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 contributing editor to Dark Reading and 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 of other ... 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
Flash Poll
Current Issue
Cartoon
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-6651
Published: 2014-07-31
Multiple directory traversal vulnerabilities in the Vitamin plugin before 1.1.0 for WordPress allow remote attackers to access arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the path parameter to (1) add_headers.php or (2) minify.php.

CVE-2014-2970
Published: 2014-07-31
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2014-5139. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2014-5139, and has also been used to refer to an unrelated topic that is currently outside the scope of CVE. This unrelated topic is a LibreSSL code change adding functionality ...

CVE-2014-3488
Published: 2014-07-31
The SslHandler in Netty before 3.9.2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (infinite loop and CPU consumption) via a crafted SSLv2Hello message.

CVE-2014-3554
Published: 2014-07-31
Buffer overflow in the ndp_msg_opt_dnssl_domain function in libndp allows remote routers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted DNS Search List (DNSSL) in an IPv6 router advertisement.

CVE-2014-5171
Published: 2014-07-31
SAP HANA Extend Application Services (XS) does not encrypt transmissions for applications that enable form based authentication using SSL, which allows remote attackers to obtain credentials and other sensitive information by sniffing the network.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio