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.

Comments
Backoff, Dairy Queen, UPS & Retail's Growing PoS Security Problem
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
aws0513
aws0513,
User Rank: Ninja
8/28/2014 | 9:22:20 AM
Re: Brand reputation
I have seen this corporate finger pointing technique in both the private and public sectors for years.

Almost every time, the public will connect/attribute the brand to the breach problem, not the franchisee or contractor.  Occasionally, the brand can brush off the connection if the problem has particulars regarding specific employees or activities at a specific facility or area.  But when a problem is pervasive across multiple stores or facilities, the brand CANNOT avoid the attribution no matter how many statements they may make.

To me, this is a classic example of poor executive decision making where the management mindset is to divert blame away from the crystal corporate palace.

For me, I would have more confidence and respect for any organization that is willing to stand up to the problem at hand, accept blame even if it really isn't their fault, and attest to (and follow through with) broad measures focused on full and proper remediation.
Stratustician
Stratustician,
User Rank: Moderator
8/28/2014 | 9:19:35 AM
Re: Brand reputation
I agree Marilyn, the corporate headquarters of these brandsmust be responsible for pushing down security guidelines or requirements to each of these franchises.  While it's easy for them to say "well, it's the fault of that particular franchise", the reality is yes, as you mentioned, it's the entire brand that will suffer the fallout when the public decides that they would not rather deal with these companies as they don't appear to value the privacy and security of their customers.  Passing the responsibility around is never going to fix the real issue, that security controls must be incorporated into these sytems.  Perhaps it will come down to legislation to protect the consumer.  While PCI attempted to do this, there is still very little backlash when these events occur.
Marilyn Cohodas
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
8/28/2014 | 7:36:36 AM
Brand reputation
It's unfathomable to me that franchisors are passing the security buck to their independent franchisees. As a consumer, when I go to a UPS store or a Dairy Queen, do I think of the retailer as a small independent business? Of course not. It's the brand reputation that is at risk in the case of a security breach. Unbelievable!
<<   <   Page 2 / 2


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Developing and Testing an Effective Breach Response Plan
Whether or not a data breach is a disaster for the organization depends on the security team's response and that is based on how the team developed a breach response plan beforehand and if it was thoroughly tested. Inside this report, experts share how to: -understand the technical environment, -determine what types of incidents would trigger the plan, -know which stakeholders need to be notified and how to do so, -develop steps to contain the breach, collect evidence, and initiate recovery.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-32915
PUBLISHED: 2022-12-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2021. Notes: none.
CVE-2021-43864
PUBLISHED: 2022-12-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2021. Notes: none.
CVE-2021-43865
PUBLISHED: 2022-12-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2021. Notes: none.
CVE-2021-43866
PUBLISHED: 2022-12-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2021. Notes: none.
CVE-2021-43867
PUBLISHED: 2022-12-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2021. Notes: none.