FYI -
At its annual meeting in August, the American Bar Association spoke
strongly to the states on the inadvisability of requiring those who
perform computer forensics services to obtain a private
investigator's license.
http://ridethelightning.senseient.com/2008/08/aba-resoundingl.html
FYI -
Watchdog aims to compel data-breach confessions - The National
Consumer Council watchdog is calling on lawmakers to force
businesses to confess to data breaches. The National Consumer
Council (NCC) is petitioning the EU to draft legal powers to compel
businesses and banks to inform customers when they lose their
personal data.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39483398,00.htm
FYI -
Chinese resarchers use heartbeats against implant hacking - Wireless
software updates for medical implants are gradually replacing
incisions. Modern implants - from pacemakers to insulin pumps and
sensors for bodily functions - have reduced the number of
maintenance operations needed.
http://www.heise-online.co.uk/security/Chinese-resarchers-use-heartbeats-against-implant-hacking--/news/111463
FYI -
Unauthorized web servers connected to IRS network - The Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) has identified 1,811 unauthorized web servers
connected to the agency's network, according to a recent audit
report.
http://www.scmagazineus.com/Unauthorized-web-servers-connected-to-IRS-network/article/116335/?DCMP=EMC-SCUS_Newswire
http://www.ustreas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2008reports/200820159fr.pdf
FYI -
Comply with Red Flag rules - By Nov. 1, creditors must comply with
Federal Red Flag rules designed to combat identity fraud. Banks and
credit issuers will be impacted, as will those unaccustomed to
regulations.
http://www.scmagazineus.com/Comply-with-Red-Flag-rules/article/115771/?DCMP=EMC-SCUS_Newswire
FYI -
Feds finally put teeth into HIPAA enforcement - Three years after
the federal law's rules on securing health care data took effect,
HHS has issued its first 'corrective action plan.' And more may be
on the way. A data security audit that the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services conducted at Piedmont Hospital in Atlanta last
year was widely viewed within the health care industry as a
harbinger of further actions by the federal government to enforce
HIPAA's security and privacy rules.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Security&articleId=325376&taxonomyId=17&pageNumber=1
FYI -
Removing admin rights to secure desktops - Improving desktop
security is a priority for nearly all hospitals. This is fueled by
an increased recognition of the threat unsecured desktops pose as
well as a need to meet HIPAA compliance regulations.
http://www.scmagazineus.com/Removing-admin-rights-to-secure-desktops/article/116475/?DCMP=EMC-SCUS_Newswire
ATTACKS, INTRUSIONS, DATA THEFT & LOSS
FYI -
Strike threat by prison officers after data is lost - Prison
officers yesterday threatened strike action after it emerged that a
computer disc containing the personal details of 5,000 justice staff
had been lost by a government contractor. Staff fear their personal
security has been put at risk, and unions warned that some employees
may have to be relocated.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/sep/08/prisonsandprobation.justice/print
FYI -
GS Caltex Leaked Personal Data of 11 Mln Customers - Two multimedia
discs containing the personal information of 11.1 million customers
of GS Caltex, one of the nation`s largest oil refineries, was found
on the street, police said yesterday. GS Caltex Data Leak Was Inside
Job
http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=040000&biid=2008090631088
http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=040000&biid=2008090844298
FYI -
Social Security numbers exposed on Iowa land-records Web site -
County recorders group restricts access to documents, proposes data
redaction effort - In the latest example of a data privacy
controversy that has become increasingly familiar nationwide, it
came to light this week that a publicly accessible
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9114172&source=rss_topic17
Return to the top
of the newsletter
WEB SITE COMPLIANCE -
We continue our review of the
FFIEC interagency statement on "Weblinking:
Identifying Risks and Risk Management Techniques."
(Part 3 of 10)
A.
RISK DISCUSSION
Reputation Risk
Customers may be confused about whether the financial institution or
a third party is supplying the product, service, or other website
content available through the link. The risk of customer confusion
can be affected by a number of factors:
- nature of the
third-party product or service;
- trade name of the third
party; and
- website appearance.
Nature of Product or
Service
When a financial institution provides links to third parties that
sell financial products or services, or provide information relevant
to these financial products and services, the risk is generally
greater than if third parties sell non-financial products and
services due to the greater potential for customer confusion. For
example, a link from a financial institution's website to a mortgage
bank may expose the financial institution to greater reputation risk
than a link from the financial institution to an online clothing
store.
The risk of customer confusion with respect to links to firms
selling financial products is greater for two reasons. First,
customers are more likely to assume that the linking financial
institution is providing or endorsing financial products rather than
non-financial products. Second, products and services from certain
financial institutions often have special regulatory features and
protections, such as federal deposit insurance for qualifying
deposits. Customers may assume that these features and protections
also apply to products that are acquired through links to
third-party providers, particularly when the products are financial
in nature.
When a financial institution links to a third party that is
providing financial products or services, management should consider
taking extra precautions to prevent customer confusion. For example,
a financial institution linked to a third party that offers
nondeposit investment products should take steps to prevent customer
confusion specifically with respect to whether the institution or
the third party is offering the products and services and whether
the products and services are federally insured or guaranteed by the
financial institution.
Financial institutions should recognize, even in the case of
non-financial products and services, that customers may have
expectations about an institution's due diligence and its selection
of third parties to which the financial institution links its
website. Should customers experience dissatisfaction as a result of
poor quality products or services, or loss as a result of their
transactions with those companies, they may consider the financial
institution responsible for the perceived deficiencies of the
seller.
Return to
the top of the newsletter
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY -
We
continue our series on the FFIEC interagency Information Security
Booklet.
SECURITY
CONTROLS - IMPLEMENTATION -
NETWORK
ACCESS
Routing (Part 1 of 2)
Packets are moved through networks using routers, switches, and
hubs. The unique IP address is commonly used in routing. Since users
typically use text names instead of IP addresses for their
addressing, the user's software must obtain the numeric IP address
before sending the message. The IP addresses are obtained from the
Domain Naming System (DNS), a distributed database of text names
(e.g., anybank.com) and their associated IP addresses. For example,
financial institution customers might enter the URL of the Web site
in their Web browser. The user's browser queries the domain name
server for the IP associated with anybank.com. Once the IP is
obtained, the message is sent. Although the example depicts an
external address, DNS can also function on internal addresses.
A router directs where data packets will go based on a table that
links the destination IP address with the IP address of the next
machine that should receive the packet. Packets are forwarded from
router to router in that manner until they arrive at their
destination. Since the router reads the packet header and uses a table for
routing, logic can be included that provides an initial means of
access control by filtering the IP address and port information
contained in the message header. Simply put, the router can refuse
to forward, or forward to a quarantine or other restricted area, any
packets that contain IP addresses or ports that the institution
deems undesirable. Security policies should define the filtering
required by the router, including the type of access permitted
between sensitive source and destination IP addresses. Network
administrators implement these policies by configuring an access
configuration table, which creates a filtering router or a basic
firewall.
A switch directs the path a message will take within the network.
Switching works faster than IP routing because the switch only looks
at the network address for each message and directs the message to
the appropriate computer. Unlike routers, switches do not support
packet filtering. Switches, however, are designed to send messages
only to the device for which they were intended. The security
benefits from that design can be defeated and traffic through a
switch can be sniffed.
Return to the top of the
newsletter
IT SECURITY
QUESTION:
C. HOST SECURITY
4.
Determine whether new hosts are prepared according to documented
procedures for secure configuration or replication, and that
vulnerability testing takes place prior to deployment.
Return to the top of
the newsletter
INTERNET PRIVACY - This
concludes our series listing the regulatory-privacy examination
questions. Next week, we will begin our review of the issues
in the "Privacy of Consumer Financial Information" published by the
financial regulatory agencies.
Other Exceptions to Notice and Opt Out Requirements
50. If the institution discloses nonpublic personal
information to nonaffiliated third parties, do the requirements for
initial notice in §4(a)(2), opt out in §§7 and 10, revised notice
in §8, and for service providers and joint marketers in §13, not
apply because the institution makes the disclosure:
a. with the consent or at the direction of the consumer;
[§15(a)(1)]
b.
1. to
protect the confidentiality or security of records; [§15(a)(2)(i)]
2. to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud,
unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability; [§15(a)(2)(ii)]
3. for required institutional risk control or for resolving
consumer disputes or inquiries; [§15(a)(2)(iii)]
4. to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating
to the consumer; [§15(a)(2)(iv)] or
5. to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity
on behalf of the consumer; [§15(a)(2)(v)]
c. to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or
agencies, agencies rating the institution, persons assessing
compliance, and the institution's attorneys, accountants, and
auditors; [§15(a)(3)]
d. in compliance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act, or
to law enforcement agencies; [§15(a)(4)]
e. to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the FCRA
or from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency; [§15(a)(5)]
f. in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger,
transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating
unit, if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns
solely consumers of such business or unit; [§15(a)(6)]
g. to comply with Federal, state, or local laws, rules, or
legal requirements; [§15(a)(7)(i)]
h. to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or
regulatory investigation, or subpoena or summons by Federal, state,
or local authorities; [§15(a)(7)(ii)] or
i. to respond to judicial process or government regulatory
authorities having jurisdiction over the institution for
examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law? [§15(a)(7)(iii)]
(Note: the regulation gives the following as an example of
the exception described in section a of this question: "A
consumer may specifically consent to [an institution's] disclosure
to a nonaffiliated insurance company of the fact that the consumer
has applied to [the institution] for a mortgage so that the
insurance company can offer homeowner's insurance to the
consumer.") |