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.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-0714
Published: 2015-05-02
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Cisco Finesse Server 10.0(1), 10.5(1), 10.6(1), and 11.0(1) allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified parameters, aka Bug ID CSCut53595.

CVE-2014-3598
Published: 2015-05-01
The Jpeg2KImagePlugin plugin in Pillow before 2.5.3 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted image.

CVE-2014-8361
Published: 2015-05-01
The miniigd SOAP service in Realtek SDK allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted NewInternalClient request.

CVE-2015-0237
Published: 2015-05-01
Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization (RHEV) Manager before 3.5.1 ignores the permission to deny snapshot creation during live storage migration between domains, which allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (prevent host start) by creating a long snapshot chain.

CVE-2015-0257
Published: 2015-05-01
Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization (RHEV) Manager before 3.5.1 uses weak permissions on the directories shared by the ovirt-engine-dwhd service and a plugin during service startup, which allows local users to obtain sensitive information by reading files in the directory.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Join security and risk expert John Pironti and Dark Reading Editor-in-Chief Tim Wilson for a live online discussion of the sea-changing shift in security strategy and the many ways it is affecting IT and business.