Search

Brian Pennington

A blog about Cyber Security & Compliance

Category

brian pennington

Elizabeth Denham’s speech at the Data Protection Practitioners’ Conference 2017

6th march Manchester, UK.

Good morning, and welcome to Manchester. It’s cold and it’s grey, but for those of us who live around here, we kind of like it, and we’re proud it’s where the biggest data protection conference of the year takes place.

We’ve got a busy schedule today. Lots on GDPR, of course. Trevor Hughes from IAPP talking about the role of the data protection officer internationally. Practical workshops on everything from breach notification to consent. And a very engaging information market – the speakers’ corner looks sure to be a conversation starter, and don’t miss our experts talking about the law enforcement directive too.

So lots to engage you. Let’s get started by getting your grey matter warmed up: a quick general knowledge quiz. One question:

What links the following:

  • the Labour Party;
  • international weightlifting;
  • the music you heard when I entered the room; and
  • the ICO?

The answer is right before your eyes: all have performed right here at this venue. I’m not sure which of the four had the rowdiest audience…!

Manchester Central has been the home of the Data Protection Practitioners Conference for the best part of a decade, and I’m sure you’ll agree it’s an excellent venue. It was converted from a railway station built more than 125 years ago by Sir John Fowler, the architect famed for his work on the Forth Railway Bridge.

Sir John once said: “Engineers are not mere technicians and should not approve or lend their name to any project that does not promise to be beneficent to man and the advancement of civilization.”

DPOs in the mainstream

I think there’s something in that comment for us here today. About not merely being technicians. About looking to see how the projects we contribute to can be beneficial to citizens. How we can put the customer first.

I don’t think that’s too grand an aim. This is an exciting time to be in data protection. Like many of you, I’ve worked in this sector a long time. I remember when we were a back office function. When we often were seen as “mere technicians”. That seems a very long time ago.

My colleague Rob Luke, who you’ll hear from shortly, is speaking before an advertising conference later this week. Fifteen years ago, which advertiser would have invited the data protection regulator to their annual event? Who thought data protection when they booked a slot in the ad break during Coronation Street? But today, data protection is central to their work. Making the most of customer data. Combining big data sets. Finding new ways to better understand what consumers want, to track how they act or predict what they will do next.

Last week, we opened an inquiry into privacy risks arising from the use of data analytics for political purposes following public reports about the role of private firms in the Brexit referendum. We often find ourselves at the heart of many debates of modern society.

It’s an exciting time to work in data protection, whatever your sector, with real opportunities. We’ll talk a lot today about the practical aspects, from how GDPR will change things at your organisations, to the steps you can take to use the coming change in the law as an opportunity to inform your practices.

But let’s not lose sight of what good data protection can achieve. We have an opportunity to set out a culture of data confidence in the UK. We just need to keep in mind that when we lend our name to projects, we should think about how they can be of benefit to citizens.

Review of last 12 months

I think it’s fair to say that a recap of the files we’ve been involved in over the past twelve months can be characterised by organisations failing to put customers first.

Our work with WhatsApp and Facebook springs to mind. We all rely on digital services for important parts of our lives. But my office felt these apps were not taking enough responsibility for data protection. Companies have legal responsibilities to treat people’s data with proper care and transparency – to give them persistent control and choice.

Similarly the record fine we issued to TalkTalk. You could write an essay discussing the technical detail of the cyber-attack itself, but fundamentally, not enough respect – not enough care – was being given to the type of protection consumers would have expected of their personal information.

And without rehearsing the conversations we’ve had with parts of charity sector, there’s a similar theme: insufficient thought about the level of transparency donors would want, expect, or support.

They’re examples of organisations getting it wrong under the current Data Protection Act. GDPR is going to put even more of an onus on organisations to understand and respect the personal privacy rights of consumers.

GDPR

Because while the General Data Protection Regulation builds on the previous legislation, it provides more protections for consumers, and more privacy considerations for organisations. It brings a more 21st century approach to the processing of personal data.

The GDPR gives specific new obligations for organisations, for example around reporting data breaches and transferring data across borders.

But the real change for organisations is understanding the new rights for consumers.

Consumers and citizens will have stronger rights to be informed about how organisations use their personal data. They’ll have the right to request that personal data be deleted or removed if there’s no compelling reason for an organisation to carry on processing it, and new rights around data portability and how they give consent.

On that subject, do take a look at the guidance on consent that is now out for consultation, and will be discussed at our workshop later today.

Accountability and breadth

At the centre of the GDPR is the concept of broader and deeper accountability for an organisation’s handling of personal data. The GDPR brings into UK law a trend that we’ve seen in other parts of the world – a demand that organisations understand, and mitigate – the risks that they create for others in exchange for using a person’s data. It’s about a framework that should be used to build a culture of privacy that pervades an entire organisation. It goes back to that idea of doing more than being a technician, and seeing the broader responsibility and impact of your work in your organisation on society.

Making it matter to the boardroom

I’ve already spoken to some of you this morning, and I hear what you’re saying. You understand why having your organisation accept more accountability for data protection matters. You want to change the culture of your organisation. But in many cases, you need to convince your senior management first. So, what can I give you today to help you make that case when you go back to your offices tomorrow?

The fines are the obvious headline. The GDPR gives regulators greater enforcement powers. If an organisation can’t demonstrate that good data protection is a cornerstone of their business policy and practices, they’re leaving themselves open to enforcement action that can damage their public reputation and possibly their bank balance. That makes data protection a boardroom issue.

But there’s a carrot here as well as a stick, and as regulators we actually prefer the carrot. Get data protection right, and you can see a real business benefit.

Accepting broad accountability for data protection encourages an upfront investment in privacy fundamentals, but it offers a payoff down the line, not just in better legal compliance, but a competitive edge. Whether that means attracting more customers or more efficiently meeting pressing public policy needs, I believe there is a real opportunity for organisations to present themselves on the basis of how they respect the privacy of individuals. Over time this can play a real role in consumer choice.

What the ICO is doing

Gandhi said the future depends on what we do in the present. So let me talk a little about what my office is doing now, to help you prepare for the future.

I’ve worked as a regulator in this field for more than twelve years and my focus has always been on making sure the regulator is relevant. On making sure we’re taking on that challenge of not being mere technicians but instead are making a difference to the organisations we regulate through education. Making a difference to the public, through giving them an avenue to file a complaint and by sanctioning the bad actors.

Each of us in the information rights field, on a daily basis, tries to make a difference to the public. Collectively, we do a good job: I think people have never been more aware of their rights, of what they can expect of the businesses and organisations they trust with their data. But consumer trust hasn’t followed that. An ICO survey last year showed only one in four UK adults trust businesses with their personal data. And I don’t believe the figure would be much higher for the public sector. As a regulator, it’s one of my jobs to give you the tools and the support to turn that around.

I want to see comprehensive data protection programs as the norm, organisations better protecting the data of citizens and consumers, and a change of culture that makes broader and deeper data protection accountability a focus for organisations across the UK. I think that’s achievable.

We’ll be shortly announcing work we’ll be doing to contribute to that. We want to support independent research that helps people better navigate the digital world. Our research and grants programme will dedicate funds over the next five years to engaging the research community in finding ways to help consumers. More details in due course.

Post Brexit

And of course we need to be looking to the horizon, to what might exist beyond GDPR.

Fourteen months ago I was writing a speech for a different audience, in a different role. My appearance was at the Canadian annual privacy and security conference, as information and privacy commissioner for British Columbia. I was talking about the challenges of a digital economy that required data to flow across borders, where different legal systems and cultural norms about privacy make this a complicated undertaking. More specifically, I spoke about how changes within the EU affect those outside of it, particularly around adequacy.

How familiar does that sound today? The UK EU referendum decision means we’re facing the same challenges. The UK’s digital economy needs data to flow across borders: how do we make sure that can happen? How can we foster economic growth while still respecting citizen’s rights?

When the government comes to answer those questions beyond the implementation of GDPR in 2018, we expect to be at the centre of many conversations, speaking up for continued protection and rights for consumers, and clear laws for organisations. And addressing the strong data protection laws we’d need if we want to keep the UK’s approach at an equivalent standard to the EU.

Conclusion

Which brings us back to today. The GDPR is a strong data protection law. It gives consumers more control over their data. And it includes new obligations for organisations.

Today is about learning more about those obligations, more about data protection best practice, more about how to get it right.

Today is about helping you make the best use of tomorrow.

Advertisements

BYOD security market to reach over $337 million

Technavio’s market research analysts expect the global BYOD security market to reach over $337 million between 2016 and 2020 

The increased use of mobile devices, triggered by the growing need for employee mobility, is the fundamental driving force behind growth in this market.  

The increase in employee mobility and the rising adoption of the Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) policy is leading to the increased use of mobile devices. Enterprises are increasingly adopting BYOD security solutions to secure their networks from growing security threats and to provide secure access to confidential information. 

North America accounts for more than 36% of the market share to dominate the global BYOD security market. The growing awareness among enterprises about the benefits of using BYOD security solutions on mobile devices coupled with the rise in the number of cyber-attacks and malware are some of the key factors contributing to the growth in the BYOD security market in the Americas during the forecast period.

The growing popularity of cloud-based BYOD security is the latest trend in the global BYOD security market. Cloud-based BYOD security does not require any hardware or software and can be controlled remotely, making it cost-effective for the end-users. Also, it has a faster response rate to the new security threats and unauthorized activities as well as allows companies to use software products on a pay-per-use basis and are cost effective. Limited hardware infrastructure, less dependency on internal IT personnel, faster implementation of IT solutions, no licensing costs, and low maintenance costs are some of the advantages of a cloud-based BYOD security system,” says Amrita Choudhury, Lead Analyst, ICT, Technavio Research.

Currently, the Mobile Content Management (MCM) segment occupies almost 52% of the market share to dominate the global BYOD security market. MCM is gaining prominence among large enterprises, government organizations, and small and medium-sized business (SMBs) because of the increased acceptance of the BYOD policy.  

Some vendors in the MCM market are even providing additional security features in the products that they are offering to gain consumer interest and market shares. For instance, AirWatch provides the Secure Content Locker that comprises of secure storage containers to safeguard data stored on mobile devices. 

The key vendors in the global BYOD security market include Citrix Systems, Good Technology, IBM, MobileIron, and VMware. The global BYOD security market highly fragmented owing to the presence of many international, regional, and local vendors. Established BYOD security solution vendors are likely to acquire small vendors to expand their product portfolio and increase their market share.  

During the forecast period, the level of vendor competition is likely to intensify with product and service extensions, technological innovations, and M&As.

 

Your Biggest Weakness Is Already on Your Payroll

Imperva IG

An Imperva Infographic

healthcare-apps

Breaches caused by either hacking or malware nearly doubled in relative frequency

Beazley, a leading provider of data breach response insurance, today released its Beazley Breach Insights 2016 findings based on its response to over 2,000 breaches in the past two years. The specialized Beazley Breach Response (BBR) Services unit responded to 60% more data breaches in 2015 compared to 2014, with a concentration of incidents in the healthcare, financial services and higher education sectors.

Key data:

  • Breaches caused by either hacking or malware nearly doubled in relative frequency over the past year. In 2015, 32% of all incidents were caused by hacking or malware vs. 18% in 2014.
  • Unintended disclosure of records – such as a misdirected email – accounted for 24% of all breaches in 2015, which is down from 32% in 2014.
  • The loss of non-electronic physical records accounted for 16% of all breaches in 2015, which is unchanged from 2014.
  • The proportion of breaches involving third party vendors more than tripled over the same period, rising from 6% of breaches in 2014 to 18% of breaches in 2015.

Beazley’s data breach statistics are based on 777 incidents in 2014 and 1,249 in 2015.

We saw a significant rise in incidents caused by hacking or malware in the past year,” said Katherine Keefe, global head of BBR Services. This was especially noticeable in healthcare where the percentage of data breaches caused by hacking or malware more than doubled

Ransomware on the rise in healthcare

Hackers are increasingly employing ransomware to lock up an organization’s data, holding it until a ransom is paid in nearly untraceable Bitcoin. Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital in Los Angeles reported suffering a ransomware attack in February 2016 and ultimately paid the hackers $17,000 in Bitcoin. A year earlier, the FBI had issued an alert warning that ransomware attacks were on the rise.

This trend is borne out by Beazley’s data. Breaches involving ransomware among Beazley clients more than doubled to 43 in 2015 and the trend appears to be accelerating in 2016. Based on figures for the first two months of the year, ransomware attacks are projected to increase by 250% in 2016.

Clearly, new malware programs, including ransomware, are having a big impact, said Paul Nikhinson, privacy breach response services manager for BBR Services. Hacking or malware was the leading cause of data breaches in the healthcare industry in 2015, representing 27% of all breaches, more than physical loss at 20%

Healthcare is a big target for hackers because of the richness of medical records for identity theft and other crimes. In fact, a medical record is worth over 16 times more than a credit card record.”

Higher Education

Higher education also experienced an increase in breaches due to hacking or malware with these accounting for 35% of incidents in 2015, up from 26% in 2015.

Colleges and universities are reporting increased “spear phishing” incidents in which hackers send personalized, legitimate-looking emails with harmful links or attachments. The relatively open nature of campus IT systems, widespread use of social media by students and a lack of the restrictive controls common in many corporate settings make higher education institutions particularly vulnerable to data breaches.

Financial Services

In the financial services sector, hacking or malware was up modestly to 27% of industry data breaches in 2015 versus 23% in 2014. Trojan programs continued to be a popular hacking device.

The State of Cybersecurity in Healthcare Organizations in 2016

ESET and the Ponemon Institute have announced results of The State of Cybersecurity in Healthcare Organizations in 2016.

According to the study, healthcare organizations average about one cyber attack per month with 48% of respondents said their organizations have experienced an incident involving the loss or exposure of patient information during the last 12 months. Yet despite these incidents, only half indicated their organization has an incident response plan in place.

The concurrence of technology advances and delays in technology updates creates a perfect storm for healthcare IT security,” said Stephen Cobb, senior security researcher at ESET. “The healthcare sector needs to organize incident response processes at the same level as cyber criminals to properly protect health data relative to current and future threat levels. A good start would be for all organizations to put incident response processes in place, including comprehensive backup and disaster recovery mechanisms. Beyond that, there is clearly a need for effective DDoS and malware protection, strong authentication, encryption and patch management

Key findings of the survey:

78% of respondents, the most common security incident is the exploitation of existing software vulnerabilities greater than three months old.

63% said the primary consequences of APTs and zero-day attacks were IT downtime

46% of respondents experienced an inability to provide services which create serious risks for patient treatment.

Hackers are most interested in stealing patient information

  • The most attractive and lucrative target for unauthorized access and abuse can be found in patients’ medical records, according to 81% of respondents.

Healthcare organizations worry most about system failures

  • 79% of respondents said that system failures are one of the top three threats facing their organizations
  • 77% cyber attackers
  • 77% unsecure medical devices

Technology poses a greater risk to patient information than employee negligence

  • 52% of respondents said legacy systems and new technologies to support cloud and mobile implementations, big data and the Internet of Things increase security vulnerabilities for patient information
  • 46% of respondents also expressed concern about the impact of employee negligence
  • 45% cited the ineffectiveness of HIPAA mandated business associate agreements designed to ensure patient information security

DDoS attacks have cost organizations on average $1.32 million in the past 12 months

  • 37% of respondents say their organization experienced a DDoS attack that caused a disruption to operations and/or system downtime about every four months. These attacks cost an average of $1.32 million each, including lost productivity, reputation loss and brand damage.

Healthcare organizations need a healthy dose of investment in technologies

  • On average, healthcare organizations represented in this research spend $23 million annually on IT
  • 12% on average is allocated to information security
  • Since an average of $1.3 million is spent annually for DDoS attacks alone, a business case can be made to increase technology investments to reduce the frequency of successful attacks

Based on our field research, healthcare organizations are struggling to deal with a variety of threats, but they are pessimistic about their ability to mitigate risks, vulnerabilities and attacks,” said Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of The Ponemon Institute. “As evidenced by the headline-grabbing data breaches over the past few years at large insurers and healthcare systems, hackers are finding the most lucrative information in patient medical records. As a result, there is more pressure than ever for healthcare organizations to refine their cybersecurity strategies

Are British Businesses over confident about the threat of data breaches?

Ilex International have launched their Breach Confidence Index. The Index is a benchmark survey created to monitor the level of confidence that British businesses have when it comes to security breaches. The Index shows high confidence levels

  • 24% of IT decision makers surveyed very confident
  • 59% fairly confident that their business is protected against a data security breach

The Breach Confidence Index raises major concerns for British businesses. Businesses are not currently required to report security breaches and in many cases, may not even know that they have experienced one. The survey found that 49% said their business has not experienced a security breach. In comparison to actual statistics shared at the 2015 Cyber Symposium, there is a major gap between the perception and reality of security breaches among businesses.

According to the survey the most common weaknesses resulting in a Data Breach were
22% MALWARE VULNERABILITIES
21% EMAIL SECURITY
15% EMPLOYEE EDUCATION
12% CLOUD APPLICATIONS
12% INSIDER THREATS
8% ACCESS CONTROL
8% BYOD OR MOBILE ACCESS
6% NON-COMPLIANCE TO CURRENT REGULATIONS

Weaknesses relating to identity and access management considerably increase as organisations expand their workforce. Some of the most common issues highlighted by large businesses include:

  • 44% insider threats
  • 42% employee education
  • 26% access control
  • 24% BYOD or mobile access

All figures in the Ilex International Breach Confidence Index, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 530 IT Decision Makers. Fieldwork was undertaken between 6th – 12th August 2015. The survey was carried out online.

DataMotion_IG4_BriefHistoryofHCDataBreaches_092915

ICO response to ECJ ruling on personal data to US Safe Harbor

The ICO has issued a statement in response to the European Court of Justice ruling about the legal basis for the transfer of personal data to businesses that are members of the US Safe Harbor

Deputy Commissioner David Smith said:

“Today’s ruling is clearly significant and it is important that regulators and legislators provide a considered and clear response. This ruling is about the legal basis for the transfer of personal data to businesses that are members of the US Safe Harbor. It does not mean that there is an increase in the threat to people’s personal data, but it does make clear the important obligation on organisations to protect people’s data when it leaves the UK.

“The judgment means that businesses that use Safe Harbor will need to review how they ensure that data transferred to the US is transferred in line with the law. We recognise that it will take them some time for them to do this.

“It is important to bear in mind that the Safe Harbor is not the only basis on which transfers of personal data to the US can be made. Many transfers already take place based on different provisions. The ICO has previously published guidance on the full range of options available to businesses to ensure that they are complying with the law related to international transfers. We will now be considering the judgment in detail, working with our counterpart data protection authorities in the other EU member states and issuing further guidance for businesses on the options open to them. Businesses should check the ICO website for details over the coming weeks.

“Concerns about the Safe Harbor are not new. That is why negotiations have been taking place for some time between the European Commission and US authorities with a view to introducing a new, more privacy protective arrangement to replace the existing Safe Harbor agreement. We understand that these negotiations are well advanced.”

Policy problems with cloud Storage revealed by survey

UK companies are placing themselves at risk of cyberattacks and data breaches as a result of rampant use of cloud storage services and unclear or non-existent corporate policies according to research released today by WinMagic Inc. The survey, conducted by CensusWide, of 1,000 office workers in organisations of 50 or more employees revealed widespread, and often unilateral employee use of cloud storage services could be leaving businesses with poor visibility of where their data is stored, placing potentially confidential data at risk.

Key Findings

  • 65% of employees don’t have or don’t know the company policy on cloud storage
  • 1 in 10 employees who use cloud storage services at least once a week have no confidence in the security of their data saved and accessed from the cloud
  • Cloud storage use varies widely – 41% use cloud services at least once a week, whilst 42% never use these services at all
  • 1 in 20 employees who use cloud services at least once a week, do so despite these services being restricted by their company
  • 35% of employees used a company sanctioned service
  • 43% were unaware of their employer’s policy on the use of these services. In addition, of those that use cloud storage at least once a week
  • 50% of respondents use personal equipment to access work information and services at least one a week
  • 47% of employees use company-issued equipment at home at least once a week

Darin Welfare, EMEA VP at WinMagic, said: “This survey highlights the challenge businesses face when managing data security in the cloud. IT teams have had to cede a level of control as employees have greater access to services outside corporate control and this research indicates that IT must take additional steps to protect and control company data in this new technology landscape. The wide range of employee adoption of these services also means an additional layer of complexity when devising corporate policies and education programmes for the use of cloud storage services.”

Employees are increasingly accessing work documents and services outside the office, particularly among regular users of cloud storage. The survey revealed 70% of employees who use cloud storage at least once a week will also use work equipment at home at least once a week, significantly higher than the UK average of 47%.

The WinMagic survey highlights a clear disparity between employee use of cloud services and company IT policy, which suggests that businesses must increase focus on devising clearer security policies and better staff training programmes in order to minimise the risk for the business.

Darin Welfare added: “One of the key steps that any organisation can take to mitigate the risk from the widespread use of unsanctioned cloud services is to ensure that all company data is encrypted before employees have the opportunity to upload to the cloud. In the eventuality that the cloud vendor does not adequately put in place control mechanisms and procedures to ensure security across their infrastructure, sensitive and valuable corporate data is still encrypted and cannot be accessed and understood beyond those who have the right to. This approach provides the company with the assurance that the IT team is in control of the key and management of all company data before any employees turn to cloud storage services.”

“This survey should serve as a wake-up call for IT teams to focus resources on crafting the stringent security policies, and employee education programmes that will help the business stay secure. It also indicates that this is not something that is only down to employee behaviour. Businesses need better training for all staff on the potential dangers of cloud services. Businesses must catch up with the employee cloud revolution or risk potentially catastrophic data loss.”

The full press release can be found here.

Standard & Poor’s labeled holes in cybersecurity a financial risk in a report

Banks with weak cybersecurity controls could be downgraded even if they haven’t been attacked, Standard & Poor’s said Monday in a report.

While it hasn’t yet downgraded a bank based on its computer security, the ratings company said it would consider doing so if it determined the lender was ill-prepared to withstand a data breach. It would also drop a bank’s rating if an attack caused reputational harm or resulted in losses that hurt profit, S&P said.

We view weak cybersecurity as an emerging threat that has the potential to pose a higher risk to financial firms in the future, and possibly result in downgrades

S&P analysts led by Stuart Plesser wrote in the report.

Cyberattacks have become a growing threat for banks, with more than a dozen U.S. depository institutions reporting hacks in 2012 and 2013 that prevented consumers from accessing their websites, according to the report. Last year, the personal data of tens of millions of JPMorgan Chase & Co. customers were compromised in a breach. The bank spent $250 million on cybersecurity in 2014 and will increase that to $450 million by next year, S&P said.

Hostile nation-states, terrorist organizations, criminal groups, activists and, in some cases, company insiders are behind most of the global cyberattacks on banks, S&P said. South Korea financial institutions have experienced security breaches in recent years, while a Russian security company working with law enforcement said it uncovered a two-year, billion-dollar theft from banks around the world by a gang of cybercriminals, according to the report, which didn’t identify the lenders.

‘Continual Battle’

S&P classified the global risk of cyberattacks as “medium,” saying large banks have taken steps to mitigate the danger. Bigger institutions have an advantage over smaller ones because their revenue base can defray some expenses, according to the report.

Few banks have disclosed the amount they’re spending to guard against attacks, S&P said. Still, any cuts to technology units as part of larger cost-savings efforts would be “disconcerting.”

Cyberdefense is a continual battle, particularly as technology evolves,” according to the report. “Many tech experts believe that if a hostile nation-state put all its resources into infiltrating a particular bank’s tech system, it would probably prove successful

The original article was published in Crain”s New Yokr Business.

Security and the Internet of Things – Infograph

Security-and-the-Internet-of-Things_jpg

An Infograph by ComputerScienceZone.org from here.

In cloud environments, 75% of the security risk can be attributed to just 1% of users

Cybercriminals continue to focus their efforts on what is widely considered to be the weakest link in the security chain: the user. Consequently, developing a comprehensive understanding of user behavior and the implications thereof becomes paramount to corporate security strategy.

In analysing user behavior across 10 million users, 1 billion files, and over 91,000 cloud applications, CloudLock surfaced surprising trends.

In this report, Cloudlock examine cloud cybersecurity trends across three primary dimensions: users, collaboration, and applications. The Pareto Principle, the “80/20” rule, holds true across all three dimensions, revealing a truth with surprising implications for security professionals.

Key Findings

Users: 1% of users create 75% of cloud cybersecurity risk, signalling abnormal user behavior whether unintentional or malicious.

  • Collaboration: While organizations on average collaborate with 865 external parties, just 25 of these account for 75% of cloud-based sharing per organization. Unexpectedly, 70% of sharing occurs with non-corporate email addresses security teams have little control over.
  • Apps: 1% of users represent 62% of all app installs in the cloud – a high concentration. Without security awareness, this small user base introduces a high volume of risk. Additionally, 52,000 installs of applications are conducted by highly privileged users – a number that should be zero given privileged accounts are highly coveted by malicious cybercriminals.

4 Actionable Takeaways for a more secure cloud environment

The findings of this report show disproportionate cloud cybersecurity risk across users, collaboration, and applications. Consider the four following risk remediation strategies.

1. Focus on the User Behavior

Focusing on the riskiest subset of users, security professionals can efficiently and dramatically reduce risk. Any abnormal behavior by data-dense and risky users should be prioritized providing the security team with valuable direction on what truly requires attention and resolution immediately.

2. Focus Security on Organizations You Collaborate With Most

Given that, on average, 75% of inter-organizational sharing is with 25 external organizations, focus on the frequent collaborative organizations to eliminate the bulk of risk, then address the long tail of remaining organizations.

3. Take Application Security beyond Discovery

Discovering third-party applications that reside on the network is only the tip of the iceberg. Elevate your security game beyond app discovery through enforcement capabilities, policy-driven app control, and end-user education. If users are blocked, they will find a way around.

4. Correlate Insights Across Cloud Environments

With multi-cloud intelligence, security teams can correlate security events across platforms, preventing cybercriminal exploits from slipping through the cracks. Consider an individual logging into Salesforce in San Francisco and ServiceNow in Kuala Lumpur using the same credentials simultaneously, indicating account compromise. Avoid point security solutions in favor of platforms offering multi-cloud insights across not only SaaS applications, but also laaS, PaaS, and IDaaS environments.

Internal Audit is having an ever increasing role in Cyber Security

According to a report by the Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation, cyber preparation at most organizations follows a classic bell curve.

Asked, for instance, how prepared their organizations would be to respond to a cyber-attack;

  • 29% of respondents said “extremely” or “very”
  • 44 % said “moderately”
  • 23% said “slightly” or an ominous “not at all”

As organizations increase spending on tech tools to address cyber risks, internal auditors are advocating a holistic approach that includes policies, response planning and board involvement to develop a broader view of an organization’s cyber risks and defences.

Helped by their understanding of organization controls and risk management, internal audit can bring various functions together and help them address cyber threats more effectively, the study says.

“Boards and audit committees also must … be kept up-to-date on technologies that not only can help meet business objectives, but also may make an organization more vulnerable to attack. When properly resourced and supported, internal audit will develop the skills and perspective to provide review and assurance services in this area,” the study says.

Key Components

The report identifies five key components to cyber risk management and says internal audit can play a key role in supporting each element:

  1. Protection: Internal audit can help organizations test security controls related to bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policies, review third-party contracts for compliance with security protocols, and perform IT governance assurance services.
  2. Detection: IIA’s 2015 Global Internal Audit Common Body of Knowledge (CBOK) study found that five in 10 respondents use data mining and data analytics for risk and control monitoring, as well as fraud identification. The cyber preparedness study says audit executives should partner with IT and information security pros to develop and monitor key risk indicators and validate security-related controls.
  3. Business Continuity: Just as they plan for natural disasters or other corporate crises, organizations have to develop plans to serve customers and other stakeholders during cyber-attacks. Internal audit can help provide enterprise-wide perspective and provide assurance about the expected effectiveness of response plans.
  4. Crisis Communications: Similar to response plans, it’s important to keep customers, shareholders, regulators and other interested parties informed during (and immediately after) a cyber breach.
  5. Continuous Improvement: If an organization experiences a cyber-attack, internal audit can play a valuable role in helping the organization assess the effects and outline strategies and protocols to defend against the next attack.

The study also suggests corporate boards increase their ability to assess and defend against cyber risks. This may involve recruiting board and committee members with cyber-related experience or expertise, or bringing in third-party security experts to educate board members about evolving cyber threats and governance practices.

The full article can be downloaded here.

Data Breaches: Are You Prepared?

Data privacy and security continues to be a growing concern for many organizations. With cyber attacks increasing each year, businesses must be mindful of how data breaches occur in order to prevent the exposure of confidential information. Recognizing vulnerabilities in data security efforts can help minimize the effects a cyber attack may have on an organization.

Thomson Reuters data-breaches

Original produced here by Thomson Reuters.

Cost of Phishing and Value of Employee Training

The Ponemon Institute has presented the results of it’s study the Cost of Phishing and Value of Employee Training sponsored by Wombat Security. The purpose of this research is to understand how training can reduce the financial consequences of phishing in the workplace.

Phishing

The research reveals the majority of costs caused by successful phishing attacks are the result of the loss of employee productivity. Based on the analysis described later in this report, Ponemon extrapolate an average improvement of 64% from six proof of concept training projects. This improvement represents the change in employees who fell prey to phishing scams in the workplace before and after training.

As a result of effective training provided by Wombat, Ponemon estimate a cost savings of $1.8 million or $188.4 per employee/user. If companies paid Wombat’s standard fee of $3.69 per user for a program for up to 10,000 users, Ponemon determine a very substantial net benefit of $184.7 per user, for a remarkable one-year rate of return at 50X.

To determine the cost structure of phishing, Ponemon  surveyed 377 IT and IT security practitioners in organizations in the United States. 39% of respondents are from organizations with 1,000 or more employees who have access to corporate email systems.

The topics covered in this research include the following:

  • The financial consequences of phishing scams
  • The financial impact of phishing on employee productivity
  • The cost to contain malware
  • The cost of malware not contained & the likelihood it will cause a material data breach
  • The cost of business disruption due to phishing
  • The cost to contain credential compromises
  • Potential cost savings from employee training

Phishing scams are costly. Often overlooked is the potential cost to organizations when employees are victimized by phishing scams. Ponemon’s cost analysis includes the cost to contain malware, the cost not contained, loss of productivity, the cost to contain credential compromises and the cost of credential compromises not contained. Based on these costs, the extrapolated total annual cost of phishing for the average-sized organization in Ponemon’s sample totals $3.77 million.

Summarized calculus on the cost of phishing. Estimated cost.
Part 1. The cost to contain malware $208,174
Part 2. The cost of malware not contained $338,098
Part 3. Productivity losses from phishing $1,819,923
Part 4. The cost to contain credential compromises $381,920
Part 5. The cost of credential compromises not contained $1,020,705
Total extrapolated cost $3,768,820

The average total cost to contain malware annually is $1.9 million. The first step in understanding the overall cost is to analyze the six tasks to contain malware infections. Drawing from the empirical findings of an earlier study, Ponemon  were able to derive cost estimates relating to six discrete tasks conducted by companies to contain malware infections in networks, enterprise systems and endpoints. The table below summarizes the annual hours incurred for six tasks by the average-sized organization on an annual basis. The largest tasks incurred to contain malware involve the cleaning and fixing of infected systems and conducting forensic investigations.

Documentation and planning represents the smallest tasks in terms of hours spent each year.

Six tasks to contain malware infections. Estimated hours per annum.

Planning 910
Capturing intelligence 3,806
Evaluating intelligence 2,844
Investigating 10,338
Cleaning & fixing 11,955
Documenting 671
Total hours 30,524

The annual cost to contain malware is based on the hours to resolve the incident. These cost estimates are based on a fully loaded average hourly labor rate for US-based IT security practitioners of $62. As can be seen, the extrapolated total cost to contain malware is $1.89 million.

The adjusted cost of malware containment resulting from phishing scams is $208,174 per annum. The final step in determining the cost of malware containment attributable to phishing is to calculate the percentage of malware incidents unleashed by successful phishing scams.

Response to the survey question, “What percent of all malware infections is caused by successful phishing scams?” The percentage rate of malware infections caused by phishing scams was based on Ponemon’s  independent survey of IT security practitioners. As can be seen, the estimated range is less than 1% to more than 50%. The extrapolated average rate is 11%.

Drawing from the above analysis, Ponemon estimate the cost of malware containment as 11% of the previously calculated total cost of $1.9 million.

Cost of malware not contained

In this section, Ponemon estimate the cost of malware not contained at the device level to be $105.9 million. In other words, this cost occurs because malware evaded traditional defenses such as firewalls, anti-malware software and intrusion prevention systems. In this state Ponemon  assume the malware becomes weaponized for attack.

Following are two attacks caused by weaponized malware:

  1. Data exfiltration (a.k.a. material data breach)
  2. Business disruptions

Ponemon determine a most likely cost using an expected cost framework, which is defined as:

Expected cost = Probable maximum loss (PML) x Likelihood of occurrence [over a 12-month period].

Respondents in Ponemon’s  survey were asked to estimate the probable maximum loss (PML) resulting from a material data breach (i.e., exfiltration) caused by weaponized malware. Ponemon’s research shows the distribution of maximum losses ranging from less than $10 million to more than $500 million.

The extrapolated average PML resulting from data exfiltration is $105.9 million.

What is the likelihood of weaponized malware causing a material data breach? In the context of this research, a material data breach involves the loss or theft of more than 1,000 records. Respondents were asked to estimate the likelihood of this occurring. According to the research the probability distribution ranges from less than .1% to more than 5%. The extrapolated average likelihood of occurrence is 1.9 percent over a 12-month period.

The cost of business disruption due to phishing is $66.9 million. Respondents were asked to estimate the PML resulting from business disruptions caused by weaponized malware. Business disruptions include denial of services, damage to IT infrastructure and revenue losses. The research shows the distribution of maximum losses ranging from less than $10 million to $500 million. The extrapolated average PML resulting from data exfiltration is $66.9 million.

How likely are business disruptions due to weaponized malware? Respondents were asked to estimate the likelihood of material business disruptions caused by weaponized malware. The research shows the probability distribution ranging from less than .1% to more than 5%. The extrapolated average likelihood of occurrence is 1.6% over a 12-month period.

The table below shows the expected cost of malware attacks relating to data exfiltration ($2 million) and disruptions to IT and business processes ($1.1 million). The total amount of $3.1 million is adjusted for the 11% of malware attacks originating from phishing scams, which yields an estimated cost of $338,098 per annum.

Recap for the cost of malware not contained Calculus
Probable maximum loss resulting from data exfiltration $105,900,000
Likelihood of occurrence over the next 12 months 1.90%
Expected value $2,012,100
Probable maximum loss resulting from business disruptions (including denial of services, damage to IT infrastructure and revenue losses) $66,345,000
Likelihood of occurrence over the next 12 months 1.60%
Expected value $1,061,520
Total cost of malware not contained $3,073,620
Percentage rate of malware infections caused by phishing scams 11%
Adjusted total cost attributable to phishing scams $338,098

Employees waste an average of 4.16 hours annually due to phishing scams. As previously discussed, the majority of costs (52%) are due to the decline in employee productivity as a result of being phished. In this section, Ponemon estimate the productivity losses associated with phishing scams experienced by employees during the workday. Drawing upon Ponemon’s  survey research, Ponemon  extrapolated the total hours spent each year by employees/users viewing and possibly responding to phishing emails.

The research shows the distribution of time wasted for the average employee (office worker) due to phishing scams. The range of response is less than 1 hour to more than 25 hours per employee each year.

What is the cost to respond to a credential compromise? In this section, Ponemon estimate the costs incurred by organizations to contain credential compromises that originated from a successful phishing attack, including the theft of cryptographic keys and certificates. Ponemon’s  first step in this analysis is to estimate the total number of compromises expected to occur over the next 12 months. The range of responses includes zero to more than 10 incidents.

How likely will a material data breach occur if the credential compromise is not contained? Respondents were asked to estimate the likelihood of a material data breach caused by credential compromise. Ponemon’s research shows the probability distribution ranging from less than .1% to 5%. The extrapolated average likelihood of occurrence is 4% over a 12-month period.

In this section, Ponemon estimates the potential cost savings that result from employee education that provides actionable advice and raises awareness about phishing and other related topics. As a starting point to this analysis, Ponemon obtained six proof of concept studies completed for six large companies.

These reports provided detailed findings that show the phishing email click rate for employees both before and after training. Ponemon provides the actual improvements experienced by companies, ranging from 26 to 99%, respectively. The average improvement for all six companies is 64%.

As a result of Wombat’s training on phishing that includes mock attacks and follow-up with indepth training, Ponemon estimate a high knowledge retention rate. Based on well-known research, training that focuses on actual practices should result in an average retention rate of approximately 75%. Applying this retention rate against the average improvement shown in the six proof of concept studies, Ponemon  estimate a net long-term improvement in fighting phishing scams of 47.75%.

Proof of concept results Improvement %
Company A 99%
Company B 72%
Company C 54%
Company D 26%
Company E 62%
Company F 69%
Average improvement 64%
Expected diminished learning retention over time (1-75%) 25%
Average net improvement 47.75%

The figures below provides a simple analysis of potential cost savings accruing to organizations that use an effective training approach to mitigating phishing scams. As shown before, Ponemon estimate a total cost of phishing for an average-sized organization at $3.77 million.

Assuming a net improvement of 47.75%, Ponemon estimate a cost savings of $1.80 million or $188.40 per employee/user. At a fee of $3.69 per employee/user, Ponemon determine a very substantial net benefit of $184.71 per user, or a one-year rate of return of 50X.

Calculating net benefit of Wombat training on phishing Calculus
Total cost of phishing $3,768,820
Estimated cost savings assuming net improvement at 47.75% $1,799,612
Extrapolated headcount for the average-sized organization 9,552
Estimated cost savings per employee $188.40
Estimated fee of Wombat training per user $3.69
Estimated net benefit of Wombat training per user $184.71
Estimated one-year rate of return = Net benefit ÷ Fee 50X

UK Businesses unprepared for changes to the Data Protection Act

Crown Records Management survey of IT decision makers reveals companies are woefully unprepared for EU General Data Protection Regulation.

European politicians met on the 24th June 2015 in a bid to ratify huge changes in data protection regulation, but a survey has revealed UK businesses are woefully unprepared.

The EU General Data Protection Regulation aims to unify data protection across Europe with a single law and will be fine-tuned in Brussels at a ‘trilogue’ meeting of the EU Commission, European Parliament and the Council of the EU.

Once passed, it will bring with it huge fines (up to 100m Euros or 2% of global turnover) for companies that breach the regulation – as well as a raft of new rules about collecting, editing and processing the personal data of European citizens. Many companies will also be compelled to employ at Data Protection Officer for the first time.

Experts predict it will affect every single company that operates from within the EU, does business with companies inside the EU, stores its data in EU member countries or handles the personal data of European citizens.

A Crown Records Management Censuswide survey of IT decision makers at UK companies with more than 200 employees revealed businesses here are painfully unprepared – and one in five hasn’t even heard of the Regulation.

Results include:

  • 19.6% are totally unware of the changes
  • 29.4% of decision makers aged 55+ know nothing about the challenges ahead
  • 25.3% will wait for the final details of the Regulation before taking any action at all
  • 52% who know about the Regulation still aren’t currently reviewing policies
  • 42.5% of decision makers in companies with a turnover of more than £500m are ‘not really concerned’ or ‘not concerned at all’ about the impact of the new structure.
  • 63% have not yet appointed a Data Protection Officer, which will soon become compulsory for many companies
  • 59% have no plans in place to train staff despite the changes looming

Reproduced from Crown Records Management.

Read my 2012 review of the Proposed European Data Protection Act here 

Who breached the Data Protection Act in 2014 (UK)? Find the complete list here.

Who breached the Data Protection Act in 2013(UK)? Find the complete list here.

Who breached the Data Protection Act in 2012(UK)? Find the complete list here.

Cyber insurance: trying to quantify risks

Bloomberg Intelligence August 24, 2015

This analysis is by Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Charles Graham and Edmond Christou.  It originally appeared on the Bloomberg Professional Service.

Personal data theft, cyber-attacks whet appetite for insurers

The value of personal data stored on corporate databases is rapidly increasing. For EU citizens it is set to reach 1 trillion euros ($1.4 trillion) by 2020, according to Boston Consulting Group. This is raising the need for greater protection. The increased incidence of data breaches and misuses as hackers become more sophisticated has also imposed greater regulatory requirements on businesses. Companies are seeking new products from insurers to limit the cost of interruption, reputational damage and penalties.

Companies Impacted: While cyber risk potentially affects many classes of business, there are a number of providers including AIG, Allianz, Munich Re, Swiss Re and Zurich Insurance Group, as well as specialist insurers like Beazley and Hiscox, which have developed specific cyber products.

Photographer: Craig Warga/Bloomberg

Insurers view industry as ill-prepared for risk of cyber theft

Cyber theft is top of the list of risks for which businesses are least prepared, according to Allianz’s 2015 Risk Barometer Survey. Companies need to understand the potential effect of a cyber-attack on their supply chain, the liability they could face if they can’t deliver products on time and the legal penalties if they lose customer data. While computer systems can be improved, it is impossible to make them entirely secure. This is creating opportunities for insurers.

Companies Impacted: Allianz’s 4th Risk Barometer Survey was conducted among global businesses and risk consultants, underwriters, senior managers and claims experts within Allianz in October and November 2014. Insurers offering cyber-risk cover include AIG, Allianz, Zurich, Beazley and Hiscox.

Swelling cyber-attack costs are driving wider insurance coverage

The average cost of a data breach has increased to $3.79 million, according to a study by the Ponemon Institute based on a survey of 350 companies in 11 countries. This cost has increased by 23% since 2013. The average cost for each lost or stolen record containing sensitive information rose to $154 this year from $145 in 2014. Concerns about data breaches and privacy have led to legal reforms in the U.S. and Europe, which may help drive demand for cyber-insurance.

Companies Impacted: Increasing cyber-attacks have driven insurers such as AIG, Allianz, Beazley, Hiscox and Zurich Insurance, to expand their product offerings to include first- and third-party coverage for cyber-risk.

Retailers face biggest threat from cyber theft, data breaches

Retailers face the biggest threat from data breaches, according to figures compiled by Zurich Insurance. The food and beverage industry is second in line for hackers followed by hospitality, finance and professional services. Carphone Warehouse discovered on Aug. 5 that personal data of 2.4 million of its customers and encrypted credit card details for 90,000 clients may have been accessed in a data breach. Insurers are tailoring products to meet different industries cyber risks.

Companies Impacted: Insurers work with companies to identify best practices in data privacy and security to help to minimize the financial cost should a breach occur. AIG, Allianz, Beazley, Hiscox, Zurich Insurance are among the companies to have developed cyber-insurance coverage.

Die hard 4.0 cyber scenario could cost more than $1 trillion

A cyber-attack on the U.S. power grid could cost $243 billion rising to more than $1 trillion in the most extreme scenario, according to a study by Lloyd’s of London and the University of Cambridge. The report examines the insurance implications of a major cyber-attack. It depicts a scenario where hackers shut parts of the grid, plunging 15 U.S. states and Washington DC into darkness, leaving 93 million people without power. Insurers are just starting to wake up to the scale of potential losses.

Companies Impacted: Cyber-insurance risks are widely underwritten at Lloyd’s with 47 managing agents offering cover, including quoted groups Beazley, Hiscox and Novae. Lloyd’s introduced new risk codes for data and privacy breaches and cyber-related property damage in 2015.

Swiss re joins forces with IBM to fight cyber threat

Munich Re has partnered with Hewlett-Packard and Swiss Re with IBM to develop solutions that offer clients cyber protection and provide support in the event of a security breach. IBM will assess clients’ external and internal vulnerability to cyber-attacks and offer options for mitigating these risks. IBM’s security platform provides intelligence to help organizations protect their clients’ data, applications and infrastructure.

Peer Comparison: Swiss Re’s Corporate Solutions business is one of a number of insurers offering cyber coverage. Other companies include AIG, Allianz and Zurich Insurance.

Personal data in leaked datasets is still personal data – ICO

By Simon Rice, Group Manager for Technology at the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).

Personal data in leaked datasets is still personal dataThey say ‘no publicity is bad publicity’, but after spending most of the week trending on Twitter, I wonder if the users of the Ashley Madison site might disagree.

Having already prompted a flurry of news stories when the online attack of the Ashley Madison servers was first revealed, this week we’ve seen another wave of coverage as the personal data was published online.

Wherever your sympathies might lie in relation to the people identified in the published data set, the fact remains that such details are personal information, with certain protections in law.

Like many online attacks, the data protection response is international. In this case, we’re liaising with our counterparts in Canada, where the company is based.

But with cases like this, there is still a domestic aspect to consider.

Anyone in the UK who might download, collect or otherwise process the leaked data needs to be aware they could be taking on data protection responsibilities defined in the UK’s Data Protection Act.

Similarly, seeking to identify an individual from a leaked dataset will be an intrusion into their private life and could also lead to a breach of the DPA.

Individuals will have a range of personal reasons for having created an account with particular online services (or even had an account created without their knowledge) and any publication of further personal data without their consent can cause them significant damage or distress.

It’s worth noting too that any individual or organisation seeking to rely on the journalism exemption should be reminded that this is not a blanket exemption to the DPA and be encouraged to read our detailed guide on how the DPA applies to journalism.

This is not the first time an online service has suffered such an attack and unfortunately it’s unlikely to be the last. But it’s important people don’t assume that the law and the protections it affords to UK individuals don’t apply online.

Have your details been published in a dataset?

If you find your personal data being published online then you have a right to go to that publisher and request that the information is removed. This applies equally to information being shared on social media. If the publisher is based in the UK and fails to remove your information you can complain to the ICO.

64% of Organizations are Potential Targets for Nation-State Cyberattacks

According to a recent survey conducted at this year’s Black Hat USA security conference, nearly two-thirds of organizations are potential targets for nation-state cyberattacks.

The survey conducted by Tripwire, which includes responses from 215 conference attendees, also found that 86% of those questioned have seen an increase in these targeted attacks directed at their network over the last year.

Even more alarming, however, was that despite the noticeable increase in attacks, less than half of the respondents (47%) said confidence in their organizations’ ability to detect and respond to a cyberattack grew in the last 12 months.

Screen Shot 2015-08-17 at 1.29.05 PM

Organizations know they are being actively targeted and that their current capabilities aren’t enough to consistently detect and defend against these attacks,” said Tim Erlin, director of IT security and risk strategy for Tripwire.

“While new defensive technologies are constantly being developed, organizations are hard-pressed to deploy these new tools effectively,” he said.

Erlin noted that in many cases, these organizations would do well to evaluate their investment in foundational security controls.

Additional findings from the Black Hat USA 2015 survey include:

  • 64% of respondents said targeted attacks against their networks have increased over the last year by 20% or more.
  • 53% of respondents said they do not have the visibility necessary for accurate tracking of all the threats targeting their networks.
  • 41% of respondents said they have seen a significant increase in the number of successful cyberattacks in the last 12 months.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: