Partner Perspectives  Connecting marketers to our tech communities.
SPONSORED BY
2/22/2018
09:00 AM
Raymond Pompon
Raymond Pompon
Partner Perspectives
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
50%
50%

Security Liability in an 'Assume Breach' World

Cybersecurity today is more than an IT issue. It's a product quality issue, a customer service issue, an operational issue, and an executive issue. Here's why.

Sara Boddy contributed to this article.

Anything we put online must swim in a sea of enemies. The F5 Labs report, Lessons Learned from a Decade of Data Breaches reveals that the average breach leaked 35 million records.  Nearly 90% of the US population’s social security numbers have been breached to cybercriminals. When confronted by staggering statistics like these, it is prudent to assume it’s a matter of "if, not when" your systems will be hacked. The safest stance is to operate in an "assume breach" mode. This means anticipating that most of the systems and devices you use on a day-to-day basis, from IoT devices in homes to web servers supporting applications, are susceptible to attack.

At the heart of this, CISOs are so worried about the impacts of a breach that 81% of them either won’t report a breach, or would only report a material breach which, depending on the size of the company and its materiality threshold, could mean that very significant breaches go unreported. The recent F5 and Ponemon report "The Evolving Role of CISOs and their Importance to the Business," found that:

  • 19% of CISOS report all breaches to the CEO/Board
  • 46% of CISOs report only material breaches
  • 35% do not report breaches at all.

So why are CISOs reluctant to report a breach? It seems that every high-profile breach is followed by the cleaning out of the C-suite. From Equifax to Uber, a breach means those in charge of cybersecurity are sent off in search of new employment.

This should raise serious questions regarding liability for corporate leadership. But according to Harvard Business Review: "Just 38% of directors reported having a high level of concern about cybersecurity risks, and an even smaller proportion said they were prepared for these risks." That’s no surprise. Organizations run on IT, and most of our IT systems are being engineered beyond our ability to operate or monitor them.

Complex and Multifaceted
Compounding this problem is the fact that cybersecurity is a complicated field with many facets and sub-disciplines. Consider these eight areas identified by the International Information System Security Certification Consortium as essential knowledge for cybersecurity:

  • Security and Risk Management
  • Asset Security
  • Security Engineering
  • Communications and Network Security
  • Identity and Access Management
  • Security Assessment and Testing
  • Security Operations
  • Software Development Security

Most executives have a working knowledge of sales, contract law, and accounting, but once you dive into the deep water of IT security, comprehension gets far more difficult. It doesn’t help that many IT processionals speak in terms of technology, not business. From this, we can conclude:

  • Breaches should be expected.
  • CISOs are not fully reporting breaches.
  • Executives are deficient in their awareness and ability of understanding the risk.

This lack of awareness raises serious questions about liability for the organization, the CISO, and the leadership itself. While businesses generally work to limit their liability whenever and wherever they can, when it comes to cyber-risk executive teams seem to be exposing themselves unnecessarily. The exposure stems from regulations that make protecting other people's information a business duty and obligation.

'Commercially Reasonable' Data Protection
In general, the law states that organizations must use “commercially reasonable” methods to secure access to the data they collect and process about their employees, customers and, in the case of hosting/outsourcing organizations, their customer’s customers. There are plenty of standards to measure what is commercially reasonable, such as those published by the National Institute of Standards as well as commercial standards, such as the Payment Card Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS), which also introduces contractual liability if standards are not met.

When it comes to contractual liability there are many things could go badly for an organization and ways in which they can be penalized: breach of contract (if contract requires cybersecurity), general negligence (especially if internal processes are not being followed), or breach of warranty (if contract guarantees a certain level of security quality). On top of that, there is the potential for class-action customer and shareholder lawsuits for negligence. This is not counting all the regulatory liability that stem from FTC lawsuits for false advertising regarding security, state attorneys general suing for improper notification, and the forthcoming GDPR regulatory requirements.

With such painful liability threats looming, organizations need to look at their information security plan as a liability defense plan. Cybersecurity is part of the business, which means that it’s not just an IT issue, but also a quality issue (liability regarding product quality), a customer service issue (liability regarding customer data), and an operational issue (liability regarding service delivery). Security leaders should be aware of the potential liability and make use of trusted advisors, both within and outside the organization, to help manage this risk. Lastly, executives, once aware of their risks and liabilities, need to follow up and monitor operations in order to ensure that the business liability is kept to a minimum.

Get the latest application threat intelligence from F5 Labs.

 

Raymond Pompon is a Principal Threat Researcher Evangelist with F5 labs. With over 20 years of experience in Internet security, he has worked closely with Federal law enforcement in cyber-crime investigations. He has recently written IT Security Risk Control Management: An ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
6 Ways Greed Has a Negative Effect on Cybersecurity
Joshua Goldfarb, Co-founder & Chief Product Officer, IDRRA ,  6/11/2018
Weaponizing IPv6 to Bypass IPv4 Security
John Anderson, Principal Security Consultant, Trustwave Spiderlabs,  6/12/2018
'Shift Left' & the Connected Car
Rohit Sethi, COO of Security Compass,  6/12/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
F5 makes apps go-faster, smarter, and safer. With solutions for the cloud and the data center, F5 technology provides unparalleled visibility and control, allowing customers to secure their users, applications, and data. For more information, visit www.f5.com.
Featured Writers
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-2018-12026
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
During the spawning of a malicious Passenger-managed application, SpawningKit in Phusion Passenger 5.3.x before 5.3.2 allows such applications to replace key files or directories in the spawning communication directory with symlinks. This then could result in arbitrary reads and writes, which in tur...
CVE-2018-12027
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
An Insecure Permissions vulnerability in SpawningKit in Phusion Passenger 5.3.x before 5.3.2 causes information disclosure in the following situation: given a Passenger-spawned application process that reports that it listens on a certain Unix domain socket, if any of the parent directories of said ...
CVE-2018-12028
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
An Incorrect Access Control vulnerability in SpawningKit in Phusion Passenger 5.3.x before 5.3.2 allows a Passenger-managed malicious application, upon spawning a child process, to report an arbitrary different PID back to Passenger's process manager. If the malicious application then generates an e...
CVE-2018-12029
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
A race condition in the nginx module in Phusion Passenger 3.x through 5.x before 5.3.2 allows local escalation of privileges when a non-standard passenger_instance_registry_dir with insufficiently strict permissions is configured. Replacing a file with a symlink after the file was created, but befor...
CVE-2018-12071
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
A Session Fixation issue exists in CodeIgniter before 3.1.9 because session.use_strict_mode in the Session Library was mishandled.