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.

Threat Intelligence

11/13/2019
03:30 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

The Ripple Effect of Data Breaches: How Damage Spreads

The financial loss from so-called 'ripple events' is thirteen times greater than the cost of single-party security incidents.

A cyberattack limited to one organization can be enough to cause significant financial loss, data compromise, and long-term damage. When an attack extends to several victims, as is increasingly the case with enterprise incidents, the effects quickly multiply.

Researchers say these so-called "ripple events" typically involve a breach of one central victim that leads to downstream losses at other third parties. The effects often span degrees of separation, with loss events at other fourth-, fifth-, and further parties as well. A new study conducted by the Cyentia Institute and commissioned by RiskRecon investigates the steady growth of these multi-party attacks and the extent of collateral damage that spans organizations when they occur.

Consider the American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA) breach disclosed in May. This compromised personal data of 24 million individuals, most of whom didn't have a direct relationship with the AMCA but gave data to other entities, which passed it to AMCA for debt collection. The breach compromised AMCA systems; its effects hit 23 healthcare organizations, three professional services firms, two business support entities, and a manufacturing company.

Cyentia's findings demonstrate how financial losses can quickly multiply as an incident expands. Financial loss from ripple events is 13 times larger than in single-party attacks, researchers report. The average multi-party breach affects 10 firms beyond the initial victim; however, the most severe incident spanned 131 organizations outside its original target. And these attacks are growing more common: researchers noticed a 20% annual increase each year since 2008.

"We've studied breaches for a long time, but not from a ripple effect perspective," says Wade Baker, partner and cofounder of the Cyentia Institute. The study was informed by Advisen's Cyber Loss Database, which has more than 90,000 cyber events from publicly verifiable sources. The dataset links businesses affected by the same incident and tracks losses. Cyentia tracked 813 incidents affecting three or more organizations since 2008. Adjusting for repeat victims, researchers identified 512 firms central to an incident and 4,180 which experienced losses.

Oftentimes businesses that collect data from, or share data with, a target organization don't know a breach has happened, adds Kelly White, founder and CEO of RiskRecon. "It's not like we know the impact of a data loss event on day one," he notes. "It can take months, and in some cases years, to unwind and see who all is impacted."

While totals for 2017, 2018, and 2019 are still in the works, researchers predict multi-party breaches will continue to grow in number.

Where It All Begins

Researchers point to data aggregators and processors as the most common originators of downstream loss. Roughly half of all ripple events are generated by the business support (24.4%) and finance (23.7%) sectors, followed by the information (9.7%) and public (7.1%) sectors. More specifically, the most popular targets include collection agencies (13.4%), commercial banking (10%), credit bureaus (7.9%), and executive offices (3.7%), they found.

"When one of them is breached or has a problem, you potentially affect all those parties that feed them information," Baker says. But while it's easy to get caught up in where these breaches start, risk managers can learn more if they consider where the ripple effect goes.

The organizations affected downstream typically collect vast amounts of valuable data, have large digital footprints, and maintain a wide network of third-party relationships. Finance is top of this list (18.9%), followed by business support (16.2%), and professional (15.9%) sectors. Credit bureaus (9.3%), commercial banking (7.7%), and hotels (4%) are most often affected.

Taking a closer look at where the downstream effects go, researchers found business support-focused attacks most commonly affect credit intermediation and related activities; however, they also hit professional services and ambulatory healthcare services. Security incidents affecting credit bureaus most commonly catch business support firms in their downstream effects, along with professional services. Attacks targeting professional services firms have an extended effect on business support, credit activity, ambulatory health care, and publishing.

"Outsourced services are really juicy targets," says White. "Compromise a service provider and you can get access to hundreds of thousands of records from multiple companies."

Companies need to know who their third parties are; who they're sharing data with, he continues. Further, they should be monitoring public channels including news reports and regulatory filings to learn about disclosures when a vendor has been breached.

Related Content:

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading's new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today's top story: "Account Fraud Harder to Detect as Criminals Move from Bots to 'Sweat Shops'."

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance & Technology, where she covered financial ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
SOC 2s & Third-Party Assessments: How to Prevent Them from Being Used in a Data Breach Lawsuit
Beth Burgin Waller, Chair, Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Practice , Woods Rogers PLC,  12/5/2019
Navigating Security in the Cloud
Diya Jolly, Chief Product Officer, Okta,  12/4/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: "This is the last time we hire Game of Thrones Security"
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-4428
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
IBM Watson Assistant for IBM Cloud Pak for Data 1.0.0 through 1.3.0 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session....
CVE-2019-4611
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
IBM Planning Analytics 2.0 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. IBM X-Force ID: 168519.
CVE-2019-4612
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
IBM Planning Analytics 2.0 is vulnerable to malicious file upload in the My Account Portal. Attackers can make use of this weakness and upload malicious executable files into the system and it can be sent to victim for performing further attacks. IBM X-Force ID: 168523.
CVE-2019-4621
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
IBM DataPower Gateway 7.6.0.0-7 throug 6.0.14 and 2018.4.1.0 through 2018.4.1.5 have a default administrator account that is enabled if the IPMI LAN channel is enabled. A remote attacker could use this account to gain unauthorised access to the BMC. IBM X-Force ID: 168883.
CVE-2019-19230
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
An unsafe deserialization vulnerability exists in CA Release Automation (Nolio) 6.6 with the DataManagement component that can allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code.