Risk
2/22/2007
02:51 PM
50%
50%

Making Up For A Data Breach

Do companies really care about the security of their customers' data? Quite frankly, not as much as they should, based on what's in the news.

Do companies really care about the security of their customers' data? Quite frankly, not as much as they should, based on what's in the news.Lately, it seems, we've been hearing about all types of data breaches: retailer TJX, the state of Connecticut, Stop & Shop, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. It's an epidemic, but don't turn to Johns Hopkins; an outside contractor to that health facility lost nine backup tapes that held sensitive personal information on 52,000 workers and 83,000 patients. The data is "thought" to have been destroyed. That's not really very comforting if you are one of those 135,000 people. And that's a pretty big number.

One big problem is that executives give data protection a lot of lip service these days. But if you think about it, what choice do companies have? Shareholders aren't going to be really happy with "Part of our cost-cutting measures includes neglecting our customer data." In fact, these companies probably invested quite a bit in some type of business intelligence product. Data mining is all the rage, and for good reason. There are plenty of lucrative marketing opportunities out there, if you can make sense out of all that data collected. Identifying repeat customers, buying trends, and other information that can better your business justifies collecting some types of data in the first place.

But some of what's collected seems odd: For example, TJX stored the license numbers of people who returned items without a receipt. Now, what is done with that information? How often does a retailer track someone down using the driver's license number? Seems to me companies could simply refuse to take a return without a receipt (like Toys "R" Us has recently done). The point is, how much information is necessary, and how much is overkill? Companies are opening themselves to more exposure by collecting too much information. It's all the more to worry about if there's a breach.

So, here are my Common Sense Rules.

  • First, companies ought to only hang on to information that is absolutely necessary. That way, if it's stolen (TJX), lost (Johns Hopkins), or otherwise compromised (Stop & Shop), there's less to worry about, plain and simple.

  • Second, companies should have possession of that data for only a specified period of time -- something that is currently mandated for credit card information but apparently was ignored by some of the parties involved.
  • Finally, there should be a Customer's Bill of Rights regarding what happens if your data goes astray. The JetBlue debacle of last week in which airline passengers were stranded on the tarmac for hours -- and the resultant Passenger Bill of Rights -- could act as a model for this. If companies must make reparations for lax data security, it's more likely that they will pay attention to keeping it locked up to begin with.
  • Massachusetts is taking note: A bill in the Legislature would make businesses pay for poor data security. Companies would be mandated to pay to cancel or reissue cards, stop payments, or block transactions. That may be too complicated; all that might be needed is a financial penalty, payable to the victim. For example, $100 would be payable to the person whose data has been breached. It's then up to that person if he or she even wants the credit card reissued. This system is straightforward and can be easily calculated. But whatever remedy is chosen, the time has come for some "incentive" to be invoked.

    Comment  | 
    Print  | 
    More Insights
    Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
    White Papers
    Cartoon
    Current Issue
    Dark Reading December Tech Digest
    Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
    Flash Poll
    Video
    Slideshows
    Twitter Feed
    Dark Reading - Bug Report
    Bug Report
    Enterprise Vulnerabilities
    From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
    CVE-2014-3407
    Published: 2014-11-27
    The SSL VPN implementation in Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software 9.3(.2) and earlier does not properly allocate memory blocks during HTTP packet handling, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via crafted packets, aka Bug ID CSCuq68888.

    CVE-2014-4829
    Published: 2014-11-27
    Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in IBM Security QRadar SIEM and QRadar Risk Manager 7.1 before MR2 Patch 9 and 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, and QRadar Vulnerability Manager 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests tha...

    CVE-2014-4831
    Published: 2014-11-27
    IBM Security QRadar SIEM and QRadar Risk Manager 7.1 before MR2 Patch 9 and 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, and QRadar Vulnerability Manager 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, allow remote attackers to hijack sessions via unspecified vectors.

    CVE-2014-4832
    Published: 2014-11-27
    IBM Security QRadar SIEM and QRadar Risk Manager 7.1 before MR2 Patch 9 and 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, and QRadar Vulnerability Manager 7.2 before 7.2.4 Patch 1, allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive cookie information by sniffing the network during an HTTP session.

    CVE-2014-4883
    Published: 2014-11-27
    resolv.c in the DNS resolver in uIP, and dns.c in the DNS resolver in lwIP 1.4.1 and earlier, does not use random values for ID fields and source ports of DNS query packets, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to conduct cache-poisoning attacks via spoofed reply packets.

    Best of the Web
    Dark Reading Radio
    Archived Dark Reading Radio
    Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?