Search

Brian Pennington

A blog about Cyber Security & Compliance

Tag

PCI DSS

2018 changes to PCI DSS v3.2

Several PCI DSS requirements from version 3.2 come into effect at the end of January, 2018 (that’s just five months from now!).

Here is a list of some of the changes that will come into effect:-

3.5.1: Full documentation of all cryptographic architecture (service providers only)

6.4.6:  Change management processes that include verification of any PCI DSS impact for changes to systems or networks

8.3.x:  MFA for all non-console access to CDE.  This requirement has been the subject of much discussion, and we expect many entities to require remediation.

10.8:   Detection and reporting of all critical security control system failures (service providers only)

11.3.4.1: Penetration testing must now be performed every 6 months, as well as after any segmentation changes. (service providers only)

12.4.1: Executive management must establish PCI responsibilities and compliance program management (service providers only)

12.11.x: Quarterly personnel reviews P&P’s (service providers only)

ADVICE FROM AN ASSESSOR: DevOps, Automation, Security and Compliance

By Andrew Barratt, QSA, PCIP.  Managing Director, International/Managing Principal, Payments, Application Validation
Coalfire; Manchester, UK, http://www.coalfire.com

Phew, the title of this post alone sounds like it could be quite a lot to deal with!

So what is DevOps?  DevOps is simply the blending of infrastructure operations processes and software development to enable faster changes to business applications/technology.  These processes share a lot of ideology with the Agile & Lean camps but are more fundamentally trying to bridge the traditional divide between the development world and the IT operations/Service management teams.

In practice, DevOps can mean a lot of different things to different audiences and sometimes it can be difficult to apply compliance requirements without getting a good understanding of what DevOps is for your company.

Terms such as ‘treat your code as infrastructure’ can often scare the life out of traditional auditors along with the fear that with rapid release and change comes rapid loss of control. These shouldn’t be scary but should be embraced and understood. In audit parlance these processes can become embedded, configurable application controls that require less substantive audit testing and sampling when under scrutiny and allow the focus to be on how they are designed to be a security control.

DevOps environments typically make heavy(think obsessive!) use of automation tools to enable rapid change and release processes to be possible at large and frequent scale. This is typically where the confusion starts to begin when evaluating these environments for security and compliance purposes. Typical service management controls such as change management on the surface may appear to have been cast aside in the rush to ‘be DevOps’. This rush to implement tooling can often lead to the underlying processes being weak or ill conceived. However this is common in other disciplines too. Poor planning = poor performance.

DevOps done well can bring a great set of tools and capability for building secure, scalable and compliant environments. Building on modern source control, streamlining change control and building dependency on the tools authentication and access control can quickly be used to demonstrate the control requirements of many compliance frameworks including the PCI DSS. Just doing things faster or without lots of paper forms and signatures on doesn’t necessarily equate to non-compliance.

The implementation of PCI DSS requirements 2 and 6 can be rapidly transformed using a DevOps approach. If we look at requirement 2 as being primarily focused on hardened configuration management traditionally seen as an ‘Ops’ area, whilst Requirement 6 focuses on change management and software development.

There is nothing fundamentally in these requirements (or in other areas of the DSS) that prevents a DevOps environment being used to support and implement PCI compliance if done carefully. Whilst the security and compliance mandate might tweak certain implementation decisions most of the tools marketed for ‘DevOps’ support building workflows that can be used for approval / review decisions and capture/log the necessary approval processes to support compliance. As the level of automation increases so can the ease of which compliance requirements be met.

Recently I worked with a client that had invested heavily in building their dev-ops tooling but had built in PCI requirements as part of this process so also incorporated automation of documentation production too.  Their focus was, and still is, to automate as much as possible into the release process to minimize the failure of an activity. Every time a new release was pushed all configuration documentation was also updated automatically (supporting requirement 2) .

This particular client used a software issue and tracking tool that could be used to demonstrate management approval for changes as well as to show that code review processes had been followed. As they continued to improve they were investigating automation of their code review processes so that static analysis tools were orchestrated immediately after changes were approved as part of the build process.

One of the biggest challenges they faced initially was the size of their team, they were small and specialist and in the past had struggled with creating segregation of duties between their test/production systems.  Moving to DevOps helped with this significantly. No developers were required to have access to production systems in any manner as the build and release process was entirely orchestrated by tools with an approval workflow that the developers couldn’t authorize alone. The tools were the only thing with the ability to push to their production systems and the workflow done under management approval. These tools were treated the same way as other in-scope systems but the overhead from this was so minimal that it enabled them meet security requirements without complicated manual processes and multiple sets of access permissions.

100 Percent of Retailers Disclose Cyber Risks

According to BDO’s analysis of risk factors listed in the most recent 10-K filings of the 100 largest U.S. retailers, risk associated with a possible security breach was cited unanimously by retailers, claiming the top spot, up from the 18th spot in 2007.

Since major retail security breaches began making national headlines in 2013, retailers have become acutely aware of the growing cyber threat and cyber-related risks. Between new point-of-sale systems and evolving digital channels, the industry faces unique vulnerabilities: Retailers are responsible for safeguarding consumer data as well as their own, in addition to protecting against potential gaps in security related to third-party suppliers and vendors.

2016 marks the 10th anniversary of our retail risk factor analysis, and throughout the decade, we’ve seen the retail landscape undergo a dramatic evolution in response to the recession, new and maturing e-commerce channels and evolving consumer preferences,” said Doug Hart, partner in BDO’s Consumer Business practice. “Retailers over the years have proven to be in tune with the industry-wide issues and trends that could pose risks to their businesses, and they are clearly not tone deaf when it comes to reacting to the urgency of cybersecurity

The following chart ranks the top 25 risk factors cited by the 100 largest U.S. retailers:

Top 20 Risks for Retailers 2016 2015 2014
General Economic Conditions #1 100% #1 100% #1 100%
Privacy Concerns Related to Security Breach #1t 100% #4t 99% #8 91%
Competition and Consolidation in Retail Sector #3 98% #1t 100% #3 98%
Federal, State and/or Local Regulations #4 96% #1t 100% #2 99%
Natural Disasters, Terrorism and Geo-Political Events #5 94% #7 96% #13 87%
Implementation and Maintenance of IT Systems #6 93% #4 99% #7 92%
U.S. and Foreign Supplier/Vendor Concerns #6t 93% #6 98% #4 96%
Legal Proceedings #6t 93% #9t 95% #8t 91%
Labor (health coverage, union concerns, staffing) #9 91% #7t 96% #5 94%
Impediments to Further U.S. Expansion and Growth #10 90% #12t 92% #17 78%
Dependency on Consumer Trends #11 88% #9 95% #6 93%
Consumer Confidence and Spending #12 87% #15 89% #8t 91%
Credit Markets/Availability of Financing and Company Indebtedness #13 85% #11 94% #11 89%
Failure to Properly Execute Business Strategy #14 82% #12 92% #11t 89%
Changes to Accounting Standards and Regulations #15 76% #14 90% #13t 87%
International Operations #16 73% #17 86% #15 80%
Loss of Key Management/New Management #16t 73% #19 80% #16 79%
Marketing, Advertising, Promotions and Public Relations #18 66% #25 68% #24 64%
Consumer Credit and/or Debt Levels #19 62% #27 65% #23 65%
Joint Ventures #20 61% #21 76% #18 74%

Additional findings from the 2016 BDO Retail Risk Factor Report:

Cyber Risks Include Compliance Measures

As the cyber threat looms larger, retailers are bracing for new and emerging cybersecurity and data privacy legislation. Risks associated with cyber and privacy regulations were cited by 76 percent of retailers this year. This is in line with the findings from the 2016 BDO Retail Compass Survey of CFOs, in which nearly 7 in 10 retail CFOs said they expected cyber regulation to grow in 2016. These concerns have been highlighted by President Obama’s recently unveiled Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity and continued debate in Congress over information sharing between the government and private industry.

Retailers have not escaped regulatory scrutiny. The industry is also subject to Europay, Mastercard and Visa (EMV) standards that bolster credit card authentication and authorization. Industry analysts estimate that just 40 percent of retailers are compliant with EMV standards despite the Oct. 1, 2015 deadline.

“Mandating EMV chip-compliant payment systems is an important first step in shoring up the industry’s cyber defenses, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg,” said Shahryar Shaghaghi, National Leader of the Technology Advisory Services practice group and Head of International BDO Cybersecurity. “Online and mobile transactions remain vulnerable to credit card fraud and identity theft, and POS systems can still be hacked and provide an access point to retailers’ networks. New forms of malware can also compromise retailers’ IT infrastructure and disrupt business operations. Every retailer will experience a data breach at some juncture; the real question is what mechanisms have been put in place to mitigate the impact.”

E-Commerce Ubiquity Drives Brick & Mortar Concerns

Impediments to e-commerce initiatives also increased in ranking, noted by 57 percent of retailers in 2016, a significant contrast from 12 percent in 2007. In 2015, e-commerce accounted for 7.3 percent of total retail sales and is continuing to gain market share.

As e-commerce grows and businesses strive to meet consumers’ demand for seamless online and mobile experiences, retailers are feeling the effects in their physical locations. The recent wave of Chapter 11 bankruptcies and mass store closings among high-visibility retailers has raised concerns across the industry. Ninety percent of retailers are worried about impediments to growth and U.S. expansion this year. Meanwhile, risks associated with owning and leasing real estate jumped 14 percentage points to 54 percent this year.

Heightened worries over the impact of e-commerce on physical locations are far reaching, driving concerns over market competition for prime real estate and mall traffic to rise 19 percentage points to 46 percent. Meanwhile, consumer demand for fast shipping fueled an uptick in risks around the increased cost of mail, paper and printing, rising 10 percentage points from seven percent in 2015 to 17 percent this year.

General Economic Conditions Hold Weight

General economic risks have been consistently top of mind for retailers throughout all ten years of this survey. Even at its lowest percentage in 2008, this risk was still the second most cited, noted by 83 percent of companies.

Despite the fact that since 2013, general economic conditions have remained tied for the top risk, concerns about specific market indicators have receded.

For more information on the 2016 BDO Retail RiskFactor Report, view the full report here.

About the Consumer Business Practice at BDO USA, LLP

BDO has been a valued business advisor to consumer business companies for over 100 years. The firm works with a wide variety of retail and consumer business clients, ranging from multinational Fortune 500 corporations to more entrepreneurial businesses, on myriad accounting, tax and other financial issues.

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

PCI SSC revises date for migrating off vulnerable SSL and early TLS encryption

Following significant feedback from the global PCI community and security experts, the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council (PCI SSC) has announced a change to the date that organizations who process payments must migrate to TLS 1.1 encryption or higher.

The original deadline date for migration, June 2016, was included in the most recent version of the PCI Data Security Standard, version 3.1 (PCI DSS 3.1), which was published in April of 2015. The new deadline date, June 2018, will be included in the next version of the PCI Data Security Standard, which is expected in 2016.

Early market feedback told us migration to more secure encryption would be technically simple, and it was, but in the field a lot of business issues surfaced as we continued dialog with merchants, payment processors and banks,” said Stephen Orfei, General Manager, PCI SSC. “We want merchants protected against data theft but not at the expense of turning away business, so we changed the date. The global payments ecosystem is complex, especially when you think about how much more business is done today on mobile devices around the world. If you put mobile requirements together with encryption, the SHA-1 browser upgrade and EMV in the US, that’s a lot to handle. And it means it will take some time to get everyone up to speed. We’re working very hard with representatives from every part of the ecosystem to make sure it happens as before the bad guys break in.

Some payment security organizations service thousands of international customers all of whom use different SSL and TLS configurations,” said Troy Leach, Chief Technology Officer, PCI SSC. “The migration date will be changed in the updated Standard next year to accommodate those companies and their clients. Other related provisions will also change to ensure all new customers are outfitted with the most secure encryption into the future. Still, we encourage all organizations to migrate as soon as possible and remain vigilant. Staying current with software patches remains an important piece of the security puzzle

In addition to the migration deadline date-change, the PCI Security Standards Council has updated:

  • A new requirement date for payment service providers to begin offering more secure TLS 1.1 or higher encryption
  • A requirement for new implementations to be based on TLS 1.1 or higher
  • An exception to the deadline date for Payment Terminals, known as “POI” or Points of Interaction.

Merchants are encouraged to contact their payment processors and / or acquiring banks for detailed guidance on upgrading their ecommerce sites to the more secure encryption offered by TLS 1.1 or higher.

PCI Security Standards council announces 2016 special interest group election results

The Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council (PCI SSC), has announced the election results for its 2016 Special Interest Group (SIG) project. 

Special Interest Groups are community-led initiatives that address important security challenges related to PCI Security Standards. One new Special Interest Group is selected every year, but groups may run for more than 12 months in order to complete the agreed-upon goals. 

PCI member organizations, including merchants, financial institutions, service providers and associations, voted on five proposed Special Interest Group topics submitted by their peers. The winning topic selected for 2016 was, “Best Practices for Safe E-Commerce 

The new Special Interest Group is slated to kick off in January 2016

The Council invites PCI member organizations and assessors interested in getting involved in this SIG project to register on the PCI SSC website by 4 January 2016.  

The community choose from among five strong proposals, so it was certainly not an easy decision,” said Jeremy King, International Director, PCI SSC. “We are encouraged by how many Participating Organizations were involved in the submission and election process this year. SIGs continue to be an excellent vehicle for putting their expertise to work to improve payment card security globally

 

500 European Business Leaders attend the PCI Security Standards Council Community Meeting

This week business leaders and security professionals gathered in Nice, France to discuss payment based security and especially PCI DSS and P2Pe. 

Jeremy King PCI Security Standards Council International Director said, The new European Commission Payment Services Directive 2 along with the European Banking Authority Guidelines for Securing Internet Payments have clear and detailed requirements for organisations in protecting cardholder data. Add to that the soon to be released General Data Protection Regulation which covers all data security, and you have a massive increase in data security, which when implemented will impact all organisations in Europe and beyond, 

These regulations will force organisations to take security seriously, and PCI provides the most complete set of data security standards available globally. Establishing good data security takes time and effort. Organisations need to know these regulations are coming and put a plan in place now for ongoing security

With 70% of all card fraud coming from Card-Not-Present (CNP), a figure that surpasses the previous 2008 record which was set during the EMV chip migration, it is a critical time for the industry. 

A significant amount of the conference was spent on new and developing technologies including::

  • Cloud – Daniel Fritsche of Coalfire presented on Virtualisation and the Cloud
  • Mobile – several presentations including the Smart Payments Association
  • Point to Point Encryption (P2PE) – Andrew Barratt of Coalfire delivered a panel discussion
  • Tokenisation – A presentation by Lufthansa Systems 

Jeremy King added. PCI is committed to helping organisations globally improve their data security. Our range of standards, and especially our supporting documents, are designed to help all companies improve and protect their data security. The annual Community Meeting is a big part of our efforts to engage with companies from all sectors, sharing and exchanging information to ensure they have the very best level of security 

We must work together to tackle card-not-present fraud with technologies such as point-to-point encryption and tokenisation that devalue data and make it useless if stolen by criminals.

Attendees included experts from Accor Hotels, , British Telecommunications, Capita, Coalfire Systems Limited, Accor Hotels, Lufthansa, Virgin Trains, Vodat International and hundreds of others.

Payment Card Industry issues new guidance to help organizations respond to data breaches

For any organization connected to the internet, it is not a question of if but when their business will be under attack, according to a recent cybersecurity report from Symantec, which found Canada ranked No. 4 worldwide in terms of ransomware and social media attacks last year. These increasing attacks put customer information, and especially payment data at risk for compromise.

When breaches do occur, response time continues to be a challenge. In more than one quarter of all breaches investigated worldwide in 2014 by Verizon, it took victim organization weeks, or even months, to contain the breaches. It is against this backdrop that global cybersecurity, payment technology and data forensics experts are gathering in Vancouver for the annual PCI North America Community Meeting to address the ongoing challenge of protecting consumer payment information from criminals, and new best practices on how organizations can best prepare for responding to a data breach. 

A data breach now costs organizations an average total of $3.8 million. However, research shows that having an incident response team in place can create significant savings. Developed in collaboration with the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Forensic Investigators (PFI) community, Responding to a Data Breach: A How-to Guide for Incident Management provides merchants and service providers with key recommendations for being prepared to react quickly if a breach is suspected, and specifically what to do contain damage, and facilitate an effective investigation. 

The silver lining to high profile breaches that have occurred is that there is a new sense of urgency that is translating into security vigilance from the top down, forcing businesses to prioritize and make data security business-as-usual,” said PCI SSC General Manager Stephen W. Orfei. “Prevention, detection and response are always going to be the three legs of data protection. Better detection will certainly improve response time and the ability to mitigate attacks, but managing the impact and damage of compromise comes down to preparation, having a plan in place and the right investments in technology, training and partnerships to support it

This guidance is especially important given that in over 95% of breaches it is an external party that informs the compromised organization of the breach,” added PCI SSC International Director Jeremy King. “Knowing what to do, who to contact and how to manage the early stages of the breach is critical

At its annual North America Community Meeting in Vancouver this week, the PCI Security Standards Council will discuss these best practices in the context of today’s threat and breach landscape, along with other standards and resources the industry is developing to help businesses protect their customer payment data. Keynote speaker cybersecurity blogger Brian Krebs will provide insights into the latest attacks and breaches, while PCI Forensic Investigators and authors of the Verizon Data Breach Investigation Report and PCI Compliance Report, will present key findings from their work with breached entities globally. Canadian organizations including City of Calgary, Interac and Rogers will share regional perspectives on implementing payment security technologies and best practices. 

Download a copy of Responding to a Data Breach: A How-to Guide for Incident Management here 

The original PCI SSC press release can be found here.

Mobile Payments Data Breaches will Grow

An ISACA survey of more than 900 cybersecurity experts shows that

  • 87% expect to see an increase in mobile payment data breaches over the next 12 months
  • 42% of respondents have used this payment method in 2015

The 2015 Mobile Payment Security Study from global cybersecurity association ISACA suggests that people who use mobile payments are unlikely to be deterred by security concerns.

Other data from the survey show that cybersecurity professionals are willing to balance benefits with perceived security risks of mobile payments:

  • 23% believe that mobile payments are secure in keeping personal information safe.
  • 47% say mobile payments are not secure and 30% are unsure.
  • At 89%, cash was deemed the most secure payment method, but only 9% prefer to use it.

Mobile payments represent the latest frontier for the ongoing choice we all make to balance security and privacy risk and convenience,” said John Pironti, CISA, CISM, CGEIT, CRISC, risk advisor with ISACA and president of IP Architects. “ISACA members, who are some of the most cyber-aware professionals in the world, are using mobile payments while simultaneously identifying and contemplating their potential security risks. This shows that fear of identity theft or a data breach is not slowing down adoption and it shouldn’t as long as risk is properly managed and effective and appropriate security features are in place

Reports say that contactless in-store payment will continue to grow. Overall, the global mobile payment transaction market, including solutions offered by Apple Pay, Google Wallet, PayPal and Venmo, will be worth an estimated US $2.8 trillion by 2020, according to Future Market Insights.

ISACA survey respondents ranked the major vulnerabilities associated with mobile payments:

  1. Use of public WiFi (26%)
  2. Lost or stolen devices (21%)
  3. Phishing/shmishing (phishing attacks via text messages) (18%
  4. Weak passwords (13%)
  5. User error (7%)
  6. There are no security vulnerabilities (0.3%)

What Consumers Need to Know

According to those surveyed, currently the most effective way to make mobile payments more secure is using two ways to authenticate their identity (66%), followed by requiring a short-term authentication code (18%). Far less popular was an option that puts the onus on the consumer installing phone-based security apps (9%).

CSX-Mobile-3-lg

People using mobile payments need to educate themselves so they are making informed choices. You need to know your options, choose an acceptable level of risk, and put a value on your personal information,” said Christos Dimitriadis, Ph.D., CISA, CISM, CRISC, international president of ISACA and group director of information security for INTRALOT. “The best tactic is awareness. Embrace and educate about new services and technologies

Understand your level of risk: Ask yourself what level of personal information and financial loss is acceptable to balance the convenience of mobile payments.

Know your options: Understand the security options available to manage your risk to an acceptable level. Using a unique passcode should be mandatory, but also look into encryption, temporary codes that expire and using multiple ways to authenticate your identity.

Value your personal information: Be aware of what information you are sharing e.g., name, birthday, national identification number, pet name, email, phone number. These pieces of information can be used by hackers to gain access to accounts. Only provide the least amount of information necessary for each transaction.

Security Governance for Retailers and Payment Providers

In the emerging mobile payment landscape, ISACA notes that there is no generally accepted understanding of which entity is responsible for keeping mobile payments secure—the consumer, the payment provider or the retailer. One approach is for businesses to use the COBIT governance framework to involve all key stakeholders in deciding on an acceptable balance of fraud rate vs. revenue. Based on that outcome, organizations should set policies and make sure that mobile payment systems adhere to them.

Members of the IT or information security group taking part in the discussion should also ensure they are keeping up to date with the latest cybersecurity developments and credentials. A joint 2015 ISACA/RSA study shows that nearly 70% of information security/information technology professionals require certification when looking for candidates to fill open security positions.

The full ISACA Press Release can be found here.

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

5 steps to respond to a security breach

Is your organisation equipped to deal with potential financial and reputational damage following an attack? 

Has your organisation established an incident management plan that covers data breaches? Recent evidence shows that organisations are ill-equipped to deal with an attack.

Australian bulk deals website, Catch of the Day, suffered a security breach in 2011, with passwords and other user information stolen from the company’s databases. It took until 2014 to notify customers, suggesting there was no response plan in place.

The backlash was very severe for global retail giant, Target, which fell victim to the second largest credit card heist in history. Many customers were outraged about the retailer’s inability to provide information after the breach, and its failure to assure customers that the issue was resolved.

Consequences included settlement payouts of up to $10 million and the resignations of its CIO and CEO.

Organisations should have established and tested incident management plans to respond to data security breaches sooner rather than later. A solid response plan and adherence to these steps can spare much unnecessary business and associated reputational harm.

Here’s a five step plan to ensure you give your organisation the best chance of minimising financial and reputational damage following an attack. 

Step 1: Don’t panic, assemble a taskforce

Clear thinking and swift action is required to mitigate the damage. There is no time for blame-shifting. You need a clear, pre-determined response protocol in place to help people focus in what can be a high pressure situation and your incident management plan should follow this protocol.

Having the right team on the job is critical. Bear these factors in mind when assembling your team: Appoint one leader who will have overall responsibility for responding to the breach. Obvious choices are your CIO or chief risk officer. This leader should have a direct reporting line into top level management so decisions can be made quickly.

Include representatives from all relevant areas, including IT, to trace and deal with any technical flaws that led to the breach; and corporate affairs, in case liaison with authorities is required, to manage media and customer communications.

Don’t forget privacy (you do have a chief privacy officer, don’t you?) and legal, to deal with regulators and advise on potential exposure to liability).

If you anticipate that litigation could result from the breach, then it may be appropriate for the detailed internal investigation of the breach to be managed by the legal team. If your organisation doesn’t have these capabilities, seek assistance from third parties at an early stage.

Step 2: Containment

The taskforce should first identify the cause of the breach and ensure that it is contained. Steps may include:

  • Installing patches to resolve viruses and technology flaws. The ‘Heartbleed’ security bug identified in April 2014 at one time compromised 17 per cent of internet servers. Although a security patch was made available almost immediately once it was discovered, some administrators were slow to react, leaving servers exposed for longer than necessary.
  • Resetting passwords for user accounts that may have been compromised and advising users to change other accounts on which they use the same password.
  • Disabling network access for computers known to be infected by viruses or other malware (so they can be quarantined) and blocking the accounts of users that may have been involved in wrongdoing.
  • Taking steps to recall or delete information such as recalling emails, asking unintended recipients to destroy copies or disabling links that have been mistakenly posted. Take care to ensure that steps taken to contain the breach don’t inadvertently compromise the integrity of any investigation.

Step 3: Assess the extent and severity of the breach

The results will dictate the subsequent steps of your response. A thorough assessment involves:

  • Identifying who and what has been affected. If it’s not possible to tell exactly what data has been compromised, it may be wise to take a conservative approach to estimation.
  • Assessing how the data could be used against the victims. If the data contains information that could be used for identity theft or other criminal activity (such as names, dates of birth and credit card numbers) or that could be sensitive (such as medical records), the breach should be treated as more severe. If the data has been encrypted or anonymised, there is a lower risk of harm.
  • Considering the context of the breach. If there has been a deliberate hacking, rather than an inadvertent breach of security, then the consequences for the relevant individuals or organisations could be much more significant. This should inform how you respond to the breach.

Step 4: Notification

For serious data security breaches, proactive notification is generally the right strategy. A mandatory notification scheme has been proposed in Australia, with the government promising implementation by the end of 2015.

In any case, there are good reasons to consider voluntary notifications, which include:

  • Victims may be able to protect themselves, for example by changing passwords, cancelling credit cards and monitoring bank statements.

E-Bay was roundly criticised in 2014 for not acting quickly enough to notify users affected by a hacking attack, and only doing so by means of a website notice rather than by sending individual messages. Notices should be practical, suggesting steps that recipients can take to protect themselves.

  • The Privacy Commissioner may also be involved, particularly if personal information has been stolen. The Commissioner may take a more lenient approach to organisations that proactively address problems when they arise.
  • Other third parties may also need to be notified. For example, if financial information is compromised, you might notify relevant financial institutions so that they can watch for suspicious transactions.

Step 5: Action to prevent future breaches

Having addressed the immediate threat, prevention is the final step. While customers may understand an isolated failure, they are typically less forgiving of repeated mistakes. Carry out a thorough post-breach audit to determine whether your security practices can be improved.

This could include:

  • Engaging a data security consultant, which will give you a fresh perspective on your existing practices, and help to reassure customers and others that you do business with.
  • Promptly remedying any identified security flaws – changes should be reflected in data security policies and training documents (and if such documents don’t exist, create them.)
  • Rolling out training to relevant personnel to ensure that everyone is up to speed on the latest practices.
  • Reviewing arrangements with service providers to ensure that they are subject to appropriate data security obligations (and, if not already the case, make data security compliance a key criterion applied in the procurement process).

Written by Cheng Lim is a partner at global law firm King & Wood Mallesons. Cheng leads KWM’s Cyber-Resilience initiative and has assisted clients over many years in dealing with privacy, data security and data breaches. Originally produced for CIO Australia.

Guest blog: PCI audits and how to recognize a good QSA auditor and partner

Many organizations approach a PCI audit with fear and trepidation. There are a lot of stories out there about how difficult, expensive and disruptive a PCI audit can be, but I want to see if I can add some balance to this view. I believe that when it comes to a PCI auditor it matters a great deal who you are working with. We just completed a PCI audit of our Alliance Key Manager for VMware solution and it gave me a whole new perspective and attitude about the audit process. Our PCI work was conducted by Coalfire, a security company that provides PCI audit services as well as audit services for the health and financial communities. Most of my remarks will reflect on the great experience we had with Coalfire and some of the lessons we learned.

As is true of financial auditors, the QSA auditor has a duty to accurately assess the security of your IT systems to insure that they meet or exceed the PCI Data Security Standards (PCI DSS) as outlined by the PCI Security Standards Council (PCI SSC). They have a professional responsibility to tell you where you meet the PCI DSS standard, and where you fall short. That “falling short” part is the thing most people dread hearing about.

I would suggest that this is exactly where a good security audit can be very helpful. We need to know where our security is weak, and we need to know how to fix the problems. A good QSA auditor will be more than a gatekeeper for the PCI security standards – they will be a trusted advisor on how to get things right from a security perspective. That practical advice is exactly what we need to protect our sensitive data.

Finding problems and fixing them is less expensive than suffering a data breach and then scrambling to fix the problems.

Another often overlooked benefit of having a good QSA auditor is that you get a get a trusted advisor in the process. It is one thing to have an auditor point out the faults in your security strategy, it is another to find an auditor who can advise you on the security strategies and potential solutions that can help you. While there must be an arms-length relationship between an auditor and a solution provider, your QSA auditor should be able to point you to a number of solutions that can help you mitigate security weaknesses. An experienced auditor is going to help you navigate towards a good solution.

It is hard to quantify the benefit of this type of guidance, but I personally think it is invaluable.

The take-away is that you should set high expectations for the relationship you develop with your QSA auditor. You can walk away from the experience with checks in boxes, or you can meet PCI compliance AND achieve a credible security strategy and trusted advisor. I found the latter in my relationship with Coalfire.

Patrick Townsend

Townsend Security

Survey Shows Lack of Trust, Limited Visibility and Knowledge Gap between the Board and IT Security Professionals

There are significant gaps in cybersecurity knowledge, shared visibility and mutual trust between those who serve on organizations’ board of directors and IT security professionals. These gaps between those responsible for corporate and cyber governance and those responsible for the day-to-day defense against threats could have damaging impacts on organizations’ cybersecurity posture, leaving them more vulnerable to attack and breaches.

This data comes from a new survey, Defining the Gap: The Cybersecurity Governance Survey, conducted by the Ponemon Institute and commissioned by Fidelis Cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity is a critical issue for boards, but many members lack the necessary knowledge to properly address the challenges and are even unaware when breaches occur. Further widening the gap, IT security professionals lack confidence in the board’s understanding of the cyber risks their organizations face, leading to a breakdown of trust and communication between the two groups.

The survey asked more than 650 board members and IT security professionals (mainly CIOs, CTOs and CISOs) for their perspectives regarding board member knowledge and involvement in cybersecurity governance.

Key findings include:

Lack of Critical Cybersecurity Knowledge at the Top

76% of boards review or approve security strategy and incident response plans, but 41% of board members admitted they lacked expertise in cybersecurity. An additional 26% said they had minimal or no knowledge of cybersecurity, making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to understand whether the practices being discussed adequately address the unique risks faced by their organization. This renders their review of strategy and plans largely ineffective.

Limited Visibility into Breach Activity

59% of board members believe their organizations’ cybersecurity governance practices are very effective, while only 18% of IT security professionals believe the same. This large gap is likely the result of the board’s lack of information about threat activity. Although cybersecurity governance is on 65% of boards’ agendas, most members are remarkably unaware if their organizations had been breached in the recent past. Specifically, 54% of IT security professionals reported a breach involving the theft of high-value information such as intellectual property within the last two years, but only 23% of board members reported the same, with 18% unsure if their organizations were breached at all.

As the breadth and severity of breaches continues to escalate, cybersecurity has increasingly become a board level issue,” said Dr. Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute. “The data shows that board members are very aware of cybersecurity, but there is still a lot of uncertainty and confusion. Many lack knowledge not only about security issues and risks, but even about what has transpired within their own companies, which is shocking to me. Without an understanding of the issues, it’s impossible to reasonably evaluate if strategies and response plans are effectively addressing the problem

Absence of Trust Between Boards and IT Security Professionals

The board’s lack of knowledge has created a further divide. Nearly 60% of IT security professionals believe that the board does not understand the cybersecurity risks of the organization, compared to 70% of board members who believe that they do understand the risks.

The gap in knowledge and limited visibility into breach activity means board members don’t have the information they need to make smart cybersecurity governance decisions, and IT security professionals don’t have the support, monetary or otherwise, to maintain a strong security posture,” said retired Brig. Gen. Jim Jaeger, chief cyber services strategist at Fidelis. “Board members don’t need to be cyber experts, but they should have a thorough knowledge of the risks their organization faces and be able to provide the support needed for the security teams to protect against those risks

Additional Key Findings Include:

  • Target breach was a watershed moment. 65% of board members and 67% of IT security professionals reported that the Target data breach had a significant impact on the board’s involvement in cybersecurity governance, while previous high profile breaches were reported to have nominal or no impact.
  • The SEC will drive drastically increased board involvement. The Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) Guidelines requiring the disclosure of material security information had a significant impact in boards’ involvement, according to 46% of board members and 44% of IT security professionals. However, only 5% of board members and 2% of IT security professionals say they followed the SEC guidelines and disclosed a material security breach to shareholders. Moving forward, 72% of board members believe the SEC will make the guidelines a mandate, and 81% believe that this will increase the board’s involvement in cybersecurity governance.

Shadow Cloud Services 20 Times More Prevalent than Sanctioned Cloud

Skyhigh Networks released its new “Cloud Adoption & Risk in the Government Report.” The Q1 2015 report reveals that shadow IT is prevalent in government agencies.

The average public sector organization uses 742 cloud services, which is about 10-20 times more than IT departments expect. Despite the security initiatives in place, such as FedRAMP, FISMA, and FITARA, many government employees are unaware of agency rules and regulations or simply ignore them and use cloud services that drive collaboration and productivity.

As agencies grapple with how to manage shadow IT and securely enable sanctioned IT, they need visibility into the real usage and risk of cloud services as well as the ability to detect threats and seamlessly enforce security, compliance, and governance policies,” said Rajiv Gupta, CEO of Skyhigh Networks. “Skyhigh manages shadow IT and securely enables sanctioned IT, allowing public sector organizations to use hundreds of cloud services while providing robust data protection services, thereby meeting data privacy requirements and conforming to regulations

Despite clear benefits of cloud services Federal agencies are slow to migrate to the cloud due to security concerns. As a result, employees adopt cloud services on their own, creating shadow IT. Under FITARA, Federal CIOs must oversee sanctioned cloud services as well as shadow IT. This new requirement underscores the uncertainty about how employees are using cloud services within their agencies.

Understanding Shadow IT
The average public sector organization now uses 742 cloud services, which is about 10-20 times more than IT departments report. What agencies don’t know can hurt them. When asked about insider threats, just 7% of IT and IT security professionals at public sector organizations indicated their agency had experienced an insider threat. However, looking at actual anomaly data, Skyhigh Networks found that 82% of public sector organizations had behavior indicative of an insider threat.

Agencies cannot rely on the security controls offered by cloud providers alone. Analyzing more than 12,000 cloud services across more than 50 attributes of enterprise readiness developed with the Cloud Security Alliance, the report found that just 9.3% achieved the highest CloudTrust Rating of Enterprise Ready. Only 10% of cloud services encrypt data stored at rest, 15% support multi-factor authentication, and 6% have ISO 27001 certification. Skyhigh Networks helps Federal agencies address these security gaps and gain control over shadow IT by providing unparalleled visibility, comprehensive risk assessment, advanced usage and threat analytics, and seamless policy enforcement.

Password Insecurity
Compromised credentials can also mean disaster for Federal agencies. According to a study by Joseph Bonneau at the University of Cambridge, 31% of passwords are used in multiple places. This means that for 31% of compromised credentials, attackers can potentially gain access not only to all the data in that cloud service, but all the data in other cloud services as well. The average public sector employee uses more than 16 cloud services, and 37% of users upload sensitive data to cloud file sharing services. As a result, the impact of one compromised account can be immense.

The Skyhigh “Cloud Adoption & Risk in the Government Report” reveals that 96.2% of public sector organizations have users with compromised credentials and, at the average agency, 6.4% of employees have at least one compromised credential.

Cloud Services in the Public Sector
Most cloud services deployed in the public sector are collaboration tools. The average organization uses 120 distinct collaboration services, such as Microsoft Office 365, Gmail, and Cisco Webex. Other top cloud services are software development services, file sharing services, and content sharing services. The average employee uses 16.8 cloud services including 2.9 content sharing services, 2.8 collaboration service, 2.6 social media services, and 1.3 file sharing services. Shockingly, the average public sector employee’s online movements are monitored by 2.7 advertising and web analytics tracking services, the same services used by cyber criminals to inform watering hole attacks.

The report also reveals the top cloud services used in the public sector.

Top ten enterprise cloud services are:-
1. Microsoft Office 365
2. Yammer
3. Cisco WebEx
4. ServiceNow
5. SAP ERP
6. Salesforce
7. DocuSign
8. NetSuite
9. Oracle Taleo
10. SharePoint Online

Top ten consumer cloud services are:-
1. Twitter
2. Facebook
3. YouTube
4. Pinterest
5. LinkedIn
6. Reddit
7. Flickr
8. Instagram
9. StumbleUpon
10. Vimeo

The “Cloud Adoption & Risk in the Government Report” is based on data from 200,000 public sector employees in the United States and Canada.

Time to Identify Advanced Threats is 98 Days for Financial Services Firms and 197 Days for Retail

According to a Ponemon Institute Survey, sponsored by Arbor Networks, Financial Services and Retail organizations agree, advanced threats are the most serious security challenge facing their organizations. Despite the concern, both industries struggle to identify these attacks once they are inside their network.

Known as ‘dwell’ time, the time it takes to identify these attacks is

  • 98 days for Financial Services firms
  • 197 days for Retail

Despite these results, 58% of Financial Services and 71% of Retail organizations said they are not optimistic about their ability to improve these results in the coming year. This is alarming considering the number of attacks targeting their networks. Within Financial Services, 83% experienced more than 50 attacks per month, while 44% of Retail firms did.

The big takeaway from our research is that more investment is needed in both security operations staff and in security tools, which can help companies efficiently and accurately detect and respond to security incidents,” said Dr. Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder, Ponemon Institute. “The time to detect an advanced threat is far too long; attackers are getting in and staying long enough that the damage caused is often irreparable

It’s time to find a better balance between technology solutions, usability, workflow and the people who use them. As security vendors, we need to help our customers so they can adapt to this new cyber security reality that balances the threats with the people who fight them every day,” said Matthew Moynahan, president of Arbor Networks.

In the wake of high profile mega breaches, the Ponemon Institute surveyed Financial Services and Retail firms in North America and Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) to better understand how they are dealing with attacks targeting their organizations. The survey asked how these organizations manage the explosion in advanced threats and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks targeting their infrastructure; how effective (or not) their IT investments are; and how they are adapting incident response procedures and integrating threat intelligence for better visibility, insight and context.

Key Findings Among Financial Services Firms

Advanced Threats

  • 71% view technologies that provide intelligence about networks and traffic as most promising at stopping or minimizing advance threats during the seven phases of the Kill Chain
  • 45% have implemented incident response procedures
  • 43% have established threat sharing with other companies or government entities

DDoS Attacks

  • 55% consider DDoS attacks as an advanced threat
  • 48% ‘Strongly Agree’ or ‘Agree’ that they are effective in containing DDoS attacks
  • 45% have established threat sharing with other companies or government entities to minimize or contain the impact of DDoS attacks

Budgets & Staffing. Budgets are allocated

  • 40% towards Technology
  • 37% to Staffing
  • 20% to Managed Services

Key Findings Among Retail Firms

Advanced Threats

  • 64% view technologies that provide intelligence about networks and traffic as most promising at stopping or minimizing advance threats during the seven phases of the Kill Chain
  • 34% have implemented incident response procedures
  • 17% have established threat sharing with other companies or government entities

DDoS Attacks

  • 50% consider DDoS attacks as an advanced threat
  • 39% firms ‘Strongly Agree’ or ‘Agree’ that they are effective in containing DDoS attacks
  • 13% have established threat sharing with other companies or government entities to minimize or contain the impact of DDoS attacks

Budgets & Staffing. Budgets are allocated

  • 34% towards Technology
  • 27% to Staffing
  • 34% to Managed Services

Congratulations to the new board members of the PCI Standards Council

The new members to the board are from:-

  • Amazon.com
  • Barclaycard
  • British Airways PLC
  • Carlson Wagonlit Travel
  • Cartes Bancaires
  • Chase Paymentech Solutions
  • Cielo S.A.
  • Cisco
  • Citigroup Inc.
  • Elavon Merchant Services
  • European Payment Council AISBL
  • European Payment Service Providers for Merchants (EPSM)
  • First Bank of Nigeria
  • Global Payments Direct Inc.
  • HP
  • Ingenico
  • Middle East Payment Services (MEPS)
  • PayPal Inc
  • Retail Solutions Providers Assn. (RSPA)
  • RSA
  • Square, Inc.
  • Starbucks
  • VeriFone Inc
  • Wal-Mart Stores Inc
  • Wells Fargo
  • WorldPay

Among many duties, Board of Advisor members provide directional and technical input on matters of focus vital for maintaining the security standards that protect digital purchasing and payments. Areas of importance include new cybercrime tactics, public-private-law enforcement information sharing, app development and merchant needs in developing economies. New board members are already contributing to the PCI security community through other volunteer opportunities as Participating Organizations. The PCI Council welcomes any person or organization to join in the fight against cybercrime by volunteering as a Participating Organization.

PCI SSC General Manager Stephen W. Orfei said

Cybercrime is standing in the way of economic growth for all businesses, including start-ups in the developing world and multinationals. Criminal networks are well funded and highly motivated to steal our hard-earned money and our personal information. At the Council we are grateful to have some of the best economic and security minds in the world joining the board to help tackle the challenge that cybercriminals present

PCI SSC International Director Jeremy King, said

The simple act of accepting a single credit card payment, an online payment or a mobile payment can send money and data bouncing around the world to dozens of places. And on every device, computer and network there are new methods thieves are creating to steal from us. Fighting a threat like that takes the cooperation of all 700 PCI Participating Organizations. PCI is fortunate to have new board members from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America charting the path for payment security. Past board members from around the world have been a massive help to the community, helping us keep ahead of new risks. We look forward to working with the new board in the same capacity

What’s Keeping Higher Education CIOs up at Night?

whats-keeping-higher-education-cios-up-at-night-1-638

Higher Education CIO survey conducted by Extreme Networks.

PCI Council collaborates with industry to speed secure chip card acceptance for merchants

The PCI Security Standards Council has announced that it will join with the Payments Security Taskforce and EMV Migration Forum to launch the U.S. EMV VAR Qualification Program, a chip education curriculum and accreditation initiative that will help merchants and their partners securely implement chip card solutions.

The U.S. EMV VAR Qualification Program aims to streamline and simplify the testing and certification process for Value Added Resellers (VARs) and Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) to help them help securely implement chip card solutions for their merchant customers in advance of the 2015 liability milestone.

The optional program consists of three central elements:

  1. An educational curriculum from the EMV Migration Forum that provides a clear understanding of chip technology for payment cards in the U.S. market
  2. A listing on the PCI Security Standards Council website of all service providers independently accredited by the major payment networks to provide chip recommendations and implementation
  3. A pre-qualification process run by the accredited service providers to help VARs and ISVs begin the implementation process before they work with acquirers for final certification

We heard from the acquirer community that there was a limitation on the time and resources available to help the VAR community best prepare for the broad adoption of chip,” said PCI SSC Chairperson Bruce Rutherford. “This coordinated effort across all industry players will help eliminate the bottleneck and speed the certification of smaller merchants’ chip card acceptance efforts.

Added PCI SSC General Manager Stephen W. Orfei, “We’re pleased to partner with the Payment Security Taskforce and the EMV Migration Forum in this important initiative to drive adoption of EMV chip technology in the U.S., a critical security layer that when combined with PCI Standards as a layered approach will help organizations better protect their customers’ valuable payment card data

The coordinated effort will begin with the launch of educational resources for the VAR and ISV communities to establish an understanding of chip technology, including targeted webinars and self-service web portals on how to build a business case for chip, an overview of a chip card transaction and how to navigate the testing and certification process.

Each VAR will then have the ability to pre-qualify its payment solution for each of the major payment networks with an accredited service provider based on its knowledge of chip technology, and work with its acquirer to receive a final certification of the solutions a merchant would need to use to process a chip card transaction.

Details of the education programme can be found here.

Details of the pre-qualification process can be found here.

infograph-path-cyberattacker

Cloud usage is extending the perimeter of most organisations

CloudLock have produced an interesting report on how the use of the cloud and apps has extending the perimeter of most organisations.

CloudLock Executive Summary

The adoption of public cloud applications continues to accelerate for both organizations and individuals at an exponential rate, evidenced across the massive growth in the volume of accounts, files, collaboration, and connected third-party cloud applications.

The rapid surge of accounts, files, and applications presents increased risk in the form of an extended data perimeter. The adoption of cloud applications has significantly increased the threat surface for cyber attacks. Faced with this massive growth and the elevated risk, security professionals are looking to enable their organizations to embrace and leverage the benefits of cloud technologies while remaining secure and compliant.

Sensitive data is moving to the cloud, beyond the protection of your perimeter controls. As this occurs ,the amount of data, and, most importantly, the amount of sensitive or ‘toxic’ data the enterprise stores in these Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) and Infrastructure-as-a-Service (laaS) platforms is increasing by the day – and regardless of its locations, S&R pros still need to protect it effectively.” Forrester Research (2015, March) Market Overview: Cloud Data Protection Solutions

Cloudlock key findingsOther findings

  • 100,000 files per organization that represent risk. Number of files per organization stored in public cloud applications that violate corporate data security policy, amplifying the danger of exposing sensitive information.
  • 4,000 files per organization contain passwords. Number of files per organization stored in public cloud applications containing credentials to corporate systems, inviting cybercriminals to hijack corporate SaaS environments.
  • 1 in 4 employees violating security policies. Number of employees that violate corporate data security policy in public cloud applications, opening organizations to risk of data breach and compliance concerns.
  • 45,000 third-party apps installs conducted by privileged users. Third-party cloud applications with access to privileged users accounts significantly elevates organizational risk.
  • 12% of an organizations files are sensitive/Violate a policy
  • 65% of Security Teams Care about what type of sensitive data is exposes
  • 35% care about how/where it is exposed
  • 70% of corporate cloud based external collaboration occurs with non-corporate entities
  • 77,000 Third Party cloud Apps that touch corporate systems
  • 4x increase in the number of third-party applications enabled per organization, from 130 to 475. The total number of unique third-party cloud apps ballooned to 77,000, amounting to 2.5 million installs
  • 2% growth in third-party SaaS application installations performed by privileged users (administrators and super admins)

Information that organizations worry about most includes:

  • 59% Intellectual Property and Confidential Information
  • 19% PCI DSS data
  • 13% PII data e.g. social security numbers
  • 5% Objectionable content for CIPA compliance- e.g. curse words, harassment
  • 4% PHI/healthcare related data such as medical conditions, prescription drug terminology, patient identification numbers or Compliance

CloudLock Methodology

Cloudlock bases findings on anonymized usage data over 2014 and 2015

  • 77,500+ Apps
  • 750Million Files
  • 6 Million Users

The full report can be found here.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: