of 10 respondents said they believe there is one person responsible for data protection in their organization, there was a sharp difference of opinion on just who that person was. More than half of the CEOs said that CIOs are responsible for protecting data at their companies; only 24% of other senior managers felt the same way. And 85% of respondents said someone else would be held responsible for a data breach. "On the issue of accountability, we found that while people acknowledged that data breaches were a problem, very few people felt that if [their company] suffered a breach, they would be held responsible," said Larry Ponemon, founder of the Ponemon Institute.

Compared to other key corporate executives, CEOs appear to underestimate the IT security risks faced by their own organizations, according to a survey of C-level executives released today by the Ponemon Institute. The Ponemon survey (download PDF) of 213 CEOs, CIOs, COOs and other senior executives reveals what appears to be a perception gap between CEOs and other senior managers concerning information security issues. For instance, 48% of CEOs surveyed said they believe hackers rarely try to access corporate data. On the other hand, some 53% of other C-level executives believe that their company's data is under attack on a daily or even hourly basis. The survey also found that the top executives were less aware of specific security incidents at their companies than other C-level executives and are more confident that data breaches can be easily avoided. Ponemon found that CEOs tend to view data protection efforts as vital to maintaining good customer satisfaction levels and to the company's brand image. The other managers, however, were more likely to say that the most important role for data security efforts is to satisfy regulatory requirements. The survey also found that CEOs and other top managers differed in their opinion of who is responsible for protecting corporate data. While eight out of 10 respondents said they believe there is one person responsible for data protection in their organization, there was a sharp difference of opinion on just who that person was. More than half of the CEOs said that CIOs are responsible for protecting data at their companies; only 24% of other senior managers felt the same way. And 85% of respondents said someone else would be held responsible for a data breach. "On the issue of accountability, we found that while people acknowledged that data breaches were a problem, very few people felt that if [their company] suffered a breach, they would be held responsible," said Larry Ponemon, founder of the Ponemon Institute.