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

1/15/2008
04:16 PM
George V. Hulme
George V. Hulme
Commentary
50%
50%

The Time Is Now (Better Yet, Yesterday) For A Federal Data Breach Disclosure Law

It'll soon be five years since the California data breach disclosure law, better known as SB 1386, went into effect. So far the law has had some success. But we need a federal standard.

It'll soon be five years since the California data breach disclosure law, better known as SB 1386, went into effect. So far the law has had some success. But we need a federal standard.For certain, the number of public security breach disclosures have risen dramatically since the law went into effect. Including a number of blockbusters, such as those at ChoicePoint, TJX, and the VA. Prior to SB 1386, too many (read: nearly all) companies opted to ignore the data theft. They wouldn't call law enforcement, and they certainly wouldn't give their customers a heads-up that something was awry with their account information.

But this newfound visibility has done little to help customers whose financially-related account information has been placed at risk. Most companies offer little more than a free year's worth of credit monitoring. Something that can be bought for between $50 to $100 from the major credit reporting agencies. The best thing a consumer can do is place a freeze on their credit reports. But if their account information or Social Security number already has been used for credit card fraud or outright identity theft, they're facing many painful hours and hundreds of dollars lost trying to regain control of their name. Not to mention the hassle of rebuilding credit.

The bad news for IT security managers is that there are now more than 35 individual state security breach laws, many different than SB 1386. There's little hope in being compliant to all 35 -- so most enterprises follow California's lead and hope they're in compliance with the rest. But there's risk in this approach, as some states have lower standards that trigger a breach notification.

What's needed is a federal law that would establish a clear and consistent mandate for customer breach notifications.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Cybersecurity Industry: It's Time to Stop the Victim Blame Game
Jessica Smith, Senior Vice President, The Crypsis Group,  2/25/2020
Google Adds More Security Features Via Chronicle Division
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/25/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-9431
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-27
In Wireshark 3.2.0 to 3.2.1, 3.0.0 to 3.0.8, and 2.6.0 to 2.6.14, the LTE RRC dissector could leak memory. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-lte-rrc.c by adjusting certain append operations.
CVE-2020-9432
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-27
openssl_x509_check_host in lua-openssl 0.7.7-1 mishandles X.509 certificate validation because it uses lua_pushboolean for certain non-boolean return values.
CVE-2020-9433
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-27
openssl_x509_check_email in lua-openssl 0.7.7-1 mishandles X.509 certificate validation because it uses lua_pushboolean for certain non-boolean return values.
CVE-2020-9434
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-27
openssl_x509_check_ip_asc in lua-openssl 0.7.7-1 mishandles X.509 certificate validation because it uses lua_pushboolean for certain non-boolean return values.
CVE-2020-6383
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-27
Type confusion in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 80.0.3987.116 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.