Consumer data privacy is no longer a necessary evil but a competitive differentiator for any company participating in the global economy. The EU’s GDPR represents the world’s most comprehensive regulation for privacy best practices, holding companies to stringent standards for data collection, storage and use. US national privacy law Many countries have followed suit in recent years by adopting similarly aggressive privacy laws that reflect a greater dedication to data protection. In stark contrast, the … More
Eagle Eye Networks shared the trends that will have the biggest impact on video surveillance, security, and use of analytics to drive business intelligence and improvement in 2021. Customers are asking for cloud The shift to the benefits of cloud in the video surveillance space are powerful and undeniable, including major cost savings, heightened data security, remote access and maintenance, flexible storage and retention, scalability, increased stability, and disaster recovery. Analytics and AI turn security … More
In this article I’ll consider next year’s data security landscape with a focus on the two key issues you need to have on your planning agenda. Of course, how the pandemic plays out will have a huge say on tactical questions ranging from budget to manpower to project priorities – but these long-term strategic trends will impact IT organizations well beyond 2021. The “bring your own” genie will leave the bottle Over the last decade, … More
The post The need for zero trust security a certainty for an uncertain 2021 appeared first on Help Net Security.
The biggest security concerns facing businesses are data leaking through endpoints (27%), loss of visibility of user activity (25%) and maintaining compliance with regulatory requirements (24%), DTEX Systems reveals. These concerns are followed by access from outside the perimeter (23%) and remote access to core business apps (18%) such as email and collaboration. Few companies prepared to secure and support a shift to remote work The report also found that only 30% of companies surveyed … More
The post Only 30% prepared to secure a complete shift to remote work appeared first on Help Net Security.
More than 45 million medical images – including X-rays and CT scans – are left exposed on unprotected servers, a CybelAngel report reveals.
The analysts discovered millions of sensitive images, including personal healthcare information (PHI), were available unencrypted and without password protection.
No need for a username or password
The analysts found that openly available medical images, including up to 200 lines of metadata per record which included PII (personally identifiable information; name, birth date, address, etc.) and PHI (height, weight, diagnosis, etc.), could be accessed without the need for a username or password. In some instances login portals accepted blank usernames and passwords.
“The fact that we did not use any hacking tools throughout our research highlights the ease with which we were able to discover and access these files,” says David Sygula, Senior Cybersecurity Analyst at CybelAngel.
“This is a concerning discovery and proves that more stringent security processes must be put in place to protect how sensitive medical data is shared and stored by healthcare professionals. A balance between security and accessibility is imperative to prevent leaks from becoming a major data breach.”
Todd Carroll, CybelAngel CISO further commented, “Medical centers work with a vast, interconnected web of third-party providers and the cloud is an essential platform for sharing and storing data. However, gaps in security, such as this, present a huge risk, both for the individuals whose data is compromised and the healthcare institutions that are governed by regulations to protect patients’ data.
“The health sector has faced unprecedented challenges this year, however the security and privacy of their patients’ most personal records must be protected, to prevent highly confidential data falling into the wrong hands.”
Security risks of publicly accessible images
The report highlights the security risks of publicly accessible images containing highly personal information including ransomware and blackmail. Fraud is a particular risk, as this type of imagery fetches a premium on the dark web.
Simple steps that healthcare facilities can take to safeguard the way they share and store data including to:
- Determine if pandemic response exceeds your security policies: Ad hoc NAS devices, file-sharing apps and contractors may take data beyond your ability to enforce access controls.
- Ensure proper network segmentation of connected medical imaging equipment: Minimize any exposure critical diagnostic equipment and supporting systems have to wider business or public networks.
- Conduct real-world audit of third-party partners: Assess which parties may be unmanaged or not in compliance with required policies and protocols.
Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Van Buren vs. United States, the landmark case over the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Nathan Van Buren, the petitioner in the case, is a former police officer in Georgia who used his lawful access to a police license plate database to look someone up in exchange for money. Van Buren was indicted and convicted of violating the CFAA for using his legal access to the database in a way it was not intended.
The fundamental question presented to the Supreme Court is whether someone who has authorized access to a computer violates federal law if he or she accesses the same information in an unauthorized way. While the question may seem trivial, this is a welcome and long overdue court case that could have a major impact on security researchers, consumers, and corporations alike.
Intended as the United States’ first anti-hacking law, the CFAA was enacted almost thirty-five years ago, long before lawyers and technologists had any sense of how the Internet would proliferate and evolve. In fact, the Act is outdated enough that it specifically excludes typewriters and portable hand-held calculators as a type of computer.
Since its inception, it has been robustly applied for basic terms and services breaches, like the infamous case of Aaron Swartz downloading articles from the digital library JSTOR, to indicting nation-state hackers and extraditing Julian Assange.
The core of the problem lies in the vague, perhaps even draconian, description of “unauthorized” computer use. While the law has been amended several times, including to clarify the definition of a protected computer, the ambiguity of unauthorized access puts the average consumer at risk of breaking federal law. According to the Ninth Circuit, you could potentially be committing a felony by sharing subscription passwords.
The stakes are particularly high for security researchers who identify vulnerabilities for companies without safe harbor or bug bounty programs. White-hat hackers, who act in good faith to report vulnerabilities to a company before it is breached, face the same legal risks as cybercriminals who actively exploit and profit from those vulnerabilities. Say, for example, that a security researcher has identified a significant vulnerability in the pacemaker that a healthcare company produces. If the healthcare company hasn’t published a safe harbor agreement, that security researcher could face up to ten years in prison for reporting a vulnerability that could potentially save someone’s life.
On the less drastic side, security researchers who work with companies to protect their systems face legal risk in their day-to-day activities. During a penetration test, for example, a client will list assets that are “in scope” for testing, as well as state what tests are prohibited (e.g., any action that causes a denial of service and crashes a server). A penetration tester could face legal liability and prison time for inadvertently testing the wrong asset that is “out of scope”—or accidentally executing a test that breaches authorized use. Arguably, engineers could face the same legal liability if they access the wrong database or push the wrong code.
On one hand, the broad and ambiguous language of the CFAA provides robust legal protection for companies and facilitates federal resources, like the FBI, if a significant breach occurs. Some companies have argued that narrowing the scope of the CFAA would not be damaging to security programs if companies are already contracting security services, including crowdsourced programs like bug bounty. One company received pushback from the information security community when it accused MIT security researchers of acting in “bad faith” by identifying vulnerabilities in its mobile app. Some companies have argued that the difficulty of attribution, meaning the ability to accurately identify a threat actor, makes it difficult to distinguish good actors from cybercriminals.
Yet the CFAA is a reactive measure that would be enforced following an incident. Companies should ideally be focused on preventative measures to protect against a breach before it occurs. It is arguably to the detriment of companies like Voatz, which serves the public through its voting app, that the CFAA is so broad, since security researchers may choose not to investigate or report vulnerabilities due to the possibility that they could be reported to the FBI. While attribution can be incredibly difficult, good faith security researchers will always identify themselves when they report a vulnerability. Unlike malicious actors, who will exploit vulnerabilities for their own gain, security researchers act to increase the security posture of a company and protect citizens from harm.
All companies should use security services, like penetration testing, bug bounty programs, and safe harbor, to quickly identify and triage vulnerabilities. However, security researchers all have different methods for testing and may not be able to cover all of the assets that a company owns. For example, an ethical hacker may be focused on exploiting a SQL injection in a database, he or she may miss exposed credentials on the Internet that allow access into a protected server. With the rapid pace of DevSecOps, engineers could be pushing changes a dozen times—or more—in a single day.
Revolutionary changes in the structure and pace of the Internet and the software that fuels it means that ad-hoc or occasional security testing is not enough to protect against vulnerabilities. We need the full force of security researchers, and all companies should encourage and protect their work.
Should the Supreme Court affirm van Buren’s conviction, the legal landscape will remain largely the same. Security researchers and consumers alike will face liability despite acting in good faith, and the federal government will continue to exercise broad power over trivial and ambiguous breaches of authorized computer use.
Yet the Supreme Court now has the opportunity to limit the scope of the CFAA and restrict what the federal government can prosecute. Doing so will enhance the security of the Internet, protect security researchers, and limit the legal liability of daily Internet users who clicked through terms of services without reading them.
A lot has changed since the CFAA was first enacted in 1984. While the Supreme Court’s decision could drastically change the information security landscape, it is still not enough. As we’ve seen with the Internet of Things bill that was recently passed through the House, the United States needs modern legislation to secure the rapidly changing technology of the twenty-first century.
In short, security researchers who act in good faith are exposing themselves to huge legal risk because of the broad interpretation of CFAA. This is to the detriment of anyone who values the protection of their information. We are in dire need of reform in the United States, but in the meantime, there is hope that the Supreme Court will narrow the scope of the CFAA to protect consumers and security researchers alike.
One of the most notable ballot propositions impacting the privacy and cybersecurity world during the US 2020 election was the passage of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA).
Predominantly considered an updated version of 2018’s California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the CPRA incorporates several changes other than the highly touted establishment of the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA).
Not only does the CPRA incorporate several changes that might place a burden on small retailers, it also focuses more specifically on cybersecurity, hinting at the future of privacy and security legislation.
What new duties does the CPRA impose?
The new iteration of the California law specifically incorporates data security and integrity requirements in several places. The changes filter across CPRA’s fifty-three pages. When brought together, they show a shift towards making the CPRA a hybrid privacy-security regulation.
The first mention occurs in section 100, which requires that businesses collecting personal information “shall implement reasonable security procedures and practices.” This new language highlights the deeply intertwined relationship between security and privacy. The CCPA hinted at security controls, but the CPRA outright requires them.
This new mandate aligns with the following addition of “security and integrity” in the definitions section:
- the ability: (1) of a network or an information system to detect security incidents that compromise the availability, authenticity, integrity, and confidentiality of stored or transmitted personal information; (2) to detect security incidents, resist malicious, deceptive, fraudulent, or illegal actions, and to help prosecute those responsible for such actions; and (3) a business to ensure the physical safety of natural persons.
This definition reinforces proactive cybersecurity monitoring and threat detection as important to ensuring privacy. Specifically, the “to help prosecute those responsible” indicates that organizations who must comply with CPRA need to have appropriate forensic documentation that will give them the ability to work with law enforcement.
How does the CPRA change the definition of data collection?
From a purely academic position, the new definitions of consent, dark patterns, and cross-context behavioral advertising indicate that the CPRA looks to the future of data collection technologies.
The definition of consent specifically states:
- acceptance of a general or broad term of use or similar document that contains descriptions of personal information processing along with other, unrelated information, does not constitute consent. Hovering over, muting, pausing, or closing a given piece of content does not constitute consent. Likewise, agreement obtained through use of dark patterns does not constitute consent.
Both of these notifications could be considered broad terms and conditions. Additionally, both contain personal information processing along with “other, unrelated information” such as the marketing assets the user wants to download.
However, the CPRA goes further in the definitions section to include marketing technologies that gather user intent data. Many websites use “heatmaps” that collect information on where users click, what videos they watch or pause, and what areas they hover over. For example, tools such as Decibel and Hotjar are behavior analytics tools that give insight into what content users click through to, whether they get distracted by non-clickable elements, and whether they respond to opt-ins. The CPRA’s language indicates that businesses will need to obtain consent before collecting this information.
The CPRA goes yet another step further, defining “dark patterns” as “a user interface designed or manipulated with the substantial effect of subverting or impairing user autonomy, decision-making, or choice, as further defined by the regulation.” Dark patterns are marketing ploys that try to leverage users’ emotions against them, such as email request boxes with buttons that say, “No thanks, I don’t want a discount today.” Under the CPRA, these would be considered non-compliant tactics.
Finally, the CPRA covers all its privacy bases by including the following definition of cross-context behavioral advertising:
- targeting of advertising to a consumer based on the consumer’s personal information obtained from the consumer’s activity across businesses, distinctly-branded websites, applications, or services, other than the business, distinctly-branded website, application, or service with which the consumer intentionally interacts.
In other words, if a consumer looks to buy something from the Gap, the Gap cannot use that information to target advertising for the Banana Republic’s clothing.
Consumer businesses will need to specifically delineate their consumer data collection repositories and be more proactive about the way in which they position their digital marketing strategies.
How the CPRA impacts the data supply chain
CPRA also tackles the data supply chain, giving specific directions on what and how service providers and contractors fit into the privacy puzzle. Sections 105, 121, and 130 all reference these third-party data organizations that, when aggregated, create a series of contractual requirements across the data supply chain.
First, under Section 105, “Consumers’ Right to Delete Personal Information,” the CPRA clarifies that service providers are only beholden to business with whom they contracted, not consumers. Second, the clause creates a waterfall approach for deleting personal data. Businesses need to tell their service providers and contractors who in turn need to contact their service providers and contractors. Presumably, this waterfall continues down the data supply stream until no more additional contracted parties remain.
Second, CPRA established section 121, a new provision not in the CCPA. This section gives consumers the right to limit how businesses use their data and requires businesses to push those limitations downstream as well. Fundamentally, this provision means that consumers can now create accounts for services, such as purchasing through a business owned application, but limit the way that data is used to that single case.
Finally, under section 130, the CPRA clarifies service provider and contractor responsibilities focusing on contractual obligations. Service providers and contractors need to respond only to requests as provided by the businesses with whom they contract. This section reinforces the distance between consumers and a business’s service providers and contractors.
What can we hypothesize about the direction CPRA takes data privacy and security?
Fundamentally, CPRA gives a lot of insight into the way that data security and privacy increasingly intertwine. The CPRA no longer hints at the interconnection but specifically speaks to data security best practices. It additionally goes further than other regulations by requiring businesses to provide data security event information that helps track cybercriminals after an incident occurs.
More importantly, CPRA’s clarifications create a morass of requirements that make data retrieval difficult. These requirements enforce data minimization by placing undue burdens on businesses and the data supply chain when responding to consumer requests. For example, Section 130(3)(B)(ii) now requires businesses to provide consumers, upon request, with “the specific pieces of personal information obtained.”
Originally, under CCPA, businesses needed to share the categories of information. By requiring them to supply the specific pieces of personal information, businesses that need to respond to consumers now need to think more carefully about the data they collect. If the “pieces of data” collected come from website heatmaps, then businesses need to be able to segregate that data out if a consumer requests it.
In short, many of these new requirements force businesses to think more carefully about the information they collect. If a business needs to furnish data upon customer request, it needs to know the specific pieces of information it collects, not just the categories. Since this will increase the operational costs associated with responding to these requests, the CPRA fundamentally gives businesses two options. Collect all the data but pay the operational costs when responding to consumer requests or limit data collection as much as possible to reduce the operational costs of responding to consumer requests.
By January 2020, at least three states had prepared new privacy legislation based on the CCPA. As data privacy and security professionals look to the future of privacy regulations, the CPRA creates new fundamental requirements that states, and the US federal government may use to strengthen consumer data rights.
26% of remote workers have experienced a cyber attack personally, while 45% of employers have asked their employees to use their personal devices for work since the start of the pandemic, according to a Microsoft research.
The study surveyed 500 employees and 200 business decision makers in September 2020 about remote working, digital security behaviours, and the worries they now face.
The accelerated transition to homeworking is placing pressure on organizations to support the unavoidable blending of personal and professional lives more than ever before.
However, this naturally creates new risks, including the increased risk of cyber attacks. This was reflected in the research which showed that only 17% of remote workers currently believe that the software and technology provided has done enough to protect their data.
This could be in some way due to the pace at which employers had to transition to remote working environments, with 36% of employers admitting they have spent the past few months putting in place the security, privacy, and workplace procedures required for today’s remote working world.
Remote workers’ information protection concerns
76% of workers were surprised with how well they had adapted to remote working. However, one in five employees feel their data is more vulnerable when working from home due to the absence of regular IT supports.
The research points to some potentially dangerous cybersecurity issues amongst remote workers:
- Personal emails: 30% of workers still use personal email accounts to share confidential work materials.
- Poor password hygiene: One third of workers use the same password to log into work and personal devices.
- Unregulated access: 43% face/navigate no security restrictions when accessing work-related documents and materials remotely.
Employers’ security management concerns
One of the most concerning findings is that organizations are potentially side-stepping their own security procedures in the name of expediency:
- Reactive approach: One third of employers acknowledge they are exposed since they had to make remote-working decisions and transitions so quickly.
- Lack of devices: 45% of employers have had to ask their employees to use their personal devices for work purposes since the start of the pandemic.
- No remote BYOD policies: 42% of employers are yet to secure those remote employee’s personal devices.
Furthermore, 41% of employers acknowledge it has become increasingly difficult to remain GDPR compliant because of the pandemic.
The report identified an escalation in both the level and sophistication of attacks. For example:
- Over 13bn malicious and suspicious mails were blocked, out of which more than 1bn were URLs set up for the explicit purpose of phishing credential attacks in 2019.
- Ransomware is the most common reason behind Microsoft’s incident response engagements from October 2019 through July 2020.
- The most common attack techniques used by nation-state actors in the past year are reconnaissance, credential harvesting, malware, and VPN exploits.
- IoT threats are constantly expanding and evolving. The first half of 2020 saw an approximate 35% increase in total attack volume compared to the second half of 2019.
Des Ryan, Solutions Director for Microsoft Ireland, said: “Cyber hackers are opportunistic, skilled, and relentless. They have become adept at evolving their techniques to increase success rates, whether by experimenting with different phishing lures, adjusting the types of attacks they execute or finding new ways to hide their work.
“While our physical work locations may have changed, our responsibilities in protecting organizational data and complying to data regulations have not. Now is the time to address this with an increased investment in cybersecurity, secure devices, tighter policies, increased support, and education for employees so they can play an important role in not only protecting themselves but also their organizations.”
Cloud-based services and hybrid working
When asked about the future, 58% believe they will have a hybrid workforce in future as more staff work from home more of the time and others are in the office.
57% felt more positive about using cloud-based services, including productivity tools.
Remote priorities: Training, support and investment
However, the research shows that Irish organizations understand there is a gap with 41% admitting they are behind the curve when it comes to having the right digital services and technologies in place to deal with new working realities.
As a result of the move to remote working, employers are focused on investment in digital security. The research found:
- 38% of organizations have already increased the level and detail of cybersecurity training for staff who are working from home.
- A further 52% will prioritise investing in training in 2021.
- 44% of workers would also welcome alternatives to passwords, with biometric verification (fingerprint or facial recognition) being the most popular options.
Designed to ensure that all companies securely transmit, store or process payment card data correctly, compliance to the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) serves a critical purpose.
Failure to comply increases the risk of a data breach, which can lead to potential losses of revenue, customers, brand reputation and customer trust. Despite this risk, the 2020 Verizon Payment Security Report found that only 27.9% of global organizations maintained full PCI DSS compliance in 2019, marking the third straight year that PCI DSS compliance has declined.
In addition to the continued decline in compliance, the current iteration of PCI DSS (3.2.1) is expected to be replaced by PCI DSS 4.0 in mid-2021, with an extended transition period.
But as we enter the busiest shopping season of the year, in the midst of a global pandemic that has upended business practices, organizations cannot risk ignoring compliance to the existing PCI DSS 3.2.1 standard. Failure to achieve and maintain compliance creates gaps in securing sensitive cardholder data, making easy targets for cyber criminals. And with the holiday season historically known for rises in cyber-attacks, organizations that fail to stay focused on compliance will represent the highest risk amongst any organization that handles card data.
So, what do organizations need to know about PCI DSS 4.0 and how can they proactively prepare for this update?
Rising risks and what’s new
The financial services industry has always been a prime target for hackers and malicious actors. Last year alone, the Federal Trade Commission received over 271,000 reports of credit card fraud in the United States. As consumers continue to prefer online payments and debit and credit card transactions, the prevalence of card fraud will continue to rise.
The core principle of the PCI DSS is to protect cardholder data, and with PCI DSS 4.0, it will continue to serve as the critical foundation for securing payment card data. As the industry leader in payment card security, the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council (PCI SSC) will continue evaluating how to evolve the standard to accommodate changes in technology, risk mitigation techniques, and the threat landscape.
Additionally, the PCI SSC is looking at ways to introduce greater flexibility to payment card security and compliance, in order to support organizations using a broad range of controls and methods to meet security objectives.
Overall, PCI DSS 4.0 will set out to:
- Ensure PCI DSS continues to meet the security needs of the payments industry
- Add flexibility and support of additional methodologies to achieve security
- Promote security as a continuous process
- Enhance validation methods and procedures
As consumers and organizations continue to interact and conduct more business online, the need for enforcement of the PCI DSS regulations will continue to become apparent.
Consumers are sharing Personally Identifiable Information (PII) with every transaction, and as that information is shared across networks, consumers require organizations to provide assurance that they are handling such data in a secure manner.
Once implemented, PCI DSS 4.0 will place a greater emphasis on security as a continuous process with the goal of promoting fluid data management practices that integrate with an organization’s overall security and compliance posture.
While PCI DSS 4.0 continues to undergo industry consultation prior to its final release, potential changes for organizations to keep in mind include:
- Authentication, specific consideration for the NIST MFA/password guidance
- Broader applicability for encrypting cardholder data on trusted networks
- Monitoring requirements to consider technology advancement
- Greater frequency of testing of critical controls – for example, incorporating some requirements from the Designated Entities Supplemental Validation (PCI DSS Appendix A3) into regular PCI DSS requirements
The second request for comment (RFC) period is still ongoing, it is expected that PCI DSS 4.0 will become available in mid-2021. To accommodate the budgetary and organizational changes necessary to achieve compliance, an extended transition period of 18 months and an enforcement date will be set by the PCI SSC after PCI DSS 4.0 has been published.
Making good use of this time will be critical, so organizations should develop a thorough implementation plan that updates reporting templates and forms, and any ongoing monitoring and recurring compliance validation to meet the updated requirements.
Tips for achieving PCI DSS compliance
The best piece of advice is to first ensure full compliance with the current version of the standard. This will ensure a solid baseline to work from when planning for future updates to PCI DSS. When the regulation takes effect in 2021, organizations can begin internal assessment and preparation of their network for any new requirements.
PCI DSS is already known as being one of the most detailed and prescriptive data security standards to date, and version 4.0 is expected to be even more comprehensive than its predecessor.
With millions of transactions occurring each day, organizations are already collecting, sharing and storing massive amounts of consumer data that they must protect. Even for organizations currently in compliance with PCI DSS 3.2.1, it is critical to establish a holistic view of their data management strategies to assess potential lapses, gaps and threats. To achieve this holistic view and ensure readiness for version 4.0, organizations should take the following steps:
- Conduct a data discovery sweep – By conducting a thorough data discovery sweep of all data storage across the entire network, organizations can eliminate assumptions from their data management practices. Data discovery provides organizations with greater visibility in the strengths and vulnerabilities of the network as well as a better sense of how PII flows through all repositories including structured data, unstructured data, on premise storage and cloud storage, to ensure proper data management techniques.
- Enact strategies that promote smart data decisions – Once an organization understands how data flows through its environment and where it’s located, they can use these fact-based insights to enact policies and strategies that prioritize data privacy. Data privacy depends on employees, so organizations must take the time to educate employees on the role they play in organizational security. This includes training and continued network data audits to ensure no customer data slips through the cracks or is forgotten.
- Appoint a leader to drive compliance – With the average organization already adhering to 13 different compliance regulations, compliance can be overwhelming. Organizations should look to appoint a security compliance officer or internal lead to oversee ongoing compliance initiatives. This person should seek to become an expert in PCI DSS, generally including progress towards 4.0 and all other forms of compliance. Furthermore, they can become the go-to person on ensuring proper data management practices.
It’s been nearly 15 years since PCI DSS was first released, and since then, consumers and businesses have substantially increased the amount of transactions and business activities conducted online using payment cards. For this reason, the importance of the PCI DSS remains just as critical for securing data as it ever was.
The organizations that leverage the PCI DSS as a baseline to achieve ongoing awareness on the security of their data and look for proactive ways to secure their networks will be the most successful moving forward, gaining consumer and employee trust through their compliance actions.
To stay connected with patients, healthcare providers are turning to telehealth services. In fact, 34.5 million telehealth services were delivered from March through June, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The shift to remote healthcare has also impacted the roll out of new regulations that would give patients secure and free access to their health data.
The shift to online services shines a light on a major cybersecurity issue within all industries (but especially healthcare where people have zero control over their data): consent.
Hand over data control
Data transparency allows people to know what personal data has been collected, what data an organization wants to collect and how it will be used. Data control provides the end-user with choice and authority over what is collected and even where it is shared. Together the two lead to a competitive edge, as 85% of consumers say they will take their business elsewhere if they do not trust how a company is handling their data.
Regulations such as the GDPR and the CCPA have been enacted to hold companies accountable unlike ever before – providing greater protection, transparency and control to consumers over their personal data.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) regulation, which is set to go into effect in early 2021, would provide interoperability, allowing patients to access, share and manage their healthcare data as they do their financial data. Healthcare organizations must provide people with control over their data and where it goes, which in turn strengthens trust.
How to earn patients’ trust
Organizations must improve their ability to earn patients’ confidence and trust by putting comprehensive identity and access management (IAM) systems in place. Such systems need to offer the ability to manage privacy settings, account for data download and deletion, and enable data sharing with not just third-party apps but also other people, such as additional care providers and family members.
The right digital identity solution should empower the orchestration of user identity journeys, such as registration and authentication, in a convenient way that unifies configuring security and user experience choices.
It should also enable the healthcare organization to protect patients’ personal data while offering their end-users a unified means of control of their data consents and permissions. Below are the four key steps companies should take to earn trust when users hand over data control:
- Identify where digital transformation opportunities and user trust risks intersect. Since users are becoming more skeptical, organizations must analyze “trust gaps” while they are discovering clever new ways to leverage personal data.
- Consider personal data as a joint asset. It’s easy for a company to say consumers own their own personal data, but business leaders have incentives to leverage that data for the value it brings to their business. This changes the equation. All the stakeholders within an organization need to come together and view data as a joint asset in which all parties, including end-users, have a stake.
- Lean into consent. Given the realities of regulations, a business often has a choice to offer consent to end-users rather than just collecting and using data. Seek to offer the option – it provides benefits when building trust with skeptical consumers, as well as when proving your right to use that data.
- Take advantage of consumer identity and access management (CIAM) for building trust. Identity management platforms automate and provide visibility into the entire customer journey across many different applications and channels. They also allow end-users to retain the controls to manage their own profiles, passwords, privacy settings and personal data.
Providing data transparency and data control to the end-user enhances the relationship between business and consumer. Organizations can achieve this trust with consumers in a comprehensive fashion by applying consumer identity and access management that scales across all of their applications. To see these benefits before regulations like the HHS regulations go into effect, organizations need to act now.
The race is on to build the world’s first reliable and truly useful quantum computer, and the finish line is closer than you might think – we might even reach it this decade. It’s an exciting prospect, particularly as these super-powerful machines offer huge potential to almost every industry, from drug development to electric-vehicle battery design.
But quantum computers also pose a big security problem. With exponentially higher processing power, they will be able to smash through the public-key encryption standards widely relied on today, threatening the security of all digital information and communication.
While it’s tempting to brush it under the carpet as “tomorrow’s problem”, the reality of the situation is much more urgent. That’s because quantum computers don’t just pose a threat to tomorrow’s sensitive information: they’ll be able to decrypt data that has been encrypted in the past, that’s being encrypted in the present, and that will be encrypted in the future (if quantum-resistant algorithms are not used).
It’s why the NSA warned, as early as 2015, that we “must act now” to defuse the threat, and why the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is racing to standardize new post-quantum cryptographic solutions, so businesses can get a trusted safety net in place before the threat materializes.
From aviation to pharma: The industries at risk
The harsh reality is that no one is immune to the quantum threat. Whether it’s a security service, pharmaceutical company or nuclear power station, any organization holding sensitive information or intellectual property that needs to be protected in the long term has to take the issue seriously.
The stakes are high. For governments, a quantum attack could mean a hostile state gains access to sensitive information, compromising state security or revealing secrets that undermine political stability. For pharmaceuticals, on the other hand, a quantum computer could allow competitors to gain access to valuable intellectual property, hijacking a drug that has been in costly development for years. (As we’re seeing in the race for a COVID-19 vaccine, this IP can sometimes have significant geopolitical importance.)
Hardware and software are also vulnerable to attack. Within an industry like aviation, a quantum-empowered hacker would have the ability to forge the signature of a software update, push that update to a specific engine part, and then use that to alter the operations of the aircraft. Medical devices like pacemakers would be vulnerable to the same kind of attack, as would connected cars whose software is regularly updated from the cloud.
Though the list of scenarios goes on, the good news is that companies can ready themselves for the quantum threat using technologies available today. Here’s how:
1. Start the conversation early
Begin by promoting quantum literacy within your business to ensure that executive teams understand the severity and immediacy of the security threat. Faced with competing priorities, they may otherwise struggle to understand why this issue deserves immediate attention and investment.
It’s your job to make sure they understand what they’re up against. Identify specific risks that could materialize for your business and industry – what would a quantum attack look like, and what consequences would you be facing if sensitive information were to be decrypted?
Paint a vivid picture of the possible scenarios and calculate the cost that each one would have for your business, so everyone knows what’s at stake. By doing so, you’ll start to build a compelling business case for upgrading your organization’s information security, rather than assuming that this will be immediately obvious.
2. Work out what you’ve got and what you still need
Do a full audit of every place within your business where you are using cryptography, and make sure you understand why that is. Surprisingly, many companies have no idea of all the encryption they currently have in place or why, because the layers of protection have been built up in a siloed fashion over many years.
What cryptographic standards are you relying on today? What data are you protecting, and where? Try to pinpoint where you might be vulnerable. If you’re storing sensitive information in cloud-based collaboration software, for example, that may rely on public key cryptography, so won’t be quantum-secure.
As part of this audit, don’t forget to identify the places where data is in transit. However well your data is protected, it’s vulnerable when moving from one place to another. Make sure you understand how data is moving within your business – where from and to – so you can create a plan that addresses these weak points.
It’s also vital that you think about what industry regulations or standards you need to comply with, and where these come into play across the areas of your business. For industries like healthcare or finance, for example, there’s an added layer of regulation when it comes to information security, while privacy laws like the GDPR and CCPA will apply if you hold personal information relating to European or Californian citizens.
3. Build a long-term strategy for enhanced security
Once you’ve got a full view of what sensitive data you hold, you can start planning your migration to a quantum-ready architecture. How flexible is your current security infrastructure? How crypto-agile are your cryptography solutions? In order to migrate to new technology, do you need to rewrite everything, or could you make some straightforward switches?
Post-quantum encryption standards will be finalized by NIST in the next year and a half, but the process is already underway, and the direction of travel is becoming clearer. Now that finalist algorithms have been announced, businesses don’t need to wait to get quantum-secure – they must simply ensure that they design their security infrastructure to work with any of the shortlisted approaches that NIST is currently considering for standardization.
Deploying a hybrid solution – pairing existing solutions with one of the post-quantum schemes named as a NIST finalist – can be a good way to build resilience and flexibility into your security architecture. By doing this, you’ll be able to comply with whichever new industry standards are announced and remain fully protected against present and future threats in the meantime.
Whatever you decide, remember that migration can take time – especially if your business is already built on a complex infrastructure that will be hard to unpick and rebuild. Put a solid plan in place before you begin and consider partnering with an expert in the field to speed up the process.
A risk we can’t see
Just because a risk hasn’t yet materialized, doesn’t mean it isn’t worth preparing for (a mindset that could have come in handy for the coronavirus pandemic, all things considered…).
The quantum threat is serious, and it’s urgent. The good thing is that we already have all the ingredients to get a safety net in place, and thanks to strong mathematical foundations, we can be confident in the knowledge that the algorithms being standardized by NIST will protect businesses from even the most powerful computers.
The next step? Making sure this cutting-edge technology gets out of the lab and into the hands of the organizations who need it most.
Like most American businesses, middle market companies have been forced to rapidly implement a variety of work-from-home strategies to sustain productivity and keep employees safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. This shift, in most cases, was conducted with little chance for appropriate planning and due diligence.
This is especially true in regard to the security and compliance of remote work solutions, such as new cloud platforms, remote access products and outsourced third parties. Many middle market companies lacked the resources of their larger counterparts to diagnose and address potential gaps in a timely manner, and the pressure to make these changes to continue operations meant that many of these shortcomings were not even considered at the time.
Perhaps more important than the potential security risks that could come with these hastily deployed solutions is the risk that an organization could realize later that the mechanisms they deployed turned out to lack controls required by a variety of regulatory and industry standards.
Take medical and financial records as an example. In a normal scenario, an organization typically walls off systems that touch such sensitive data, creating a segmented environment where few systems or people can interact with that data, and even then, only under tightly controlled conditions. However, when many companies set up work-from-home solutions, they quickly realized that their new environment did not work with the legacy architecture protecting the data. Employees could not effectively do their jobs, so snap decisions were made to allow the business to operate.
In this situation, many companies took actions, such as removing segmentation to allow the data and systems to be accessible by remote workers, which unfortunately exposed sensitive information directly to the main corporate environment. Many companies also shifted data and processes into cloud platforms without determining if they were approved for sensitive data. In the end, these workarounds may have violated any number of regulatory, industry or contractual obligations.
In the vast majority of these circumstances, there is no evidence of any type of security event or a data breach, and the control issues have been identified and addressed. However, companies are now in a position where they know that, for a period of time (as short as a few days or months in some cases), they were technically non-compliant.
Many middle market companies now face a critical dilemma: as the time comes to perform audits or self-attestation reports, do they report these potential lapses to regulatory or industry entities, such as the SEC, PCI Council, HHS, DoD or FINRA, knowing that could ultimately result in significant reputational and financial damages and, if so, to what extent?
A temporary regulatory grace period is needed, and soon
The decision is a pivotal one for a significant number of middle market companies. To date, regulators have not been showing much sympathy during the pandemic, and a large segment of the middle market finds itself in a no man’s land. If they had not made these decisions to continue business operations as best they could, they would have gone out of business. But now, if they do report these violations, the related fines and penalties will likely result in the same fate.
A solution for this crucial predicament is a potential temporary regulatory grace period. Regulatory bodies or lawmakers could establish a window of opportunity for organizations to self-identify the type and duration of their non-compliance, what investigations were done to determine that no harm came to pass, and what steps were, or will be, taken to address the issue.
Currently, the concept of a regulatory grace period is slowly gaining traction in Washington, but time is of the essence. Middle market companies are quickly approaching the time when they will have to determine just what to disclose during these upcoming attestation periods.
Companies understand that mistakes were made, but those issues would not have arisen under normal circumstances. The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented event that companies could have never planned for. Business operations and personal safety initially consumed management’s thought processes as companies scrambled to keep the lights on.
Ultimately, many companies made the right decisions from a business perspective to keep people working and avoid suffering a data breach, even in a heightened environment of data security risks. Any grace period would not absolve the organization of responsibility for any regulatory exposures. For example, if a weakness has not already been identified and addressed, the company could still be subject to fines and other penalties at the conclusion of the amnesty window.
Even a proposed grace period would not mean that middle market companies would be completely out of the woods. Companies often must comply with a host of non-regulatory obligations, and while a grace period may provide some relief from government regulatory agencies, it would not solve similar challenges that may arise related to industry regulations, such as PCI or lapses in third-party agreements.
But a grace period from legislators could be a significant positive first step and potentially represent a blueprint for other bodies. Without some kind of lifeline, many middle market companies that disclose their temporary compliance gaps would likely be unable to continue operations and a significant amount of jobs subsequently may be lost.
A failing cybersecurity market is contributing to ineffective performance of cybersecurity technology, a Debate Security research reveals.
Based on over 100 comprehensive interviews with business and cybersecurity leaders from large enterprises, together with vendors, assessment organizations, government agencies, industry associations and regulators, the research shines a light on why technology vendors are not incentivized to deliver products that are more effective at reducing cyber risk.
The report supports the view that efficacy problems in the cybersecurity market are primarily due to economic issues, not technological ones. The research addresses three key themes and ultimately arrives at a consensus for how to approach a new model.
Cybersecurity technology is not as effective as it should be
90% of participants reported that cybersecurity technology is not as effective as it should be when it comes to protecting organizations from cyber risk. Trust in technology to deliver on its promises is low, and yet when asked how organizations evaluate cybersecurity technology efficacy and performance, there was not a single common definition.
Pressure has been placed on improving people and process related issues, but ineffective technology has become accepted as normal – and shamefully – inevitable.
The underlying problem is one of economics, not technology
92% of participants reported that there is a breakdown in the market relationship between buyers and vendors, with many seeing deep-seated information asymmetries.
Outside government, few buyers today use detailed, independent cybersecurity efficacy assessment as part of their cybersecurity procurement process, and not even the largest organizations reported having the resources to conduct all the assessments themselves.
As a result, vendors are incentivized to focus on other product features, and on marketing, deprioritizing cybersecurity technology efficacy – one of several classic signs of a “market for lemons”.
Coordinated action between stakeholders only achieved through regulation
Unless buyers demand greater efficacy, regulation may be the only way to address the issue. Overcoming first-mover disadvantages will be critical to fixing the broken cybersecurity technology market.
Many research participants believe that coordinated action between all stakeholders can only be achieved through regulation – though some hold out hope that coordination could be achieved through sectoral associations.
In either case, 70% of respondents feel that independent, transparent assessment of technology would help solve the market breakdown. Setting standards on technology assessment rather than on technology itself could prevent stifling innovation.
Defining cybersecurity technology efficacy
Participants in this research broadly agree that four characteristics are required to comprehensively define cybersecurity technology efficacy.
To be effective, cybersecurity solutions need to have the capability to deliver the stated security mission (be fit-for-purpose), have the practicality that enterprises need to implement, integrate, operate and maintain them (be fit-for-use), have the quality in design and build to avoid vulnerabilities and negative impact, and the provenance in the vendor company, its people and supply chain such that these do not introduce additional security risk.
“In cybersecurity right now, trust doesn’t always sell, and good security doesn’t always sell and isn’t always easy to buy. That’s a real problem,” said Ciaran Martin, advisory board member, Garrison Technology.
“Why we’re in this position is a bit of a mystery. This report helps us understand it. Fixing the problem is harder. But our species has fixed harder problems and we badly need the debate this report calls for, and industry-led action to follow it up.”
“Company boards are well aware that cybersecurity poses potentially existential risk, but are generally not well equipped to provide oversight on matters of technical detail,” said John Cryan, Chairman Man Group.
“Boards are much better equipped when it comes to the issues of incentives and market dynamics revealed by this research. Even if government regulation proves inevitable, I would encourage business leaders to consider these findings and to determine how, as buyers, corporates can best ensure that cybersecurity solutions offered by the market are fit for purpose.”
“As a technologist and developer of cybersecurity products, I really feel for cybersecurity professionals who are faced with significant challenges when trying to select effective technologies,” said Henry Harrison, CSO of Garrison Technology.
“We see two noticeable differences when selling to our two classes of prospects. For security-sensitive government customers, technology efficacy assessment is central to buying behavior – but we rarely see anything similar when dealing with even the most security-sensitive commercial customers. We take from this study that in many cases this has less to do with differing risk appetites and more to do with structural market issues.”
2020 presented us with many surprises, but the world of data privacy somewhat bucked the trend. Many industry verticals suffered losses, uncertainty and closures, but the protection of individuals and their information continued to truck on.
After many websites simply blocked access unless you accepted their cookies (now deemed unlawful), we received clarity on cookies from the European Data Protection Board (EDPB). With the ending of Privacy Shield, we witnessed the cessation of a legal basis for cross border data transfers.
Severe fines levied for General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) non-compliance showed organizations that the regulation is far from toothless and that data protection authorities are not easing up just because there is an ongoing global pandemic.
What can we expect in 2021? Undoubtedly, the number of data privacy cases brought before the courts will continue to rise. That’s not necessarily a bad thing: with each case comes additional clarity and precedent on many different areas of the regulation that, to date, is open to interpretation and conjecture.
Last time I spoke to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office regarding a technicality surrounding data subject access requests (DSARs) submitted by a representative, I was told that I was far from the only person enquiring about it, and this only illustrates some of the ambiguities faced by those responsible for implementing and maintaining compliance.
Of course, this is just the GDPR. There are many other data privacy legislative frameworks to consider. We fully expect 2021 to bring full and complete alignment of the ePrivacy Regulations with GDPR, and eradicate the conflict that exists today, particularly around consent, soft opt-in, etc., where the GDPR is very clear but the current Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulation (PECR) not quite so much.
These are just inside Europe but across the globe we’re seeing continued development of data localization laws, which organizations are mandated to adhere to. In the US, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) has kickstarted a swathe of data privacy reforms within many states, with many calls for something similar at the federal level.
The following year(s) will see that build and, much like with the GDPR, precedent-setting cases are needed to provide more clarity regarding the rules. Will Americans look to replace the shattered Privacy Shield framework, or will they adopt Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) more widely? SCCs are a very strong legal basis, providing the clauses are updated to align with the GDPR (something else we’d expect to see in 2021), and I suspect the US will take this road as the realization of the importance of trade with the EU grows.
Other noteworthy movements in data protection laws are happening in Russia with amendments to the Federal Law on Personal Data, which is taking a closer look at TLS as a protective measure, and in the Philippines, where the Personal Data Protection Act 2021 (PDPA) is being replaced by a new bill (currently a work in progress, but it’s coming).
One of the biggest events of 2021 will be the UK leaving the EU. The British implementation of the GDPR comes in the form of the UK Data Protection Bill 2018. Aside from a few deregulations, it’s the GDPR and that’s great… as far as it goes. Having strong local data privacy laws is good, but after enjoying 47 years (at the time of writing) of free movement within the Union, how will being outside of the EU impact British business?
It is thought and hoped that the UK will be granted an adequacy decision fairly swiftly, given that historically local UK laws aligned with those inside the Union, but there is no guarantee. The uncertainty around how data transfers will look in future might result in the British industry using more SCCs. The currently low priority plans to make Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) easier and more affordable will come sharply to the fore as the demand for them goes up.
One thing is certain, it’s going to be a fascinating year for data privacy and we are excited to see clearer definitions, increased certification, precedent-setting case law and whatever else unfolds as we continue to navigate a journey of governance, compliance and security.
Trustwave released a report which depicts how technology trends, compromise risks and regulations are shaping how organizations’ data is stored and protected.
Data protection strategy
The report is based on a recent survey of 966 full-time IT professionals who are cybersecurity decision makers or security influencers within their organizations.
Over 75% of respondents work in organizations with over 500 employees in key geographic regions including the U.S., U.K., Australia and Singapore.
“Our findings illustrate organizations are under enormous pressure to secure data as workloads migrate off-premises, attacks on cloud services increases and ransomware evolves. Gaining complete visibility of data either at rest or in motion and eliminating threats as they occur are top cybersecurity challenges all industries are facing.”
More sensitive data moving to the cloud
Types of data organizations are moving into the cloud have become increasingly sensitive, therefore a solid data protection strategy is crucial. Ninety-six percent of total respondents stated they plan to move sensitive data to the cloud over the next two years with 52% planning to include highly sensitive data with Australia at 57% leading the regions surveyed.
Not surprisingly, when asked to rate the importance of securing data regarding digital transformation initiatives, an average score of 4.6 out of a possible high of five was tallied.
Hybrid cloud model driving digital transformation and data storage
Of those surveyed, most at 55% use both on-premises and public cloud to store data with 17% using public cloud only. Singapore organizations use the hybrid cloud model most frequently at 73% or 18% higher than the average and U.S. organizations employ it the least at 45%.
Government respondents store data on-premises only the most at 39% or 11% higher than average. Additionally, 48% of respondents stored data using the hybrid cloud model during a recent digital transformation project with only 29% relying solely on their own databases.
Most organizations use multiple cloud services
Seventy percent of organizations surveyed were found to use between two and four public cloud services and 12% use five or more. At 14%, the U.S. had the most instances of using five or more public cloud services followed by the U.K. at 13%, Australia at 9% and Singapore at 9%. Only 18% of organizations queried use zero or just one public cloud service.
Perceived threats do not match actual incidents
Thirty-eight percent of organizations are most concerned with malware and ransomware followed by phishing and social engineering at 18%, application threats 14%, insider threats at 9%, privilege escalation at 7% and misconfiguration attack at 6%.
Interestingly, when asked about actual threats experienced, phishing and social engineering came in first at 27% followed by malware and ransomware at 25%. The U.K. and Singapore experienced the most phishing and social engineering incidents at 32% and 31% and the U.S. and Australia experienced the most malware and ransomware attacks at 30% and 25%.
Respondents in the government sector had the highest incidents of insider threats at 13% or 5% above the average.
Patching practices show room for improvement
A resounding 96% of respondents have patching policies in place, however, of those, 71% rely on automated patching and 29% employ manual patching. Overall, 61% of organizations patched within 24 hours and 28% patched between 24 and 48 hours.
The highest percentage patching within a 24-hour window came from Australia at 66% and the U.K. at 61%. Unfortunately, 4% of organizations took a week to over a month to patch.
Reliance on automation driving key security processes
In addition to a high percentage of organizations using automated patching processes, findings show 89% of respondents employ automation to check for overprivileged users or lock down access credentials once an individual has left their job or changed roles.
This finding correlates to low concern for insider threats and data compromise due to privilege escalation according to the survey. Organizations must exercise caution when assuming removal of user access to applications to also include databases, which is often not the case.
Data regulations having minor impact on database security strategies
These findings may suggest a lack of alignment between information technology and other departments, such as legal, responsible for helping ensure stipulations like ‘the right to be forgotten’ are properly enforced to avoid severe penalties.
Small teams with big responsibilities
Of those surveyed, 47% had a security team size of only six to 15 members. Respondents from Singapore had the smallest teams with 47% reporting between one and ten members and the U.S. had the largest teams with 22% reporting team size of 21 or more, 2% higher than the average.
Thirty-two percent of government respondents surprisingly run security operations with teams between just six and ten members.
The importance of privacy and data protection is a critical issue for organizations as it transcends beyond legal departments to the forefront of an organization’s strategic priorities.
A FairWarning research, based on survey results from more than 550 global privacy and data protection, IT, and compliance professionals outlines the characteristics and behaviors of advanced privacy and data protection teams.
By examining the trends of privacy adoption and maturity across industries, the research uncovers adjustments that security and privacy leaders need to make to better protect their organization’s data.
The prevalence of data and privacy attacks
Insights from the research reinforce the importance of privacy and data protection as 67% of responding organizations documented at least one privacy incident within the past three years, and over 24% of those experienced 30 or more.
Additionally, 50% of all respondents reported at least one data breach in the last three years, with 10% reporting 30 or more.
Overall immaturity of privacy programs
Despite increased regulations, breaches and privacy incidents, organizations have not rapidly accelerated the advancement of their privacy programs as 44% responded they are in the early stages of adoption and 28% are in middle stages.
Healthcare and software rise to the top
Despite an overall lack of maturity across industries, healthcare and software organizations reflect more maturity in their privacy programs, as compared to insurance, banking, government, consulting services, education institutions and academia.
Harnessing the power of data and privacy programs
Respondents understand the significant benefits of a mature privacy program as organizations experience greater gains across every area measured including: increased employee privacy awareness, mitigating data breaches, greater consumer trust, reduced privacy complaints, quality and innovation, competitive advantage, and operational efficiency.
Of note, more mature companies believe they experience the largest gain in reducing privacy complaints (30.3% higher than early stage respondents).
Attributes and habits of mature privacy and data protection programs
Companies with more mature privacy programs are more likely to have C-Suite privacy and security roles within their organization than those in the mid- to early-stages of privacy program development.
Additionally, 88.2% of advanced stage organizations know where most or all of their personally identifiable information/personal health information is located, compared to 69.5% of early stage respondents.
Importance of automated tools to monitor user activity
Insights reveal a clear distinction between the maturity levels of privacy programs and related benefits of automated tools as 54% of respondents with more mature programs have implemented this type of technology compared with only 28.1% in early stage development.
Automated tools enable organizations to monitor all user activity in applications and efficiently identify anomalous activity that signals a breach or privacy violation.
“It is exciting to see healthcare at the top when it comes to privacy maturity. However, as we dig deeper into the data, we find that 37% of respondents with 30 or more breaches are from healthcare, indicating that there is still more work to be done.
“This study highlights useful guidance on steps all organizations can take regardless of industry or size to advance their program and ensure they are at the forefront of privacy and data protection.”
“As the research has demonstrated, it is imperative that security and privacy professionals recognize the importance of implementing privacy and data protection programs to not only reduce privacy complaints and data breaches, but increase operational efficiency.”
Many banks across the U.S. and Canada are failing to meet their customers’ online identity fraud and digital banking needs, according to a survey from FICO.
Despite COVID-19 quickly turning online banking into an essential service, the survey found that financial institutions across North America are struggling to establish practices that combat online identity fraud and money laundering, without negatively impacting customer experience.
For example, 51 percent of North American banks are still asking customers to prove their identities by visiting branches or posting documents when opening digital accounts. This also applies to 25 percent of mortgages or home loans and 15 percent of credit cards opened digitally.
“The pandemic has forced industries to fully embrace digital. We now are seeing North American banks that relied on face-to-face interactions to prove customers’ identities rethinking how to adapt to the digital first economy,” said Liz Lasher, vice president of portfolio marketing for Fraud at FICO.
“Today’s consumers expect a seamless and secure online experience, and banks need to be equipped to meet those expectations. Engaging valuable new customers, then having them abandon applications when identity proofing becomes expensive and difficult.”
Identity verification process issues
The study found that only up to 16 percent of U.S. and Canadian banks employ the type of fully integrated, real-time digital capture and validation tools required for consumers to securely open a financial account online.
Even when digital methods are used to verify identity, the experience still raises barriers with customers expected to use email or visit an “identity portal” to verify their identities.
Creating a frictionless process is key to meeting consumers current expectation. For example, according to a recent Consumer Digital Banking study, while 75 percent of consumers said they would open a financial account online, 23 percent of prospective customers would abandon the process due to an inconsistent identity verification process.
Lack of automation is a problem for banks too
The lack of automation when verifying customers’ identity isn’t just a pain point for customers – 53 percent of banks reported it problematic for them too.
Regulation intended to prevent criminal activity such as money laundering typically requires banks to review customer identities in a consistent, robust manner and this is harder to achieve for institutions relying on inconsistent manual resources.
Fortunately, 75 percent of banks in the U.S. and Canada reported plans to invest in an identity management platform within the next three years.
By moving to a more integrated and strategic approach to identity proofing and identity authentication, banks will be able to meet customer expectations and deliver consistently positive digital banking experiences across online channels.
Organizations are struggling to keep up with IT security and privacy compliance regulations, according to a Telos survey.
Annual compliance cost
The survey, which polled 300 IT security professionals in July and August 2020, revealed that, on average, organizations must comply with 13 different IT security and/or privacy regulations and spend $3.5 million annually on compliance activities, with compliance audits consuming 58 working days each quarter.
As more regulations come into existence and more organizations migrate their critical systems, applications and infrastructure to the cloud, the risk of non-compliance and associated impact increases.
Key research findings
- IT security professionals report receiving an average of over 17 audit evidence requests each quarter and spend an average of three working days responding to a single request
- Over the last 24 months, organizations have been found non-compliant an average of six times by both internal and third party auditors resulting in an average of eight fines, costing an average of $460,000
- 86 percent of organizations believe compliance would be an issue when moving systems, applications and infrastructure to the cloud
- 94 percent of organizations report they would face challenges when it comes to IT security compliance and/or privacy regulations in the cloud
Compliance teams are overwhelmed
“Compliance teams spend 232 working days each year responding to audit evidence requests, in addition to the millions of dollars spent on compliance activities and fines,” said Dr. Ed Amoroso, CEO of TAG Cyber. “The bottom line is this level of financial and time commitment is unsustainable in the long run.”
“As hammer, chisel and stone gave way to clipboard, paper and pencil, it’s time for organizations to realize the days of spreadsheets for ‘checkbox compliance’ are woefully outdated,” said Steve Horvath, VP of strategy and cloud at Telos.
“Automation can solve numerous compliance challenges, as the data shows. It’s the only real way to get in front of curve, rather than continuing to try and keep up.”
99 percent of survey respondents indicated their organization would benefit from automating IT security and/or privacy compliance activities, citing expected benefits such as increased accuracy of evidence (54 percent), reduced time spent being audited (51 percent) and the ability to respond to audit evidence requests more quickly (50 percent).
Increasingly demanded by consumers, data privacy laws can create onerous burdens on even the most well-meaning businesses. California presents plenty of evidence to back up this statement, as more than half of organizations that do business in California still aren’t compliant with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which went into effect earlier this year.
As companies struggle with their existing compliance requirements, many fear that a new privacy ballot initiative – the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) – could complicate matters further. While it’s true that if passed this November, the CPRA would fundamentally change the way businesses in California handle both customer and employee data, companies shouldn’t panic. In fact, this law presents an opportunity for organizations to change their relationship with employee data to their benefit.
CPRA, the Californian GDPR?
Set to appear on the November 2020 ballot, the CPRA, also known as CCPA 2.0 or Prop 24 (its name on the ballot), builds on what is already the most comprehensive data protection law in the US. In essence, the CPRA will bring data protection in California nearer to the current European legal standard, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
In the process of “getting closer to GDPR,” the CCPA would gain substantial new components. Besides enhancing consumer rights, the CPRA also creates new provisions for employee data as it relates to their employers, as well as data that businesses collect from B2B business partners.
Although controversial, the CPRA is likely to pass. August polling shows that more than 80% of voters support the measure. However, many businesses do not. This is because, at first glance, the CPRA appears to create all kinds of legal complexities in how employers can and cannot collect information from workers.
Fearful of having to meet the same demanding requirements as their European counterparts, many organizations’ natural reaction towards the prospect of CPRA becoming law is fear. However, this is unfounded. In reality, if the CPRA passes, it might not be as scary as some businesses think.
CPRA and employment data
The CPRA is actually a lot more lenient than the GDPR in regard to how it polices the relationship between employers and employees’ data. Unlike for its EU equivalent, there are already lots of exceptions written into the proposed Californian law acknowledging that worker-employer relations are not like consumer-vendor relations.
Moreover, the CPRA extends the CCPA exemption for employers, set to end on January 1, 2021. This means that if the CPRA passes into law, employers would be released from both their existing and potential new employee data protection obligations for two more years, until January 1, 2023. This exemption would apply to most provisions under the CPRA, including the personal information collected from individuals acting as job applicants, staff members, employees, contractors, officers, directors, and owners.
However, employers would still need to provide notice of data collection and maintain safeguards for personal information. It’s highly likely that during this two-year window, additional reforms would be passed that might further ease employer-employee data privacy requirements.
Nonetheless, employers should act now
While the CPRA won’t change much overnight, impacted organizations shouldn’t wait to take action, but should take this time to consider what employee data they collect, why they do so, and how they store this information.
This is especially pertinent now that businesses are collecting more data than ever on their employees. With companies like the workplace monitoring company Prodoscore reporting that interest from prospective customers rose by 600% since the pandemic began, we are seeing rapid growth in companies looking to monitor how, where, and when their employees work.
This trend emphasizes the fact that the information flow between companies and their employees is mostly one-sided (i.e., from the worker to the employer). Currently, businesses have no legal requirement to be transparent about this information exchange. That will change for California-based companies if the CPRA comes into effect and they will have no choice but to disclose the type of data they’re collecting about their staff.
The only sustainable solution for impacted businesses is to be transparent about their data collection with employees and work towards creating a “culture of privacy” within their organization.
Creating a culture of privacy
Rather than viewing employee data privacy as some perfunctory obligation where the bare minimum is done for the sake of appeasing regulators, companies need to start thinking about worker privacy as a benefit. Presented as part of a benefits package, comprehensive privacy protection is a perk that companies can offer prospective and existing employees.
Privacy benefits can include access to privacy protection services that give employees privacy benefits beyond the workplace. Packaged alongside privacy awareness training and education, these can create privacy plus benefits that can be offered to employees alongside standard perks like health or retirement plans. Doing so will build a culture of privacy which can help companies ensure they’re in regulatory compliance, while also making it easier to attract qualified talent and retain workers.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that creating a culture of privacy doesn’t necessarily mean that companies have to stop monitoring employee activity. In fact, employees are less worried about being watched than they are by the possibility of their employers misusing their data. Their fears are well-founded. Although over 60% of businesses today use workforce data, only 3 in 10 business leaders are confident that this data is treated responsibly.
For this reason, companies that want to keep employee trust and avoid bad PR need to prioritize transparency. This could mean drawing up a “bill of rights” that lets employees know what data is being collected and how it will be used.
Research into employee satisfaction backs up the value of transparency. Studies show that while only 30% of workers are comfortable with their employer monitoring their email, the number of employees open to the use of workforce data goes up to 50% when the employer explains the reasons for doing so. This number further jumps to 92% if employees believe that data collection will improve their performance or well-being or come with other personal benefits, like fairer pay.
On the other hand, most employees would leave an organization if its leaders did not use workplace data responsibly. Moreover, 55% of candidates would not even apply for a job with such an organization in the first place.
With many exceptions for workplace data management already built-in and more likely to come down the line, most employers should be able to easily navigate the stipulations CPRA entails.
That being said, if it becomes law this November, employers shouldn’t misuse the two-year window they have to prepare for new compliance requirements. Rather than seeing this time as breathing space before a regulatory crackdown, organizations should instead use it to be proactive in their approach to how they manage their employees’ data. As well as just ensuring they comply with the law, businesses should look at how they can turn employee privacy into an asset.
As data privacy stays at the forefront of employees’ minds, businesses that can show they have a genuine privacy culture will be able to gain an edge when it comes to attracting and retaining talent and, ultimately, coming out on top.
We live in the age of data. We are constantly producing it, analyzing it, figuring out how to store and protect it, and, hopefully, using it to refine business practices. Unfortunately, 58% of organizations make decisions based on outdated data.
While enterprises are rapidly deploying technologies for real-time analytics, machine learning and IoT, they are still utilizing legacy storage solutions that are not designed for such data-intensive workloads.
To select a suitable data storage for your business, you need to think about a variety of factors. We’ve talked to several industry leaders to get their insight on the topic.
Phil Bullinger, SVP and General Manager, Data Center Business Unit, Western Digital
Selecting the right data storage solution for your enterprise requires evaluating and balancing many factors. The most important is aligning the performance and capabilities of the storage system with your critical workloads and their specific bandwidth, application latency and data availability requirements. For example, if your business wants to gain greater insight and value from data through AI, your storage system should be designed to support the accelerated performance and scale requirements of analytics workloads.
Storage systems that maximize the performance potential of solid state drives (SSDs) and the efficiency and scalability of hard disk drives (HDDs) provide the flexibility and configurability to meet a wide range of application workloads.
Your applications should also drive the essential architecture of your storage system, whether directly connected or networked, whether required to store and deliver data as blocks, files, objects or all three, and whether the storage system must efficiently support a wide range of workloads while prioritizing the performance of the most demanding applications.
Consideration should be given to your overall IT data management architecture to support the scalability, data protection, and business continuity assurance required for your enterprise, spanning from core data centers to those distributed at or near the edge and endpoints of your enterprise operations, and integration with your cloud-resident applications, compute and data storage services and resources.
Ben Gitenstein, VP of Product Management, Qumulo
When searching for the right data storage solution to support your organizational needs today and in the future, it’s important to select a solution that is trusted, scalable to secure demanding workloads of any size, and ensures optimal performance of applications and workloads both on premises and in complex, multi- cloud environments.
With the recent pandemic, organizations are digitally transforming faster than ever before, and leveraging the cloud to conduct business. This makes it more important than ever that your storage solution has built in tools for data management across this ecosystem.
When evaluating storage options, be sure to do your homework and ask the right questions. Is it a trusted provider? Would it integrate well within my existing technology infrastructure? Your storage solution should be easy to manage and meet the scale, performance and cloud requirements for any data environment and across multi-cloud environments.
Also, be sure the storage solution gives IT control in how they manage storage capacity needs and delivers real-time insight into analytics and usage patterns so they can make smart storage allocation decisions and maximize an organizations’ storage budget.
David Huskisson, Senior Solutions Manager, Pure Storage
Data backup and disaster recovery features are critically important when selecting a storage solution for your business, as now no organization is immune to ransomware attacks. When systems go down, they need to be recovered as quickly and safely as possibly.
Look for solutions that offer simplicity in management, can ensure backups are viable even when admin credentials are compromised, and can be restored quickly enough to greatly reduce major organizational or financial impact.
Storage solutions that are purpose-built to handle unstructured data are a strong place to start. By definition, unstructured data means unpredictable data that can take any form, size or shape, and can be accessed in any pattern. These capabilities can accelerate small, large, random or sequential data, and consolidate a wide range of workloads on a unified fast file and object storage platform. It should maintain its performance even as the amount of data grows.
If you have an existing backup product, you don’t need to rip and replace it. There are storage platforms with robust integrations that work seamlessly with existing solutions and offer a wide range of data-protection architectures so you can ensure business continuity amid changes.
Tunio Zafer, CEO, pCloud
Bear in mind: your security team needs to assist. Answer these questions to find the right solution: Do you need ‘cold’ storage or cloud storage? If you’re looking to only store files for backup, you need a cloud backup service. If you’re looking to store, edit and share, go for cloud storage. Where are their storage servers located? If your business is located in Europe, the safest choice is a storage service based in Europe.
Client-side encryption means that your data is secured on your device and is transferred already encrypted. What is their support package? At some point, you’re going to need help. A data storage service with a support package that’s included for free, answers in up to 24 hours is preferred.
Organizations are building confidence that their cybersecurity practices are headed in the right direction, aided by advanced technologies, more detailed processes, comprehensive education and specialized skills, a research from CompTIA finds.
Eight in 10 organizations surveyed said their cybersecurity practices are improving.
At the same time, many companies acknowledge that there is still more to do to make their security posture even more robust. Growing concerns about the number, scale and variety of cyberattacks, privacy considerations, a greater reliance on data and regulatory compliance are among the issues that have the attention of business and IT leaders.
Two factors – one anticipated, the other unexpected – have contributed to the heightened awareness about the need for strong cybersecurity measures.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has been the primary trigger for revisiting security,” said Seth Robinson, senior director for technology analysis at CompTIA. “The massive shift to remote work exposed vulnerabilities in workforce knowledge and connectivity, while phishing emails preyed on new health concerns.”
Robinson noted that the pandemic accelerated changes that were underway in many organizations that were undergoing the digital transformation of their business operations.
“This transformation elevated cybersecurity from an element within IT operations to an overarching business concern that demands executive-level attention,” he said. “It has become a critical business function, on par with a company’s financial procedures.”
As a result, companies have a better understanding of what do about cybersecurity. Nine in 10 organizations said their cybersecurity processes have become more formal and more critical.
Two examples are risk management, where companies assess their data and their systems to determine the level of security that each requires; and monitoring and measurement, where security efforts are continually tracked and new metrics are established to tie security activity to business objectives.
IT teams foundational skills
The report also highlights how the “cybersecurity chain” has expanded to include upper management, boards of directors, business units and outside firms in addition to IT personnel in conversations and decisions.
Within IT teams, foundational skills such as network and endpoint security have been paired with new skills, including identity management and application security, that have become more important as cloud and mobility have taken hold.
On the horizon, expect to see skills related to security monitoring and other proactive tactics gain a bigger foothold. Examples include data analysis, threat knowledge and understanding the regulatory landscape.
Cybersecurity insurance is another emerging area. The report reveals that 45% of large companies, 41% of mid-sized firms and 37% of small businesses currently have a cyber insurance policy.
Common coverage areas include the cost of restoring data (56% of policy holders), the cost of finding the root cause of a breach (47%), coverage for third-party incidents (43%) and response to ransomware (42%).