Tag Archives: cyber security

Webinar – Outsource Magazine – March 16th

Outsource magazine: thought-leadership and outsourcing strategyWe want to wish Outsource Magazine good luck as they relaunch their webinar program, Time to talk Talks.

This is the program in the words of the Editor,  Jamie Liddell…

Each month (the third Wednesday of every month, to be specific) I’ll be sitting down with four or five luminaries from different corners of the community, to discuss what’s hot (and what’s not) for them in a series of short one-on-one interviews, before throwing the panel to the mercy of the audience for some general Q&A in the second half of the show.

Mike Gillespie_headshotWe are also delighted that one of the luminaries on the launch webinar, will be our very own, Mike Gillespie. Don’t forget to email questions in ahead of the event and sign up via the link…

http://outsourcemag.com/time-to-talk-talks/

 

 

Advertisements

Security and Policing Event 2016

s and p 2016This Home Office event will soon be upon us (March 8-10) and we just wanted to let you know you will be able to find us on stand Z20 in the Cyber Zone. You can find details of this event here.

Mike Gillespie will also be presenting in the Cyber

Mike Gillespie_headshot

Advent IM,  Managing Director, Mike Gillespie

Briefing Zone on the 9th on the subject of the cyber security of  Industrial Control Systems.

Come along and meet Mike and Gareth and enjoy some great presentations, content, updates and a bit of a chat.

Affinity Gaming and Trustwave legal action

A post from Chris Cope CISM, CISSP, MInstISP, CESG Certified Professional, PCBCM, ISO27001 Lead Auditor  and Advent IM Security Consultant

It had to happen at some point;  a cyber security company is being sued by a customer for not delivering the goods.  Las Vegas based Affinity gaming has initiated legal proceedings against Chicago firm Trustwave for making representations that were untrue and for carrying out work which was ‘woefully inadequate’.  The point of contention was a hack on the casino’s payment card system in 2013.  Affinity allege that Trustwave concluded that the intrusion had been contained and dealt with, but the casino operators later suspected this was not the case and engaged another security consultant, Mandiant, to confirm.  The breach had not, allegedly, been contained and now Affinity is looking to obtain damages from Trustwave.

This is not the place to suggest what did or didn’t happen; that will be discussed, at considerable length I suspect, in the American courts.  Rather, a better topic for discussion is that of contractor liability.  This lawsuit is a bit of a first for the cyber security industry, although the concept of suing contractors for damages is by no means new.  Countless companies and individuals have been sued for breaches of contract or for tort damages.  I suspect it was only a matter of time before our industry saw similar action.  But this should be taken as a wake up call.

In English Law, a consultancy firm is seen as providing a service to the customer. The 1982 Supply of Goods and Services Act, Section 13  states that ‘In a contract for the supply of a service where the supplier is acting in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable care and skill’.  The key term here is reasonable; what would a reasonable person judge to be a service that was carried out in a competent fashion? Note, the law does not require that a contractor provides the perfect service; there is a realisation that contractors are human and to expect perfection is unreasonable.

So how then can a cyber security contractor ‘prove’ its competence and ability to deliver a reasonable service?  Whilst the emphasis remains on the accuser to prove incompetence, it doesn’t hurt to ensure that a good, pro-active defence is in place.  First of all, the competence of employees must be evaluated and baselined.  There are a plethora of cyber security qualifications available, drawing comparisons between qualification awarded by different bodies can be difficult, but it remains perfectly possible to ensure that consultants are qualified for the tasks they are expected to perform, and perhaps most importantly of all, maintain those qualifications.  Secondly, cyber security is a very broad field and being an expert in every area is almost impossible, therefore assigning consultants to tasks which suit their skills sets is hugely important.  The supervision of less well qualified personnel must also be taken into account; junior staff members must be able to develop their skills, but for the customer’s sake, they must be supervised properly in the process. It’s worth companies remembering that they are responsible for the actions of their employees whilst delivering a contract, via vicarious liability.  Their mistakes will come back to haunt the employer unless sufficient care is taken.  We must also ensure that we appropriately manage the expectations of our customers.  No venture is ever risk free and there is no one piece of technology which will solve every problem; our goals should be clearly stated that we intend to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, not eradicate it completely.  If we promise too much then it’s no surprise that customers expect too much.  Finally, whilst the above is correct for English Law, other jurisdictions have different rules; companies that work globally would be wise to ensure they understand the local environment properly before signing a contract.

The cyber security profession is evolving and it is only to be expected that practitioners will face greater scrutiny.  Rather than adopt the position that companies like Affinity are looking for a scapegoat for their own failures, we must ensure that we are able to consistently deliver a good enough service.  This may be the first such action, but I doubt it will be the last.

Cyber Everything & PCI DSS – The Forgotten Standard?

Senior Security Consultant for Advent IM and PCI-DSS expert,  Mark Jones gives us his thoughts on the current awareness of this important payment industry standard.

In the current information security climate where everything has ‘cyber’ prefixing the topic e.g. cybersecurity, cyber risk, cyber threats and the list goes on, is it possible organisations have forgotten about existing and very important ‘cyber-related’ standards such as the Payment Card Industry’s Data Security Standard (PCI DSS)?

MC900441317

As more and more business is done online in our ‘new’ cyber world – 2015 Online Retail Sales £52 Billion up 16.7% from £45 Billion in 2014 – payment cardholder (CHD) account data security is more important than ever. This includes the need for assured authentication, confidentiality and integrity of payment cardholder information as traditionally granted by the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol over HTTPS padlocked browser sessions in the past 20 years. In 2014, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) determined that SSL and indeed early versions of SSL’s successor, the Transport Layer Security (TLS v1.0) protocol (also referred to as SSL), were found to have serious vulnerabilities with recent high-profile breaches POODLE, Heartbleed and Freak due to weaknesses found within these protocols.

iStock_000015534900XSmallSo, if you are an entity that that stores, transmits or processes Cardholder Data (CHD), specifically the 16 (can be up to 19) digit Primary Account Number (PAN), then you should seek to comply with the latest version v3.1 of the PCI DSS. This version was released in April 2015 by the PCI Security Standards Council (SSC) that removed SSL as an example of strong cryptography and that can no longer be used as a security control after 30 June 2016. However, the migration from SSL and early TLS to TLS v1.1 and 1.2 has caused issues for some organisations hence the SSC update in December 2015[1] that the deadline had been extended for 2 years, with a new end date of 30 June 2018 for existing compliant merchants. However, SSC is at pains to emphasise that this delay is not an extension to hold off migrating to a more secure encryption protocol (as defined by NIST) and entities that can update should do so as soon as possible.

If the entity is an Acquirer (typically the merchant’s bank), Payment Processor, Gateway or Service Provider, then they MUST provide TLS v1.1 or greater as a service offering by June 2016. Additionally, if it is a new PCI DSS implementation (i.e. when there is no existing dependency on the use of vulnerable protocols) then they must be enabled with TLS v1.1 or greater – TLS v1.2 is recommended.

As you can see, PCI DSS can play a significant part in any cyber security programme providing the entity in question is compliant with the latest version 3.1. If you have yet to start, or are part way through a PCI DSS implementation project, what can and should you do NOW? We recommend the following 3 actions:

  • Migrate to a minimum of TLS v1.1, preferably v1.2;
  • Patch TLS software against implementation vulnerabilities; and
  • Configure TLS securely.

If you need any further help and guidance with PCI DSS, please contact Advent IM…

[1] http://blog.pcisecuritystandards.org/pci-changes-date-for-migrating-from-ssl-and-early-tls

TalkTalk advised not to talktalk about their breach?

According the International Business Times, the Metropolitan Police advised TalkTalk not to discuss their breach. (you can read the article here)

Here, in conversation on the topic , is Advent IM Directors, Julia McCarron and Mike Gillespie and Security Consultant, Chris Cope.

Chris Cope small headshot

Chris Cope

“This is interesting as it shows the 2 different priorities at work.  For the police, the key aim is to catch the perpetrator.  This often means allowing an attacker to continue so they can be monitored on the network and their activities logged and traced without causing them to suspect that they are being monitored in such a way.  The Cuckoos Egg details how the Lawrence Berkeley Lab famously did just this in response to a hack of their system.  However, TalkTalk have a duty of care to their customers.  If personal information could be used to steal money, then they must weigh up the advice from the police, along with the potential impact of not publicising this attack on ordinary people. Its easy to see how a CEO can be caught in between trying to help the police, but also attempting to limit the damage to their customers.  Ultimately it’s a difficult decision, but one that could be made easier with correct forensic planning, i.e. working out how to preserve evidence of an attack, which can be provided to the police, whilst ensuring that normal services continue and customers are warned.  Making these decisions during an actual incident will only make a stressful time even more so; far better to plan ahead.”

Julia McCarron

Julia McCarron

“Totally agree … something to add…

This is a classic case of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. As Chris quite rightly says two different objectives were at play here and each had its merits. Ultimately it was a difficult decision to make but you can’t knock TalkTalk for once, as it appears to have been an informed one.

Whilst I also agree with Chris on the forensics front, experience has shown us that staff need to be aware of what to do ‘forensically’ in the event of an incident and this is often where the process falls down. Because such incidents are usually rare, the chain of evidence is often corrupted unintentionally because no-one knows what to do, or it’s no longer available due to the time lag in occurrence and detection.

Intrusion detection systems along with other technological measures will be an asset in reducing that time lag but key to success is scenario training. In the same way as we are seeing Phishing tests becoming the norm, especially in customer facing organisations like TalkTalk, is there a place for forensic readiness testing to ensure staff know what to do when a security attack occurs? Then vital evidence is at hand when hacks like this occur and the force awakens.”

Mike Gillespie_headshot

Mike Gillespie

“Totally agree, Chris. It’s a tough balance but the protection of the consumer should always come first in my opinion.

Forensic readiness planning is key and continues to be a weak area for many organisations – linking this with an effective communication plan is vital – and as with any plan it needs to be properly tested and exercised…….as do all aspects of cyber response…..using appropriate scenario based exercises.

All of this should be designed to drive continual improvement and to ensure our cyber response evolves to meet emerging threats.”

If you would like support for Cyber Essentials and completing your questionnaire, you can find details here

Security Predictions for 2016

As 2015 draws to a close, we asked the Advent IM Staff to ponder the challenges for next year. 2015 saw some huge data and security fumbles and millions of people had their personal information exposed as hack after hack revealed not only how much this activity is on the increase, but also how  the security posture of some businesses is clearly unfit for purpose.

Over to the team…

Image courtesy of Vlado at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Vlado at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

 

Dale Penn – I predict that with the recent introduction of Apple Pay and Google’s Android Pay we will see a large upswing in mobile device targeted attacks trying to get at our bank accounts.

Del Brazil – Attacks will be pushing in from the Siberian peninsular coupled with additional attacks from the orient- this will bring a chill to the spines of organisations.  These attacks are likely to be followed by sweeping phishing scams from the African continent.  There is also the likelihood that attacks towards HMG assets from Middle Eastern warm fronts will further identify/expose weaknesses within organisations. Closer to home is the ever increasing cold chill developing within organisations as the realisation that the threat from insiders is on the rise. In summary it’s going to be a mixed bag of events for a number of wide ranging organisations. However on the whole, as long as organisations grab their security blanket they will be best placed to ward off the majority of attacks.

Chris Cope – If 2015 saw a significant number of high profile information security breaches, then expect 2016 to be more of the same.  Attackers are getting cleverer at exploiting weaknesses; most notably those presented by people.  I confidently predict that a significant number of incidents in 2016 will feature poor security decisions made by employees.  I also predict a significant challenge for many organisation which hold personal data.  The forthcoming EU regulation on data protection will provide significant challenges on the protection of personal information of EU citizens.  With a significant increase in financial sanctions highly likely, the importance of safeguarding personal data has increased dramatically for any organisation, even those who were not challenged by the penalties previously awarded by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).  Could this be the start of a wider regulatory drive to improve information security – probably not, at least not yet. Finally, with continuing uncertainty across key areas of the globe, particularly the Middle East, we will also see more examples of ‘cyber warfare’ as this nascent capability continues to be exploited.  This will lead to a flurry of reports on how cyber war is about to doom us all or is irrelevant (depending on one’s viewpoint); surely an opportunity to educate the wider populace, and key decision makers, on what information security, and its potential consequences, could actually mean?

Mark Jones – I predict…

  • Cloud security becomes even more important as more and more businesses move services there – more demand for ISO27017
  • Related to the above, more Data Centre Security certifications due to contractor (customer) requirements
  • More BYOD-related security incidents with more mobile malware found on all platforms with China the main source – mobile payments being a prime target
  • Cyber Essentials leads to more demand for ISO27001 certifications from SMEs
  • Privileged insider remains the main Threat Source & Actor
  • More incidents relating to online cyber-extortion / ransomware
  • With increasing demand for infosec specialists and/or DPOs organisations will find it more difficult to recruit than ever
  • More incidents relating to the Internet of Things – smart devices such as drones falling out of the sky causing harm; more car computers hacked resulting in more car theft

Ellie Hurst – Media, and Marcomms Manager – I predict the growth of ransomware  in business.  Ransomware, is mainly (though not exclusively) spread by phishing and given the success of phishing as an attack vector and that one in four UK employees don’t even know what it is (OnePoll for PhishMe), I think it will continue to be the most likely form of ransomware proliferation. Of course, it can also be spread by use of inappropriate websites and so businesses that do not have, or enforce a policy or exercise restrictions in this area, will also find themselves victims of this cynical exploit.

A word from our Directors…

Julia McCarron

Julia McCarron – Advent IM Operations Director – I predict a RIOT – Risks from Information Orientated Threats.

 

 

Mike Gillespie_headshot

 

Mike Gillespie – Advent IM Managing Director – I predict an escalation in the number and severity of data breach in the coming year. Recent failures, such as TalkTalk, VTech and Wetherspoons highlight that many businesses still do not appreciate the value of the information assets they hold and manage. Business needs to increase self-awareness and looking at the Wetherspoons breach, ask the difficult question, “Should we still be holding this data?”

I think the buzz phrase for 2016 will be Information Asset Owners and if you want to know more about that, then you will have to keep an eye on what Advent IM is doing in 2016!

Why would anyone want to hack the weather?

A review of the news of the BoM attack  from Security Consultant, Chris Cope.

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Or more precisely, why would anyone want to hack the Australian met office?  Well, its happened and officials are quick to announce that the damage will take millions of dollars to fix and that China was responsible for the hack.  Its not the first time that allegations have been made against Chinese hackers and, with the information available, it is pure speculation for non-official sources to speculate on how accurate the Australian allegation is.  But what is interesting is the close links between the Australian met office and the Ministry of Defence.  The nature of the links aren’t specified, but for an attacker looking to infiltrate the Australian Ministry of Defence, the obvious ways in are more than likely to be heavily protected.  But what about subsidiaries?  Could the Australian met office represent a weak link?  In this case, perhaps not as the intrusion was detected but there remains a lesson here for all companies.  Increasingly, outsourcing is becoming more common.  Services that organisations don’t want to deliver themselves are passed on to a service provider.  So, whilst we might be content that the security measures in place for our company are robust, can we say the same about those third parties that we connect to?  What assurances have been carried out, do contracts cover security consideration, are those connections monitored and is there a joined up incident reporting procedure?  All of these are valid questions and ones that are increasingly important in our interconnected world.  If you don’t know the answers to these questions, perhaps its time to find out, before a trusted partner becomes your Achilles Heel.

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net