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.

Attacks/Breaches

5/7/2019
04:20 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Orgs Are Quicker to Disclose Breaches Reported to Them Via External Sources

Companies that find a breach on their own take substantially longer to report a breach, a new analysis shows.

A security vendor's analysis of breach data from first-quarter 2019 suggests an organization that discovers a security breach on its own is actually likely to take longer to disclose it than an organization alerted to a breach via an external source.

Risk Based Security found that when organizations first learned of a breach from an external source such as law enforcement, they publicly reported the incident within 43 days, on average. In contrast, when organizations discovered a breach via an internal team, they took a much longer 74 days on average to report it. Half of all externally discovered incidents were reported in just eight days compared with a median of 46 days for internal discovery.

That finding is somewhat unexpected. It runs counter to the theory about organizations that are better able to detect a breach also being better prepared to respond to it, says Inga Goddijn, executive vice president of Risk Based Security. "We're very interested in understanding whether the first-quarter report findings are an outlier or a more typical result," Goddijn says.

For now, the reasons why it might be happening are really anyone's guess, she says. "We have some theories as to why companies that discover their own breaches would take longer to disclose them. But we'd like to see more data before pointing to possible reasons for the delay," Goddijn notes.

Risk Based Security's report shows that an astounding 1,903 breaches were publicly disclosed in the first three months of this year. That number has already put 2019 on track to being the worst year ever for data breaches. The number of reported breaches in first-quarter 2019 was 56.4% higher than the number reported in the same period last year. The number of exposed records shot up 28.9% from about 1.5 billion in 2018 to 1.9 billion this year.

As is usually the case, a handful of breaches were responsible for a vast majority of the records that were compromised last quarter. One breach alone — at email verification company Verifications.io — exposed some 983 million records containing names, email addresses, dates of birth, personal mortgage amounts, and other data. Most reports of the incident so far have pegged the number of exposed records at a smaller, but still staggeringly high, 763 million.

Risk Based Security's report showed that, together, the top five breaches in the first quarter accounted for about 1.3 billion of the total number of exposed records. In other words, the number of records exposed in the remaining 1,898 breaches combined was around 600,000.

Web Compromises Remain Top Cause for Data Exposures
Malicious hacking remained the top cause for data breaches. It accounted for 84.8% of reported security breaches last quarter. However, significantly more records once again were compromised through exposures on the Web — of the accidental, negligent, and malicious variety — than any other breach cause. Risk Based Security's analysis showed that nearly 68% of the records that were compromised in the first quarter were via leaks on the Web.

"Researchers are increasingly going public when they discover sizable, unprotected databases containing sensitive information," the Risk Based Security analysis noted. "Unfortunately, they aren't terribly difficult to find when you know where to look." The massive compromise at Verifications.io, for instance, happened because a MongoDB database containing the sensitive information was left completely open — without even password protection — and accessible to the Internet. 

More than eight in 10 (85.6%) of the records that were exposed last quarter belonged to organizations in the business sector, which in Risk Based Security's counting includes finance and insurance companies. Meanwhile, the government and education sectors — often criticized for lax security practices — accounted for some 5.8 million exposed records or less than 0.03% of the total last quarter.

"Despite so much attention on the need for improving security, breaches are still happening at an unprecedented rate," Goddijn says. "There really is no sign of a slowdown in breach activity, which to me illustrates just how difficult it is to protect networks and data."

Related Content:

 

 

 

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry's most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
AndrewfOP
50%
50%
AndrewfOP,
User Rank: Moderator
5/10/2019 | 11:23:32 AM
Breaches notified External vs. Internal, Average vs. Median
"...from an external source such as law enforcement, they publicly reported the incident within 43 days, on average.  ...via an internal team, they took a much longer 74 days on average to report it. Half of all externally discovered incidents were reported in just eight days compared with a median of 46 days for internal discovery."

 Makes perfect sense that organization would report breaches notified by external sources sooner.  Since the orgs do not control external sources, they either get ahead of the publicity or risk being exposed later.  However, my beef is with the big difference between the average and the median numbers.  Apparently, significant numbers of organization still not only don't take breaches seriously, but also have much longer response time comparing with the majority of organizations. 

 
5 Ways to Up Your Threat Management Game
Wayne Reynolds, Advisory CISO, Kudelski Security,  2/26/2020
Google Adds More Security Features Via Chronicle Division
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/25/2020
Cybersecurity Industry: It's Time to Stop the Victim Blame Game
Jessica Smith, Senior Vice President, The Crypsis Group,  2/25/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
Data breaches and regulations have forced organizations to pay closer attention to the security incident response function. However, security leaders may be overestimating their ability to detect and respond to security incidents. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-9463
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-28
Centreon 19.10 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary OS commands via shell metacharacters in the server_ip field in JSON data in an api/internal.php?object=centreon_configuration_remote request.
CVE-2020-5247
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-28
In Puma (RubyGem) before 4.3.2 and 3.12.2, if an application using Puma allows untrusted input in a response header, an attacker can use newline characters (i.e. `CR`, `LF` or`/r`, `/n`) to end the header and inject malicious content, such as additional headers or an entirely new response body. This...
CVE-2020-9447
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-28
The file-upload feature in GwtUpload 1.0.3 allows XSS via a crafted filename.
CVE-2019-10064
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-28
hostapd before 2.6, in EAP mode, makes calls to the rand() and random() standard library functions without any preceding srand() or srandom() call, which results in inappropriate use of deterministic values. This was fixed in conjunction with CVE-2016-10743.
CVE-2019-8741
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-28
A denial of service issue was addressed with improved input validation.