Skip to main content

Does a Data Breach Make You More Secure?

A breach.  A data loss incident.  An insider leak.  A media report of client data loss.  All would probably bring about a mild panic attack for most CISO's.  Eventually and dependent on the size of the organisation, that data breach will end up in the public eye, either via official acknowledgement that a breach had occurred - as is required by say the UK Information Commissioners Office - or a simple media response to explain that 'everything is under control'.  Ultimately that public information, could damage the brand and future customer base of the organisation.  Dependent on the industry and type of product or service that is being offered, the damage could be irreparable.

The sources of data breaches and losses are many and complex, with new and complex attack vectors appearing all the time.  If we could quickly categorize a data breach we would probably come out with a list something like this:

  • Malicious cyber attack
  • Malware within the corporate network
  • Negligent employee (laptop loss, USB loss)
  • Malicious insider
  • Careless insider (erroneous data copying, emailing of confidential data)
  • Mis-configured software and hardware

Whilst that is only a high level view, it would cover a multitude of data loss scenarios for many organisations.  In response to a known threat, there are several process and technology counter measures an organisation could implement to reduce or ultimately remove the threat.  

  • Malicious cyber attack > Firewall, Intrusion Detection System, Intrusion Prevention Systems
  • Malware within the corporate network > Anti-virus, SIEM logging, abnormal event monitoring
  • Negligent employee (laptop loss, USB loss) > Data Loss Prevention, data & asset management
  • Malicious insider > Event monitoring, access monitoring
  • Careless insider (erroneous data copying, emailing of confidential data), DLP, event monitoring
  • Mis-configured software and hardware > Baselining, penetration testing, auditing

Each counter measure would be applied using a standard risk framework to identify any vulnerabilities and any threats that could exploit those vulnerabilities.  In turn, a structured approach to counter measure selection would be done in order to provide a decent return on investment with regards to the loss expectancy before and after a counter measure was put in place - less of course the cost of the counter measure.

This is basically following the standard Annual Loss Expectancy = Single Loss Expectancy X Annual Risk of Occurrence.  The counter measure selection would be based on an implementation that would be lower than the ALE.  This assumes that the ARO is accurate (which is often not the case) and that the ALE is accurate (which is often not the case).

So, if in one year the ARO was zero, would their viewed return on investment of the counter measure be higher or lower?  Well if you've never been attacked or had a vulnerability exploited it could be difficult to quantify the true effect of the existing counter measures. On one hand it could be argued, the counter measures are infinitely worth more than the actual cost of implementation, as the assets their are protecting have never been exposed.  It is the potentially the case however, that the loss of an asset is worth infinitely more once lost than when secure, so it would only take one loss to reduce all protection measures to have been meaningless.  

I think in practice, if an organisation has identified a failing in a process, product or scenario that has resulted in a data breach or loss, it becomes politically justifiable to implement further counter measures above and beyond the ALE, due to the non-tangible effects of such a loss.  Similarly, if the ARO was zero, could the reduction of the counter measure be justified for the following year?

Of course, their are probability analytics that could be applied to help formulate a result mathematically,  but the costs of brand damage, reputation and future trade loss are often difficult to quantify, which could result in a 'belt & braces' approach from a post-breach organisation.

(Simon Moffatt)

Popular posts from this blog

Top 5 Security Predictions for 2016

It's that time of year again, when the retrospective and predictive blogs come out of the closet, just before the Christmas festivities begin.  This time last year, the 2015 predictions were an interesting selection of both consumer and enterprise challenges, with a focus on:

Customer Identity ManagementThe start of IoT security awarenessReduced Passwords on MobileConsumer PrivacyCloud Single Sign On
In retrospect, a pretty accurate and ongoing list.  Consumer related identity (cIAM) is hot on most organisation's lips, and whilst the password hasn't died (and probably never will) there are more people using things like swipe login and finger print authentication than ever before.

But what will 2016 bring?

Mobile Payments to be Default for Consumers

2015 has seen the rise in things like Apple Pay and Samsung Pay hitting the consumer high street with venom.  Many retail outlets now provide the ability to "tap and pay" using a mobile device, with many banks also offer…

Customer Data: Convenience versus Security

Organisations in both the public and private sector are initiating programmes of work to convert previously physical or offline services, into more digital, on line and automated offerings.  This could include things like automated car tax purchase, through to insurance policy management and electricity meter reading submission and reporting.

Digitization versus Security

This move towards a more on line user experience, brings together several differing forces.  Firstly the driver for end user convenience and service improvement, against the requirements of data security and privacy.  Which should win?  There clearly needs to be a balance of security against service improvement.  Excessive and prohibitive security controls would result in a complex and often poor user experience, ultimately resulting in fewer users.  On the other hand, poorly defined security architectures, lead to data loss, with the impact for personal exposure and brand damage.

Online-ification: The Role of Identity

The Wikipedia entry for Digital Transformation, "refers to the changes associated with the application of digital technology in all aspects of human society".  That is a pretty broad statement.

An increased digital presence however, is being felt across all lines of both public and private sector initiatives, reaching everything from being able to pay your car tax on line, through to being able to order a taxi based on your current location.  This increased focus on the 'online-ification' of services and content, drives a need for a loosely coupled and strong view of an individual or thing based digital identity.