Attacks/Breaches
10/23/2008
04:45 PM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%
Repost This

Data Breach? Who Ya Gonna Call?

Our latest CSI survey shows few organizations bring in law enforcement after an attack. That's bad policy.

Whether a data breach is accidental or the result of a targeted malicious attack, the results can be devastating to a company's financial stability and reputation. To compound the problem, many CIOs fear that reporting the incident will only make matters worse. In the 2008 CSI Computer Crime & Security Survey, only about one in four respondents said that they contacted a law enforcement agency in the wake of a breach. Most said they worry about negative publicity and that the authorities can do little to help deal with cybercrime.

It's reasonable to fear negative press. Sales may be adversely affected, and the public's confidence can be shaken. Furthermore, many states have enacted data breach notification laws that can cause a company's legal fees to mount. On the other hand, a decision not to come forward could work against you in court later, and law enforcement has sophisticated forensic and legal tools not available to private industry. However, reporting isn't as simple as it sounds. The President's Identity Theft Task Force has recommended the creation of national standards for data protection and data breach notification requirements that would pre-empt the multitude of existing state laws. The Task Force also recommended the establishment of a national identity theft law enforcement center to harmonize identity theft and data breach reporting. But as of this writing, neither of these recommendations has been acted on. Unfortunately, this makes reporting to law enforcement confusing, as there's no clear-cut hierarchy. In our report, we describe a methodology for reporting to law enforcement agencies that deal with cybercrime.

Return to the main story:
Forensic Teams Take On Hackers

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-3946
Published: 2014-04-24
Cisco IOS before 15.3(2)S allows remote attackers to bypass interface ACL restrictions in opportunistic circumstances by sending IPv6 packets in an unspecified scenario in which expected packet drops do not occur for "a small percentage" of the packets, aka Bug ID CSCty73682.

CVE-2012-5723
Published: 2014-04-24
Cisco ASR 1000 devices with software before 3.8S, when BDI routing is enabled, allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via crafted (1) broadcast or (2) multicast ICMP packets with fragmentation, aka Bug ID CSCub55948.

CVE-2013-6738
Published: 2014-04-24
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM SmartCloud Analytics Log Analysis 1.1 and 1.2 before 1.2.0.0-CSI-SCALA-IF0003 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via an invalid query parameter in a response from an OAuth authorization endpoint.

CVE-2014-0188
Published: 2014-04-24
The openshift-origin-broker in Red Hat OpenShift Enterprise 2.0.5, 1.2.7, and earlier does not properly handle authentication requests from the remote-user auth plugin, which allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and impersonate arbitrary users via the X-Remote-User header in a request to...

CVE-2014-2391
Published: 2014-04-24
The password recovery service in Open-Xchange AppSuite before 7.2.2-rev20, 7.4.1 before 7.4.1-rev11, and 7.4.2 before 7.4.2-rev13 makes an improper decision about the sensitivity of a string representing a previously used but currently invalid password, which allows remote attackers to obtain potent...

Best of the Web