Perimeter
9/24/2011
10:00 AM
Commentary
Commentary
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

New FFIEC Authentication Guidance Calls For Layers

Increased threats and weaknesses in certain accepted authentication mechanisms, FFIEC warns

At the end of June, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) issued a supplement to the Authentication in an Internet Banking Environment guidance, which was originally released in October 2005. The substance of the guidance is that financial institutions should base their choices of authentication methods on risk assessments, and that high-risk transactions should be based on layered mechanisms.

The guidance (PDF) paints a somber and accurate picture of the threats facing institutions doing business on the Internet: It cites increasingly sophisticated criminal groups that target financial institutions, broadly available tools that allow unskilled fraudsters to perpetrate attacks, and the availability of detailed information on how to circumvent standard authentication and antifraud mechanisms as key threats to today’s financial institutions. Because of the increased number and severity of the threats, the FFIEC believes the guidance it gave in 2005 needed to be reinforced and strengthened.

The FFIEC has maintained from the start that security controls should be chosen based on results from a thorough risk assessment. The guidance recommends conducting a risk assessment not only at the initial deployment of a service, but also when threats change (e.g., known attack methods, identified vulnerabilities in mechanisms), when customer types and behavior change (e.g., increases in user sophistication or unanticipated increase in use of the service), when features of the service change (e.g., higher transaction limits or more automation), and after incidents (e.g., identity theft or fraud).

It stands to reason that an assessment of the risk of low-frequency, low-value consumer transactions would pose less a risk to financial institutions and their customers than commercial transactions that occur at high frequency or involve large sums of money.

Consequently, the FFIEC recommends increasing the strength of authentication mechanism as the assessed risk rises. And consistent with its previous recommendations, it continues to recommend multifactor authentication for high-risk transactions. However, in recognition of some of the high-profile compromises that have occurred in the past few years, the guidance points out that virtually every authentication mechanism can be compromised. It even goes as far as to say that specific techniques recommended in 2006 are vulnerable to attack. The punch line of the guidance is that organizations shouldn’t rely entirely on a single authentication method to protect them. Good security is based on layered defenses that consist of both technical and business mechanisms. The report lists various layered mechanisms (which will be discussed in more detail in a future post), but identifies two customer situations where these layers are necessary: account registration (and initial authentication) and transfer of funds to other parties. This shouldn’t surprise anyone in the financial community because these two activities are the easiest to perpetrate fraud.

The FFIEC guidance is an excellent short paper on the threat landscape, the effectiveness of popular authentication methods, and the need for layered defenses, particularly in specific types of customer interactions and transactions. Every security professional should seriously consider the advice the FFIEC provides.

Richard Mackey is vice president of consulting at SystemExperts Corp.

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
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Considering how prevalent third-party attacks are, we need to ask hard questions about how partners and suppliers are safeguarding systems and data.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-2413
Published: 2014-10-20
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the ja_purity template for Joomla! 1.5.26 and earlier allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the Mod* cookie parameter to html/modules.php.

CVE-2012-5244
Published: 2014-10-20
Multiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in Banana Dance B.2.6 and earlier allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the (1) return, (2) display, (3) table, or (4) search parameter to functions/suggest.php; (5) the id parameter to functions/widgets.php, (6) the category parameter to...

CVE-2012-5694
Published: 2014-10-20
Multiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in Bulb Security Smartphone Pentest Framework (SPF) before 0.1.3 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the (1) agentPhNo, (2) controlPhNo, (3) agentURLPath, (4) agentControlKey, or (5) platformDD1 parameter to frameworkgui/attach2Agents.p...

CVE-2012-5695
Published: 2014-10-20
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Bulb Security Smartphone Pentest Framework (SPF) 0.1.2 through 0.1.4 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that conduct (1) shell metacharacter or (2) SQL injection attacks or (3) send an SMS m...

CVE-2012-5696
Published: 2014-10-20
Bulb Security Smartphone Pentest Framework (SPF) before 0.1.3 does not properly restrict access to frameworkgui/config, which allows remote attackers to obtain the plaintext database password via a direct request.

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.