SecurityCertified

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Must-Read Verizon Post Demolishes More Myths

Posted on 4:56 PM by Unknown
I'm a big fan of the 2009 Verizon Data Breach Report. Today I read Compromised Assets & Data: But our company doesn’t handle credit cards... by Verizon's Bryan Sartin. It's an excellent post. I'd like to post several excerpts, emphasizing and expanding on certain points.

I find it fascinating that no matter where in the world you go, what type of company you talk to, public or private sector, you find two very common beliefs:

1. All data stolen in security breach is a result of lost assets, not systems-related intrusions.

2. I don’t handle payment cards (credit or debit) - so this stuff does not apply to me.

If you could only understand how outrageous these sound from the standpoint of the computer forensic investigator. Both thought processes couldn’t be more wrong.


I hear these refrains as well, or at least I see the effects of devoting resources to other projects. Bryan continues:

Pretty much everyone I speak to firmly believes that in the real world, companies do not get hacked into and data is never compromised as the result of a systems-based intrusion. The prevailing wisdom, if you can call it that, suggests that almost all lost records leading to fraud are the product of backup tapes that don’t make it from point A to point B, blackberries left in taxi cabs, and company-issued laptops left at train stations. This is the prevailing wisdom UNTIL a company is hacked.

In reality, hackers and fraudsters target data of value. Companies are targeted, either directly or indirectly, because they are perceived to be data rich, and data that is stolen tends to lead to some measurable form of fraud, whether it is counterfeit, identity fraud, etc...

Online data, including digital repositories of information like databases, transaction logs, and other aggregation and storage points, account for an overwhelming 94 percent of casework and 99.9 percent of all verifiable records compromised.


This is confirmation of my focus on external threats. Bryan turns to his second point:

"But my company doesn’t handle credit cards, so this doesn’t apply to me..." [I]t doesn’t matter whether you store payment card data or not. The threats affecting companies in a particular industry or sector care more about the ability to sidestep security controls reliably, than about what type of data they’ll find once inside. Every company has something of value to a hacker.

If you don't have something of value to an intruder, you probably don't do anything worth keeping you in operation.

The following excerpt is really crucial:

There is no question that our case load is biased toward payment cards. Payment card data is a premium cybercrime target because when applied in a certain manner, stolen records of sufficient content can lead to fraudulent purchases...

[B]based on our figures, I would estimate that payment cards represent as little as 1.2 – 1.5 percent of all data thefts. The remaining 98.x percent being occupied primarily by personally identifiable data (PII), then account credentials, company-proprietary data, and a few other categories in a distant fourth and fifth by incidence. Payment cards are in fact a distinct minority in data theft cases, albeit an extremely noisy minority.

The ensuing fraud is detectable and fraud analysis and detection tools have made it almost elementary to identify the likely source of a suspected payment card breach for almost 10 years.


Did you catch that? A stolen payment card intrusion is detectable. The hacked parties (online vendors, offline vendors, anyone using and storing payment card data) don't detect the actual theft of the data. Fraudulent use of the payment card data is detected by consumers and payment card providers. What about other data?

In simple terms, when payment card data is stolen – someone always finds out about it. The same cannot be said for PII and the other categories of compromised data we see...

Fraud is a direct, easily observable and easily trackable consequence of an intrusion. When an intruder steals payment card data, and the payment card data is used to commit fraud, the hacked party can be identified and notified using external means (bank or law enforcement calling).

However, the consequences of other data theft intrusions are not so easily observed nor tracked. If a competitor steals your company's intellectual property, sales plans, and other sensitive information, it may not be obvious how that competitor beat you to a deal that quarter. This is why I spoke of long-term competitiveness, because you can't tie non-payment card intrusions back to an obvious consequence or impact.

Thanks to Bryan Sartin for such a great post.


Richard Bejtlich is teaching new classes in Las Vegas in 2009. Late Las Vegas registration ends 22 July.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in verizon | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Review of Intelligence, 4th Ed Posted
    Amazon.com just posted my five star review of Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy, 4th Ed by Mark Lowenthall . From the review : I was a...
  • SQL Injection Challenge and Time-Based Security
    Thanks to this Tweet by @ryancbarnett, I learned of the lessons learned of the Level II component of the ModSecurity SQL Injection Challen...
  • Practice of Network Security Monitoring Table of Contents
    Since many of you have asked, I wanted to provide an updated Table of Contents for my upcoming book, The Practice of Network Security Monito...
  • C-SPAN Posts Video of Tuesday Hearing
    You can now access video of Tuesday's House Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing on Cybersecurity at C-SPAN . Some people are alread...
  • Bejtlich's Thoughts on "Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving"
    Twenty-two years ago today I flew to Colorado Springs, CO and reported for Basic Cadet Training with the class of 1994 at the United States ...
  • A Book for the Korean Cyber Armies
    I've got a book for the Korean cyber armies, North and South. That's right, it's my first book , The Tao of Network Security Mo...
  • Bejtlich Teaching at Black Hat West Coast Trainings
    I'm pleased to announce that I will be teaching at  Black Hat West Coast Trainings  9-10 December 2013 in Seattle, Washington. This is a...
  • Mandiant APT1 Report: 25 Best Commentaries of the Last 12 Days
    Two weeks ago today our team at Mandiant was feverishly preparing the release of our APT1 report . In the twelve days that followed public...
  • Tort Law on Negligence
    If any lawyers want to contribute to this, please do. In my post Shodan: Another Step Towards Intrusion as a Service , some comments claim ...
  • Review of America the Vulnerable Posted
    Amazon.com just posted my five star review of America the Vulnerable by Joel Brenner. I reproduce the review in its entirety below. I'...

Categories

  • afcert
  • Air Force
  • analysis
  • announcement
  • apt
  • attribution
  • bestbook
  • blackhat
  • books
  • breakers
  • bro
  • bruins
  • certification
  • china
  • cisco
  • cissp
  • cloud
  • clowns
  • commodore
  • conferences
  • controls
  • correlation
  • counterintelligence
  • cybercommand
  • cyberwar
  • dfm
  • education
  • engineering
  • feds
  • fisma
  • freebsd
  • GE
  • ge-cirt
  • hakin9
  • history
  • impressions
  • information warfare
  • ipv6
  • law
  • leadership
  • malware
  • mandiant
  • microsoft
  • mssp
  • nsm
  • offense
  • oisf
  • packetstash
  • philosophy
  • pirates
  • powerpoint
  • press
  • psirt
  • reading
  • redteam
  • reviews
  • russia
  • sans
  • sec
  • sguil
  • snorby
  • spying
  • threat model
  • threats
  • Traffic Talk
  • training
  • tufte
  • tv
  • ubuntu
  • usenix
  • verizon
  • vulnerabilities
  • wisdom
  • writing

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (16)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2012 (60)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  November (5)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (10)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (6)
    • ►  June (6)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (9)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2011 (108)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  October (11)
    • ►  September (9)
    • ►  August (18)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (5)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (13)
    • ►  March (17)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (9)
  • ►  2010 (193)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (11)
    • ►  October (6)
    • ►  September (16)
    • ►  August (15)
    • ►  July (26)
    • ►  June (15)
    • ►  May (15)
    • ►  April (15)
    • ►  March (16)
    • ►  February (19)
    • ►  January (25)
  • ▼  2009 (123)
    • ►  December (10)
    • ►  November (17)
    • ►  October (21)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ►  August (20)
    • ▼  July (21)
      • Thoughts from Black Hat USA 2009
      • What is Cloud?
      • Notes from OISF Meeting in DC
      • Guest Post at Fudsec.com
      • Review of Voice over IP Security Posted
      • Direct Financial Cost of Intrusions
      • SANS Forensics and Incident Response 2009 Summit R...
      • Free Issue of Linux+ Magazine Posted
      • Review of vi(1) Tips Posted
      • Cisco Routers for the Desperate, 2nd Ed
      • White Hat Budgeting
      • FreeBSD Pf and Tftp-proxy
      • Review of Practical Intrusion Analysis Posted
      • Must-Read Verizon Post Demolishes More Myths
      • Review of Security Monitoring Posted
      • You Down with APT?
      • Traffic Talk 6 Posted
      • Still Blogging
      • Bejtlich on Black Hat Briefings Panel
      • Review of Hacking Exposed: Windows, 3rd Ed Posted
      • NSA to "Screen" .gov Now, I Predict .com Later
    • ►  June (21)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile