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

11/3/2015
11:00 AM
Jason Polancich
Jason Polancich
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

Kicking Off A New Era For Policing Cybersecurity

In the wake of FTC v. Wyndham, government agencies are becoming more aggressive about protecting corporate data and customer privacy. But the new rules are very much a work in progress.

It’s an unquestionable fact that our industry’s current state of cybersecurity strategy and tactics is at best inconsistent and immature. Only the top one percenters are able to budget, plan, and execute in any robust way -- and even among that group there’s pervasive and crippling inconsistency.  

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this problem is that, despite several years of spotlight and scrutiny over one big breach after another, it’s not really getting measurably better...yet. But that all looks to be changing -- and fast. Over the course of 2015, there have been a few significant developments that could alter the corporate cybersecurity landscape for the better.  

  • In August of this year, the Third Circuit US Court of Appeals upheld a lower court verdict ruling in the case of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Wyndham Hotels giving FTC authority to police the data security standards (or lack thereof) of American companies.
  • Then, in late September, Standard and Poors (S&P), the brand name in credit and debt ratings for businesses and government entities, issued guidance that it had the authority to downgrade the ratings of financial service firms lacking in cybersecurity.
  • In October, the US Department of Defense (DoD) issued a mandate that requires defense contractors to disclose details of any negative cyber hit or risk penalties that could lead to loss of their contracts.

Will these measures be the catalyst that finally compels industry to get serious about cybersecurity?

To help me understand the legal underpinning of these rulings, I spoke with noted technology lawyer Michael Oliver from Oliver-Grimsley in Baltimore, Md. According to Oliver, rulings like the Wyndham decision are opening a new front in enterprise cyber defense preparation and diligence.

“Wyndham chose a full-on frontal assault on the authority of the FTC, and lost,” Oliver told me. “The case is a great example of inaction causing action. Congress has not regulated much in this area -- no omnibus privacy or data security law. So the FTC, much like it did in privacy, stepped in and started asserting its somewhat amorphous ‘unfairness’ standard against companies with horrible computer and data security practices.”

Oliver predicts that, initially, cases will trickle in to the FTC, but he expects that a stronger flow of lawsuits is inevitable. “Wyndham was also sued for deceptiveness; it had a privacy policy that stated it took reasonable commercial effort to secure its systems. The allegation is, and the facts (if those are proven out), will be that the company did not take remotely reasonable commercial efforts to secure its data and computers,” he said, noting that while “there are a lot of class action-style lawyers bringing these cases against companies like Target and others they are having low success.”

In the near future Oliver expects to see “a breakthrough [of] civil class action style case to come down.” Until then, he predicts the FTC will be “cherry picking the low hanging fruit of really, really bad data security cases, and going after those companies.”

The norm not the exception

For Wyndham, according to my own reading of the case, evidence of poor data security was visible everywhere -- a worrisome commentary about the state of cybersecurity across our industry. The truth, from my own experience and the details in FTC v. Wyndham, Wyndham's level of security was, in fact, the norm and not the exception.

The big question for business going forward is how to develop a meaningful understanding of what reasonable security measures mean; it’s no longer what everyone else is doing. Before the ruling, Oliver explained to me, the old standard was ”kinda like driving 80 mph and keeping up with traffic and then the police pull you over.” Today, he said, the fact that “other people were doing it (or were not doing proper security) is not a defense.”

In Oliver’s view, post FTC v. Wyndham, companies will need to address three areas: initial security system data design; monitoring and prompt notice and mitigation; and remote access/third party access. So, to prepare -- from a legal perspective -- Oliver recommends that companies set realistic goals; document those goals and audit performance over time.

“Of course you still should address breach, notice and mitigation, and do all of the other things generally required to maintain a commercially reasonably secure system,” he told me. “But if the firm shows a real commitment to computer data security, I think the FTC will be more lenient.”

[For more on the topic, check out UnitedLex Senior VP and Chief Privacy Officer’s FTC v. Wyndham: ‘Naughty 9’ Security Fails to Avoid.]

 The bad news is that with the Wyndham case there are “no rules, no safe harbors, no conduct to advise a client -- if you do this, the FTC will not come after you." According to Oliver,  that was an argument Wyndham made;  that it did not have fair notice of what conduct was under the “unfairness” standard, and that FTC can only impose those standards via rule-making and not ad hoc adjudication. “Wyndham lost on that issue too,” he said. “So, while we can say what conduct we know for sure is a violation, we cannot say what conduct for sure is not a violation.”

As usual, the best defense is, well, the best defense possible -- and even more so for those of us in the business of safeguarding corporate data and individual privacy. To take cybersecurity seriously today, companies must do a lot more than just buy firewalls and SIEMS and IDS/IPS systems. In this new climate, organizations must show they know their risks and that they’re identifying and mitigating threats and documenting continuous, persistent diligence.

Black Hat Europe returns to the beautiful city of Amsterdam, Netherlands November 12 & 13, 2015. Click here for more information and to register.

Jason Polancich is co-founder, app designer and digital marketing lead for Musubu.io. Polancich is also a linguist, software engineer, data scientist, and intelligence analyst. He originally founded HackSurfer/SurfWatch Labs (Pre-VC), a cyber analytics firm founded in 2013 ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
jsmuller
50%
50%
jsmuller,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/12/2015 | 1:00:12 PM
Insurance should be a cornerstone!
Lol! I don't understand the attitude of contempt for cyber/breach insurance (and agents) that I occasionally run in to coming from the IT dept. Let's be honest here , true security is a fallacy as it stands today. This said , insuring the risk is probably one of the most prudent actions that one could take! We offer a complimentary and essential element of a security strategy and are not something to disparage and scorn in the same vein as the IRS. Do your best , insure the rest.
Sagiss, LLC
100%
0%
Sagiss, LLC,
User Rank: Strategist
11/4/2015 | 11:30:08 AM
Security for Business
This security guide by the FTC could also be super helpful for businesses to align their security with the newest industry standards.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/start-security-guide-business

 
dfunk1
0%
100%
dfunk1,
User Rank: Strategist
11/4/2015 | 7:58:35 AM
OPM Security?
For years Bruce Schneier has held that Insurance will finally regulate data security and it is starting to look that way. This article is big on 'We're from Washington, and we're here to help.' This would be the same guys that brought you OPM, TSA and the IRS. If I have to choose between the Godless bastards in the insurance industry or the Godless bastards in Washington; well, the Godless bastards in the Insurance industry can't throw me into jail if they don't like me. And there is zero evidence that the government is doing better at this than industry. Something has to be done doesn't mean that the government has to do it.
97% of Americans Can't Ace a Basic Security Test
Steve Zurier, Contributing Writer,  5/20/2019
How Security Vendors Can Address the Cybersecurity Talent Shortage
Rob Rashotte, VP of Global Training and Technical Field Enablement at Fortinet,  5/24/2019
TeamViewer Admits Breach from 2016
Dark Reading Staff 5/20/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-7068
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .
CVE-2019-7069
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have a type confusion vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .
CVE-2019-7070
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .
CVE-2019-7071
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to information disclosure.
CVE-2019-7072
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .