Vulnerabilities / Threats

6/24/2014
09:27 AM
Sara Peters
Sara Peters
Quick Hits
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Despite Target, Retailers Still Weak On Third-Party Security

A new survey from TripWire shows mixed results about retailers' security practices.

The big Target breach last year was actually the second stage of an attack that began by breaching the retail giant's third-party HVAC subcontractor (although the general public seems to forget that fact). This should have taught companies a lesson about the risks of letting business partners run pell-mell around one's network without paying any mind to their own security posture. However, according to new research from TripWire, at least one-quarter of retailers have not yet learned that lesson.

On one end of the spectrum, 12% of retailers who responded say they require third-party partners to pony up regular reports on vulnerability scans on their network and Web applications. On the other end of the spectrum, 26% said, "We don't evaluate the security of our business partners."

In fact only 70% of respondents said that the Target breach affected the level of attention that their businesses' executives pay to security. This number was even lower (57%) for online-only retailers.

Happily, 60% of respondents said they could identify a breach within 72 hours, 7% said they could do it in a month, and 1% within three months. However, a full 20% simply admitted that they weren't confident they could identify breaches quickly -- and that's particularly discouraging if within three months is considered "quickly."

Some 18% confessed that they were "not at all confident" that their security controls could detect rogue applications (including malware), 35% said they were very confident, and the rest said they were "somewhat" confident.

Sara Peters is Senior Editor at Dark Reading and formerly the editor-in-chief of Enterprise Efficiency. Prior that she was senior editor for the Computer Security Institute, writing and speaking about virtualization, identity management, cybersecurity law, and a myriad ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
6/30/2014 | 10:23:34 AM
Hard to believe
I find it hard to believe that 60% of respondents can really identify a breach within 72 hours. Maybe they get an alert, but what happens after that? 
Bprince
50%
50%
Bprince,
User Rank: Ninja
6/30/2014 | 12:57:27 AM
Third-parties
On the other end of the spectrum, 26% said, "We don't evaluate the security of our business partners."

I'm glad you mentioned the HVAC contractor as the entry point. I think this breach should serve as as a reminder of just how interconnected businesses and their partners can be when it comes to network access and security and what the implications of that can be.

BP
Drew Conry-Murray
50%
50%
Drew Conry-Murray,
User Rank: Ninja
6/24/2014 | 10:35:46 AM
Change the Game
We really need to get to a widespread chip-and-PIN system, which would make it harder for scammers to make duplicate credit cards w/ stolen card numbers. Tokenization would also go a long way in making stored data less of a target. Without these kinds of wholesale changes, even the most diligent and vigilant retailers are still going to be vulnerable.
White House Cybersecurity Strategy at a Crossroads
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  7/17/2018
Mueller Probe Yields Hacking Indictments for 12 Russian Military Officers
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  7/13/2018
10 Ways to Protect Protocols That Aren't DNS
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  7/16/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-12959
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
The approveAndCall function of a smart contract implementation for Aditus (ADI), an Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to steal assets (e.g., transfer all contract balances into their account).
CVE-2018-14336
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
TP-Link WR840N devices allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (connectivity loss) via a series of packets with random MAC addresses.
CVE-2018-10620
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
AVEVA InduSoft Web Studio v8.1 and v8.1SP1, and InTouch Machine Edition v2017 8.1 and v2017 8.1 SP1 a remote user could send a carefully crafted packet to exploit a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability during tag, alarm, or event related actions such as read and write, with potential for code t...
CVE-2018-14423
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
Division-by-zero vulnerabilities in the functions pi_next_pcrl, pi_next_cprl, and pi_next_rpcl in lib/openjp3d/pi.c in OpenJPEG through 2.3.0 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash).
CVE-2018-3857
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
An exploitable heap overflow exists in the TIFF parsing functionality of Canvas Draw version 4.0.0. A specially crafted TIFF image processed via the application can lead to an out-of-bounds write, overwriting arbitrary data. An attacker can deliver a TIFF image to trigger this vulnerability and gain...