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

12/8/2015
04:00 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Retailers Inadequately Secured Against Risks From Temporary Workers

Retailers recognize temps are higher-risk, but have lower visibility into their activity.

Retailers recognize that temporary staff on the store floor pose a greater security risk than permanent staff, but those same retailers may believe they are better secured against the risks than they are, according to a report released today by Osterman Research, commissioned by Bay Dynamics.

According to research from the Hay Group, turnover for part-time sales associates in retail averaged 66 percent in 2014. The latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that in October alone, even leading into the holiday shopping season, there was a 4.4 percent "separation rate" in the retail labor force, including a 2.8 percent "quit rate." This contributes to the fact that, as Osterman researchers explain "employee loyalty is relatively low."

Thirty-two percent of respondents to the report -- which surveyed U.S. retailers with 2,000 or more employees -- said that temporary employees are "high-risk," while only 18 percent consider permanent employees high-risk. 

Yet, their visibility into temporary employees' data access and behavior is worse than it is for permanent employees.

While 62 percent survey respondents stated that they "know everything" permanent employees are doing on their corporate systems, only 50 percent said the same of temps. While 92 percent said they can identify what specific systems their permanent employees accesssed, only 63 percent said the same of temps. While 14 percent said they are not sure if permanent employees accessed or sent data they should not have, 26 percent were similarly unsure about temporary staff.

Osterman researchers believe the real figures might be even worse than they think, because 61 percent also said that their temporary workers shared login credentials. (Twenty-one percent said permanent workers shared credentials.) From the report:

Since employees are using shared accounts as shown in Figure 1, the in-house IT and security teams do not have visibility into each individual’s behavior, either for permanent or temporary employees, and cannot determine what that individual is doing on their network (completely contradicting the response from the majority of survey respondents that said they know everything permanent and temporary employees are doing on their corporate systems).

... This highlights a critical problem in the retail industry: much of what employees do from a security perspective is “under the radar” and more or less invisible to IT and security management. For example, an employee with unique or shared login credentials to a point-of-sale (POS) system can process bogus voids, deletes or refunds, and a large proportion of organizations will not be able to determine that fraud has occurred. Similarly, employees can mistakenly click on a phishing link in a corporate email and thereby infect the entire corporate network, often unbeknownst to IT/security management.

The lion's share of respondent's believe they are being proactive at detecting data theft/leakage (86%), identifying data assets that must be protected (86%), controlling employee access to critical data assets (81%), and providing awareness training (71%). Only 39 percent of respondents conduct awareness training more than once a year.

As the report states, "digging deeper into the survey results, it becomes clear that retailers are resting on a false sense of confidence in their security programs and do not realize, or perhaps do not want to acknowledge, that there are significant holes. Consequently, retailers are elevating their risk of getting breached."

Sara Peters is Senior Editor at Dark Reading and formerly the editor-in-chief of Enterprise Efficiency. Prior that she was senior editor for the Computer Security Institute, writing and speaking about virtualization, identity management, cybersecurity law, and a myriad ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest 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-2017-18112
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
Affected versions of Atlassian Fisheye allow remote attackers to view the HTTP password of a repository via an Information Disclosure vulnerability in the logging feature. The affected versions are before version 4.8.3.
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 shipm...
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.