Attacks/Breaches

Close HealthCare.gov For Security Reasons, Experts Say

Testifying before the House technology committee, four security experts advise would-be HealthCare.gov users to steer clear of the site, pending security improvements.

President Obama signs the Affordable Care Act.
President Obama signs the Affordable Care Act.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
David F. Carr
50%
50%
David F. Carr,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/22/2013 | 2:43:40 PM
Re: Unanimous?
As Prof. Rubin states, "One of the biggest mistakes of HealthCare.gov was the decision to roll it out all on one day. That is not the way large systems go live in practice."

Any Internet company would have started with a website where people signed up to get a notification when the live site was available, and invitations would then be metered out to those people to try it before it went live to any larger group. That kind of slow roll out could have identified scalability problems early and minimized security issues.
TerryB
50%
50%
TerryB,
User Rank: Ninja
11/22/2013 | 1:09:44 PM
Re: Stating the obvious
I'm with Lorna. As you took quote from a Republican politician, who probably needs help from his 9 year old to reboot his computer, this article lost some credibility.

The government has had enough of our information for many years that someone could use for identity theft. Why we are now talking about this because of this new application? If this site is not "safe", then I'm sure the IRS, Medicare, etc are just as vulnerable. And only to the very best and brightest hackers, no script kiddie is cracking these sites. The guys that wrote StuxNet? They can probably get into anything that is usable and connected. That's life today.
Lorna Garey
100%
0%
Lorna Garey,
User Rank: Ninja
11/21/2013 | 11:18:07 AM
Stating the obvious
EVERY site -- every Internet-connected device -- is constantly being probed for weaknesses. The only way the ACA site is 100% safe is if it's unplugged, which is exactly what the GOP wants. No matter how much money or expertise you throw at code, no one can promise 100% invulnerability. To imply otherwise is disingenuous.
WKash
100%
0%
WKash,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/20/2013 | 11:32:10 PM
Hard Pill to Swallow
It's hard to take as credible the statement by Henry Chao, deputy CIO at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), when he says Healthcare.gov sports "layers" of security, and referenced CMS's track record of securing the data for people enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid.  The Medicare and Medicaid sites are still going through rigorous reviews and improvements in security controls and they are mature systems. Going live with Heathcare.gov before completing the necessary testing seems like opening a US embassy in Russia while it's still under construction and expecting nothing incideous will happen.  The notion of replacing the current system with a new  one maybe a hard pill to swallow, but it may be the right decision.

 
PaulS681
50%
50%
PaulS681,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/20/2013 | 8:48:25 PM
Re: Unanimous?
Unfortunatley I think politics is keeping the site open. Maybe the government will do the right thing and shut it down, fix it, then get it back online. I'm not holding my breath.
David F. Carr
50%
50%
David F. Carr,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/20/2013 | 3:40:56 PM
Unanimous?
Seems unanimous: Healthcare.gov: Biggest Security Risks Yet To Come

Who would care to make an argue that it's better to soldier on and fix the system while continuing to operate it? Is there a technical argument for keeping the site live, as opposed to a political one?
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading December Tech Digest
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-4807
Published: 2014-11-22
Sterling Order Management in IBM Sterling Selling and Fulfillment Suite 9.3.0 before FP8 allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via a '\0' character.

CVE-2014-6183
Published: 2014-11-22
IBM Security Network Protection 5.1 before 5.1.0.0 FP13, 5.1.1 before 5.1.1.0 FP8, 5.1.2 before 5.1.2.0 FP9, 5.1.2.1 before FP5, 5.2 before 5.2.0.0 FP5, and 5.3 before 5.3.0.0 FP1 on XGS devices allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-8626
Published: 2014-11-22
Stack-based buffer overflow in the date_from_ISO8601 function in ext/xmlrpc/libxmlrpc/xmlrpc.c in PHP before 5.2.7 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code by including a timezone field in a date, leading to improper XML-RPC encoding...

CVE-2014-8710
Published: 2014-11-22
The decompress_sigcomp_message function in epan/sigcomp-udvm.c in the SigComp UDVM dissector in Wireshark 1.10.x before 1.10.11 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (buffer over-read and application crash) via a crafted packet.

CVE-2014-8711
Published: 2014-11-22
Multiple integer overflows in epan/dissectors/packet-amqp.c in the AMQP dissector in Wireshark 1.10.x before 1.10.11 and 1.12.x before 1.12.2 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via a crafted amqp_0_10 PDU in a packet.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?