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.

Risk

3/9/2009
06:44 PM
George V. Hulme
George V. Hulme
Commentary
50%
50%

Do Breach Notification Laws Work? Yes

Apparently a good number of consumers who receive letters notifying them that their financial or credit card information has been breached are tossing the notifications without taking action. Does this mean these notices are worthless?

Apparently a good number of consumers who receive letters notifying them that their financial or credit card information has been breached are tossing the notifications without taking action. Does this mean these notices are worthless?I don't think so. Kim Zetter at Wired's Threat Level blog penned an interesting post covering some of the discussions at the Security Breach Notification seminar, which was held in Berkeley, Calif., this past Friday.

From Zetter's post:

And though most states now have laws requiring companies to warn breach victims, some serious breaches are still showing up on customer credit and bank statements before any official warning has been issued. It all begs the question: are the notification laws working?

Zetter then accurately details benefits of transparency brought by these breach notifications.

However, it's with this point of view that was expressed at the conference that I take issue:

Breach notifications should, theoretically, reduce the number of incidents of identity theft or fraudulent charges to credit cards if consumers take proper precautions once they receive a notification -- such as placing a fraud alert or freeze on their credit account and monitoring their account bills and statements for suspicious transactions.

But in some cases, customers discover fraudulent charges on their cards or become victims of identity theft before a company is even aware its computers have been breached, making the breach notification redundant for those consumers.

Some other points include the issue that a portion, apparently the majority, of notice recipients actually ignore the notifications.

First, just because someone notices a fraudulent transaction on a financial statement, and then later gets a breach notification letter, that does not make that notification "redundant," as it's quite reasonable to expect that most credit card users will not know where a thief got their credit card data. Was it the restaurant I was at last week? The bookstore? Gas station? Or that online purchase?

You won't know for sure. But the breach notification would certainly give you a good idea.

Second, it's possible someone would use several different credit cards at the same online retailer over a period of months. Should this be the case, it would now be a good idea (following a notification) to change the credit card number for all of the cards used at that retailer over the affected period of time.

Third, it gives consumers the option to no longer shop at that merchant.

Helping consumers avoid identity theft and fraudulent transactions is only part of the benefit of data breach notification laws. The other is that it embarrasses companies to do the right thing and get the proper security controls in place. If they don't, the world may eventually know how little care they take with their customers' information. This in itself may have helped to improve the security at many organizations. Not make it perfect, but improve it.

And any consumer who ignores these notices does so at his own peril. And if people don't take any action, such as getting a fraud alert posted, that's their fault.

Before July 2003, when the California breach disclosure law went into effect, the big argument was whether or not there really were numerous serious data breaches occurring. "Where's the proof?" naysayers would ask.

Today, thanks to these laws, at least we have that proof and know what's going on. And wise consumers can take the simple action of changing the card number used at the breach company and placing a fraud alert on their profiles at the major reporting agencies.

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/3/2020
'BootHole' Vulnerability Exposes Secure Boot Devices to Attack
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/29/2020
Average Cost of a Data Breach: $3.86 Million
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  7/29/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
This report describes some of the latest attacks and threats emanating from the Internet, as well as advice and tips on how your organization can mitigate those threats before they affect your business. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15109
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-04
In solidus before versions 2.8.6, 2.9.6, and 2.10.2, there is an bility to change order address without triggering address validations. This vulnerability allows a malicious customer to craft request data with parameters that allow changing the address of the current order without changing the ship...
CVE-2020-16847
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-04
Extreme Analytics in Extreme Management Center before 8.5.0.169 allows unauthenticated reflected XSS via a parameter in a GET request, aka CFD-4887.
CVE-2020-15135
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-04
save-server (npm package) before version 1.05 is affected by a CSRF vulnerability, as there is no CSRF mitigation (Tokens etc.). The fix introduced in version version 1.05 unintentionally breaks uploading so version v1.0.7 is the fixed version. This is patched by implementing Double submit. The CSRF...
CVE-2020-13522
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-04
An exploitable arbitrary file delete vulnerability exists in SoftPerfect RAM Disk 4.1 spvve.sys driver. A specially crafted I/O request packet (IRP) can allow an unprivileged user to delete any file on the filesystem. An attacker can send a malicious IRP to trigger this vulnerability.
CVE-2020-15943
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-04
An issue was discovered in the Gantt-Chart module before 5.5.4 for Jira. Due to a missing privilege check, it is possible to read and write to the module configuration of other users. This can also be used to deliver an XSS payload to other users' dashboards. To exploit this vulnerability, an attack...