Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Attacks/Breaches

5 Steps To Supply Chain Security

The integrity of enterprise data is only as strong as your most vulnerable third-party supplier or business partner. It's time to shore up these connection points.

Download the entire
August 2014 issue of
Dark Reading Tech Digest
, distributed in an all-digital format (registration required).

One of the largest known breaches, resulting in 110 million records lost and hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, started with a small, third-party supplier. We're talking about Target, where attackers compromised Fazio Mechanical Services, a provider of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning services, to gain access to the retail giant's network. The breach lasted 19 days and contributed to a 46% drop in year-over-year quarterly profits for the company, according to Target's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Nearly 100 lawsuits have been filed so far, and Target's then CEO, Gregg Steinhafel, and its CIO, Beth Jacobs, have resigned.

"The Target breach is a watershed moment in third-party attacks," says Stephen Boyer, CEO of BitSight, a security intelligence firm. "No one wants to be the next one."

The breach may be a watershed, but it's hardly unique. The August 2013 defacement of The New York Times occurred because attackers fooled the media organization's DNS provider into granting access to the account that determined how the Internet routed traffic to the Times' site. Lockheed Martin suffered an attack through a flaw in RSA's SecurID system. The email addresses of customers who sought support from Twitter, Pinterest, and Tumblr were leaked when attackers breached support services firm Zendesk in February 2013. Security and CDN service CloudFlare was infiltrated via its CEO's Gmail account.

And the beat goes on.

Piggybacking on third-party suppliers is now a well-worn page in attackers' playbooks. Both RSA and whitelisting provider Bit9 suffered compromises, not to steal their data, but to weaken the protections around companies that use their services. IT is aware of the threat; respondents to InformationWeek's 2014 Strategic Security Survey who feel more vulnerable to attack this year than last increasingly point to partners. Those citing an inability to audit or assess outsourcing and/or cloud vendors jumped by nine points year over year, with fears over vulnerability of key technology products shooting up 13 points.

"If I want to attack Fort Knox and I know they have locks and guards and strong security, it is easier to attack one of their providers who already have access to the gold," says James Christiansen, VP of information risk management for Accuvant, an information security service provider.

Adding insult to injury, companies breached via a third party generally find their recovery costs higher. In 2013, the average breach cost for a US firm was $201 per lost record, according to the Ponemon Institute's 2014 Cost of Data Breach Study: Global Analysis report. Third-party involvement was the second most important negative factor in the cost of a breach, costing companies an average of $14.80 more per record, just behind the impact of a lost or stolen device, which added $16.10 per record.

Vendors, Suppliers, Contractors -- Oh, My!
US companies rely heavily on third-party firms to provide services critical to their businesses yet generally have little visibility into the security practices of those firms. While larger suppliers may spend a significant amount on security, there is no guarantee -- and less likelihood -- that smaller partners are making similar investments, says BitSight's Boyer.

In short, supplier-based attacks are particularly scary because they're out of IT's control. "The only real knob or lever you have is the questionnaire," says Boyer, referring to the annual surveys many companies use to assess their suppliers' security and, in theory, prod providers into taking protections more seriously. Some supplier-customer pairs are more likely to be targeted, such as retailers reliant on third-party point-of-sale technology firms, companies attacked via their law firms, and medical information targeted through the doctor's office. But no one is immune.

To read the rest of this story, download the August
Dark Reading Tech Digest, distributed in an all-digital format (registration required).

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
marklfeller
50%
50%
marklfeller,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/6/2014 | 3:57:50 PM
asada
My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,

 

 

=======================

WWW.JOBS606.COM

======================= 
Thomas Claburn
50%
50%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Ninja
8/6/2014 | 4:55:10 PM
110 million? Not so big anymore
With reports that a Russian hacking group has amassed over 1 billion logins, 110 million hardly seems noteworthy.

But attacks on supplier equipment are scary. If the bag guys get there first, it's too late.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
8/8/2014 | 11:10:07 AM
Targets responsibility
 

Target may be working  with third parties but it is still Target's responsibly to make sure the third part they work with has proper controls in place to avoid a such attack that they faced.  Obviously nobody talks about third part but Target and consumers would hold target responsible.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
8/8/2014 | 11:12:13 AM
Re: 110 million? Not so big anymore
That makes sense, however I would think it is less about the number of records more about what results they gate out of attacks.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
8/8/2014 | 11:14:27 AM
Re: 110 million? Not so big anymore
Other thing is that one is directly related to your back account and money, the other one is about usernames and passwords mainly and there may not be anything they can get out of that.
Navigating Security in the Cloud
Diya Jolly, Chief Product Officer, Okta,  12/4/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19642
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
On SuperMicro X8STi-F motherboards with IPMI firmware 2.06 and BIOS 02.68, the Virtual Media feature allows OS Command Injection by authenticated attackers who can send HTTP requests to the IPMI IP address. This requires a POST to /rpc/setvmdrive.asp with shell metacharacters in ShareHost or ShareNa...
CVE-2019-19637
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is an integer overflow in the function sixel_decode_raw_impl at fromsixel.c.
CVE-2019-19638
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is a heap-based buffer overflow in the function load_pnm at frompnm.c, due to an integer overflow.
CVE-2019-19635
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is a heap-based buffer overflow in the function sixel_decode_raw_impl at fromsixel.c.
CVE-2019-19636
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is an integer overflow in the function sixel_encode_body at tosixel.c.