Attacks/Breaches

6/5/2018
02:25 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

The Breach Disclosure Double Standard

Cybersecurity pros expect to be notified immediately when they're breached, but most don't do the same - and some even cover up breaches.

For many cybersecurity professionals, swift breach disclosure is a matter of do as I say, not as I do. A new survey out today from Thycotic shows a big double standard exists between how quickly security pros expect their vendors and partners to disclose breaches and how fast they themselves tell others about security incidents. 

Conducted across the IT security community convened at RSA Conference earlier this spring, the survey shows that 84% of respondents say they want to be notified immediately if a company they've worked with has experienced a breach. Yet at the same time, just 37% of these people say they would extend the same courtesy of notifying customers expeditiously in the event that their firms were breached.

A big part of this may well be that companies don't have the capability for swift disclosure due to insufficient preparation on the incident response front. Only a little over half of the respondents say they have a tested incident response plan in place, while just one in five say they've prepared a contact list and communications plan to manage an incident. What's more, just one in ten organizations say they have a public relations and legal team prepped and ready to manage security incident communications should they be breached. 

This lack of preparation is putting global organizations under considerable regulatory risk now that the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has gone live. One of the key requirements of GDPR is that organizations be ready to publicly disclose breaches that affect European residents' data within 72 hours. A recent study by Enterprise Strategy Group shows that only 33% of organizations are ready to meet this mandate.

The high prevalence of companies unable to quickly detect breaches, let alone swiftly notify victims, is troubling enough. But perhaps even more disconcerting is how many organizations go out of their way to actively hide incidents from being disclosed. 

Indeed, almost one in six respondents admit they've kept data breaches secret from the public or unsuspecting victims, according to Thycotic's study. These kind of numbers aren't a new revelation. Back in 2015, a different survey at that year's RSA Conference, from Alien Vault, found that 20% of respondents have at the very least witnessed their companies trying to hide or cover up a breach.

What's new now, though, is the level of public furor kicked up following the egregious under-the-carpet sweeping behavior at Uber following its massive breach of 57 million people's data. As the embarrassing details kept unfolding, it came out that the ride-share company paid an attacker $100,000 from a bug bounty program that usually only paid out a fraction of that per bug to cover up the breach.

It's this kind of lack of accountability that's pushing regulators to stiffen the consequences for organizations that fail to quickly notify affected parties after a breach. Not only is the big hammer of GDPR hovering over global organizations, but US regulators also are making noises. US legislators are now toying with the idea of sentencing executives with jail time for not disclosing data breaches.  

<p> <img src="https://img.deusm.com/darkreading/MarilynCohodas/InSecurityvplug-368592_DR18_DR-VE-Logo-Signature.png" alt="" width="380" height="49" style="vertical-align: top;" /></p>

<p><strong>Top industry experts will offer a range of information and insight on who the bad guys are – and why they might be targeting your enterprise. </strong><strong>Click for <a href="https://event.darkreading.com/3453?keycode=sbx&cid=smartbox_techweb_upcoming_webinars_8.500000825" target="_blank">more information</a></strong></p>

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Four Faces of Fraud: Identity, 'Fake' Identity, Ransomware & Digital
David Shefter, Chief Technology Officer at Ziften Technologies,  6/14/2018
Demystifying Mental Health in the Infosec Community
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/14/2018
Email, Social Media Still Security Nightmares
Dark Reading Staff 6/15/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2016-10723
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-21
** DISPUTED ** An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel through 4.17.2. Since the page allocator does not yield CPU resources to the owner of the oom_lock mutex, a local unprivileged user can trivially lock up the system forever by wasting CPU resources from the page allocator (e.g., via concurre...
CVE-2017-13072
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-21
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in App Center in QNAP QTS 4.2.6 build 20171208, QTS 4.3.3 build 20171213, QTS 4.3.4 build 20171223, and their earlier versions could allow remote attackers to inject Javascript code.
CVE-2017-2669
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-21
Dovecot before version 2.2.29 is vulnerable to a denial of service. When 'dict' passdb and userdb were used for user authentication, the username sent by the IMAP/POP3 client was sent through var_expand() to perform %variable expansion. Sending specially crafted %variable fields could result in exce...
CVE-2017-2672
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-21
A flaw was found in foreman before version 1.15 in the logging of adding and registering images. An attacker with access to the foreman log file would be able to view passwords for provisioned systems in the log file, allowing them to access those systems.
CVE-2018-0712
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-21
Command injection vulnerability in LDAP Server in QNAP QTS 4.2.6 build 20171208, QTS 4.3.3 build 20180402, QTS 4.3.4 build 20180413 and their earlier versions could allow remote attackers to run arbitrary commands or install malware on the NAS.