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.

Database Security
Authentication
Mobile
Privacy
Compliance
Careers and People
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
Comments
Backoff, Dairy Queen, UPS & Retail's Growing PoS Security Problem
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Some Guy
Some Guy,
 User Rank: Moderator
9/3/2014 | 3:33:25 PM
Re: Brand reputation
Not so fast. If the POS and IT system is supplied by the Fanchisor, I'd agree. If not, it really is the Franchisee's responsibility. I think that it's wrong to hold the Franchisors accountable *ex post facto* when, up to now, the Franchisors haven't even been provided an opportunity to address this new risk to their reputation. (Clearly fair to hold them accountable for failing to anticipate this risk.)

It's a fine line, but a well understood distinction, especially in a legal liability sense. As with many things legal, check your intuition and sensibilities at the courthouse door.

That being said, I agree that it has definitely emerged to be in the best interest of the Fanchisor to, at the very least, specify security requirements (and probably enshrine it in the franchise agreement). The Franchisors could just as easily revoke the offending Franchisees to protect their reputation. In the vein of "every problem is an opportunity," the smart play would be for a Franchisor to impose security across the Franchise and provide value add to the Franchisees, as well as turn this into a feature of the Franchise -- great service and secure purchases now at *all* UPS Stores.

 
Krishnaprasad Prabhakaran CFE
Krishnaprasad Prabhakaran CFE,
 User Rank: Apprentice
9/3/2014 | 11:30:47 AM
Re: Brand reputation
 

I agree with you,let me explain you the reason for my earlier question.

Backoff is a malware which is known as RAM scrapper.This malware is a type of BotNet.A BotNet can be spreaded through IRC(Internet Relay Chat) ,social engineering or hackers are able to guess a poorly constructed password and install malware like Backoff.

According to US-CERT's, where the attackers were able to guess the password to the system,and  installed the Backoff program. The malware disguises itself as an innocent Java component but 'listens' for credit card transactions, storing them and transmitting them to criminals. The department says the malware was released last October 2013, but was undetectable to current anti-malware software.

Hence,I have raised a question about CISO and intrusion detection system.

As everyone related to Anti-Fraud and compliance were very much aware about the target Corp attack and it's a similar attack,my question is why CISO had not taken any precautionary steps.He should have trained his employee about malware attack.

As I think in a 360degree ,it could be CI(Competitive Intelligence) as sleepers/moles.

Krishna Prasad Prabhakaran .CFE

UAE
GonzSTL
GonzSTL,
 User Rank: Ninja
9/3/2014 | 8:36:11 AM
Re: Brand reputation
Simply having a CISO or an IDS solution in place does not necessarily provide invulnerability to an organization. Imagine a car with a sophisticated alarm system with an active monitor - how easy would it be to steal that car if it was unlocked and the keys were in it? In reality, no organization is invulnerable; it can only mitigate risks to the best of its ability and according to its own risk analysis. It really boils down to the culture of the organization. If it does not see security as a critical goal, then its likelihood for compromise increases.
Krishnaprasad Prabhakaran CFE
Krishnaprasad Prabhakaran CFE,
 User Rank: Apprentice
9/2/2014 | 6:17:59 PM
Re: Brand reputation
Dear All,

My question to you all,whether these retailers have CISO on place where they do IDS(Intrusion Detection system),penetration testing.If they did so,how a botnet can enter their server and POS gets compromised.Though they have their security officer in place then why he was not alert even after BLACKPOS attack and TargetCorp instance.I even doubt that these retailers follow PCI standards.

 

Krishna Prasad Prabhakaran .CFE

UAE
DarkReadingTim
DarkReadingTim,
 User Rank: Strategist
8/29/2014 | 10:15:13 AM
Re: Brand reputation
It seems to me that we need to do more to address the fundamental flaws in the way PoS systems are deployed and maintained. Most retail stores are using very old PoS technology, and they are often deployed on a store-by-store basis. The way they are used by staff can be very inconsistent, and most brick-and-mortar store managers don't understand the ways that the systems can be attacked.

More needs to be done to keep PoS systems consistent and up to date at all locations, and to ensure that the devices aren't exposed to potential threats by untrained staff.
GonzSTL
GonzSTL,
 User Rank: Ninja
8/28/2014 | 8:19:23 PM
Re: Brand reputation
I'm not sure that regulatory agencies are the solution. In the case of a breach that exposes card data, industry bodies such as the PCI Standards Council are effective in levying fines and penalties, plus the brand itself suffers due to a lack of confidence by the spending public. This lack of confidence, although difficult to measure and predict, can almost certainly be attributed as a factor in the diminished bottom line of any company that has suffered such a breach. In effect, the matter is almost Darwinian.
RyanSepe
RyanSepe,
 User Rank: Ninja
8/28/2014 | 3:09:00 PM
Re: Brand reputation
I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, I think that the use regulating bodies is needed in most cases to get corporations to jump on the security train. It seems that fines/repercussions are one of the largest drivers for implementation of security measures. Its unfortunate but thats what I have noticed throughtout the years. Many corporations try to provide the minimum just to attain compliance. 

Who would be, if any, the regulatory agency for retailers? I know the healthcare industry has OCR following HIPAA standards and the financial industry has FINRA.
GonzSTL
GonzSTL,
 User Rank: Ninja
8/28/2014 | 1:17:58 PM
Re: Brand reputation
If the brand were to require security standards (which I support, by the way), then a franchisee should provide evidence of security compliance to corporate standards. In a small operation such as a fast food restaurant, this incurs additional operating expense in the form of external security auditing. I'm not sure a small franchise operation can absorb that cost. Since the brand itself would ultimately suffer as well from a franchisee breach, it seems to me that the corporate office should shoulder at least a large part of that cost. It wouldn't be difficult for the corporation to contract with an auditing firm to perform periodic audits of the individual franchises. This would serve to reduce those individual audit costs, as well as provide a means for compliance reporting that rolls up to the corporation. Frankly, I think this will eventually become standard in a franchise operation.
aws0513
aws0513,
 User Rank: Ninja
8/28/2014 | 11:03:40 AM
Re: Brand reputation
I agree Marilyn.

As the commentary in the article mentions, it is hubris.
Image supersedes substance. 
Presentation supersedes ethics or integrity of character.

Like so many other human ventures... the minimum amount of effort for the greatest gain, but with a catch in that the minimum is often well below what should be in order to increase the gain.
Marilyn Cohodas
Marilyn Cohodas,
 User Rank: Strategist
8/28/2014 | 9:31:30 AM
Re: Brand reputation
A franchisee has to adhere to corporate standards for sales, pricing, marketing, what uniforms employees where to work. It's ludicrous that the same rigor would not be applied to security breaches. 
Page 1 / 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
Black Hat USA 2022 Attendee Report
Black Hat attendees are not sleeping well. Between concerns about attacks against cloud services, ransomware, and the growing risks to the global supply chain, these security pros have a lot to be worried about. Read our 2022 report to hear what they're concerned about now.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-37041
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-12
An issue was discovered in ProxyServlet.java in the /proxy servlet in Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) 8.8.15 and 9.0. The value of the X-Forwarded-Host header overwrites the value of the Host header in proxied requests. The value of X-Forwarded-Host header is not checked against the whitelist of ho...
CVE-2022-37042
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-12
Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) 8.8.15 and 9.0 has mboximport functionality that receives a ZIP archive and extracts files from it. By bypassing authentication (i.e., not having an authtoken), an attacker can upload arbitrary files to the system, leading to directory traversal and remote code execu...
CVE-2022-37043
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-12
An issue was discovered in the webmail component in Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) 8.8.15 and 9.0. When using preauth, CSRF tokens are not checked on some POST endpoints. Thus, when an authenticated user views an attacker-controlled page, a request will be sent to the application that appears to b...
CVE-2022-37044
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-12
In Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) 8.8.15, the URL at /h/search?action accepts parameters called extra, title, and onload that are partially sanitised and lead to reflected XSS that allows executing arbitrary JavaScript on the victim's machine.
CVE-2022-37423
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-12
Neo4j APOC (Awesome Procedures on Cypher) before 4.3.0.7 and 4.x before 4.4.0.8 allows Directory Traversal to sibling directories via apoc.log.stream.