Risk
6/22/2005
04:49 PM
Patricia Keefe
Patricia Keefe
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Data Security: IT's Oxymoron

In case you haven't noticed, the last decade in banking has been all about mergers (each one bigger than the last), big-buck CEOs, increasing fees, and decreasing access to human beings. Sure, some consumer accounts got lost or crunched in the slamming together of newlywed bank systems, but who cared? Not the regulators and not the banks.

In case you haven't noticed, the last decade in banking has been all about mergers (each one bigger than the last), big-buck CEOs, increasing fees, and decreasing access to human beings. Sure, some consumer accounts got lost or crunched in the slamming together of newlywed bank systems, but who cared? Not the regulators and not the banks.What the finance industry seems to care about, besides the obvious--ever-more money and expansion--are two things: rules and computerization. If ever there was a stickler for fine print and dates, it's the money men. They cut consumers no slack and have done their best to obliterate community branches and any hint of a free service. When they aren't inundating us with credit-card offers and come-ons for new financial services, they have been relentlessly driving the masses toward electronic banking. ATM cards, debit cards, online banking--all are designed to rid the system of paper checks and human tellers, while simultaneously collecting masses of data more easily than ever before. Data that's sold, loaned, processed, and cross-tabulated again and again to rank our credit worthiness in order to adjust our credit-card rates and fill up our mailboxes with offers we don't want.

In return, consumers have gained convenience and ease of access to their funds, of course, but apparently, so have the ever-sophisticated thieves.

It seems in the rush to build banking monopolies and cut costs, the banks have been so focused on the front end, they've left the back end to their systems wide open. So wide open that the Anti-Phishing Working Group's Activity Trends Report for April shows financial services to be the biggest phishing target (84%) by far.

Little wonder we read today of banks scrambling to contain the damage from the recent spate of hacks and data losses. They spent bazillions on automation and the creation of new services, but not enough on safeguarding their clients. And among those banks that knew enough to batten down their own hatches, many have failed to look beyond the end of their noses at their third-party partners, some of whom are in flagrant violation of their banking partners' security rules. Who knew? Not the banks, but they should have known. They just aren't watching very closely, according to Gartner analyst Avivah Litan.

This quote from Ted Crooks, VP of global fraud solutions at Fair Isaac Corp., which provides customer-data-analytics services, sums it up: "Unfortunately, too many companies factor in the need for absolute evidence and the lowest possible cost for protection. This event [the CardSystems Solutions breach] was scary, but I wasn't bowled over with surprise, and it could have been avoided."

The financial-services sector can't have it both ways: It can't tell the public it's going to share our data with pretty much whomever it pleases (have you ever tried to decipher one of those privacy statements?) and then not protect that data.

And now that the jig is up, who better to feel the weight of rules and regulations, and the punitive sting of financial penalties? Now that's talking a language we know they'll understand.

Data thieves may be mightily attracted to the financial sector, but their reach is by no means limited to that industry. And sometimes it's unthinking IT design mistakes that leave consumers vulnerable. Do you think you have the right strategies, tools, and policies in place to defend your network and data? Check out our Global Information Security Survey. Your completed survey also enters you in our $4,000 prize drawing for a laptop or iPods!

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-4594
Published: 2014-10-25
The Payment for Webform module 7.x-1.x before 7.x-1.5 for Drupal does not restrict access by anonymous users, which allows remote anonymous users to use the payment of other anonymous users when submitting a form that requires payment.

CVE-2014-0476
Published: 2014-10-25
The slapper function in chkrootkit before 0.50 does not properly quote file paths, which allows local users to execute arbitrary code via a Trojan horse executable. NOTE: this is only a vulnerability when /tmp is not mounted with the noexec option.

CVE-2014-1927
Published: 2014-10-25
The shell_quote function in python-gnupg 0.3.5 does not properly quote strings, which allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in unspecified vectors, as demonstrated using "$(" command-substitution sequences, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-1928....

CVE-2014-1928
Published: 2014-10-25
The shell_quote function in python-gnupg 0.3.5 does not properly escape characters, which allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in unspecified vectors, as demonstrated using "\" (backslash) characters to form multi-command sequences, a different vulner...

CVE-2014-1929
Published: 2014-10-25
python-gnupg 0.3.5 and 0.3.6 allows context-dependent attackers to have an unspecified impact via vectors related to "option injection through positional arguments." NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2013-7323.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.