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

10/28/2014
12:23 PM
John B. Dickson
John B. Dickson
Commentary
Connect Directly
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

What Scares Me About Healthcare & Electric Power Security

Both industries share many of the same issues as enterprises. But they also have a risk profile that makes them singularly unprepared for sophisticated threats

In social settings when people find out I’m a security guy, they frequently ask me similar questions. The first, for example, is about my online paranoia: “Do you leave money in a bank?” My response is well honed, including thoughts on online banking protections, account monitoring, and how using more than a simple username and password is a good idea.

One question, though, gets me on my soapbox real quick -- and that question is, “As a security guy, what industries scare you most?” I get that question more frequently than you might imagine and my answer is always the same -- the healthcare and electrical power industries. Here’s why:

In healthcare, the stakes are high -- the well-being of my family -- which is critically important to me. If a credit card company loses my data, I get a new card with free credit monitoring. If a healthcare provider loses my electronic patient information, I can’t get new information. That’s my stuff!

Stakes are also high for the electrical power industry, but for a different reason. If an attacker can shut down a grid during a sweltering August in the Southwest or during a freezing Chicago winter, the results would be widespread and potentially devastating. Many experts point to this as the doomsday scenario -- attackers globally shutting down our grid.

The reason the security of our healthcare and electrical power industries scares me is not just the impact, but how consistently ill-prepared both industries are to defend against sophisticated attacks. I say this as a 20-year security consultant who has worked in four different companies and delivered hundreds of security assessments, penetration tests, and other projects.

Nor am I alone in my views. The new Director of NSA, Admiral Michael S. Rogers, lists “power” as one of 16 areas of critical infrastructure that concerns him most, too. And, in muted tones, many security veterans believe that sooner or later Eastern European organized-crime hacker consortia or nation states will direct their attention to healthcare and electrical power targets.

But what scares me the most are four significant mismatches between the sophisticated attackers and defenders in both industries:

#1 Closed systems
Both industries have huge initiatives that will transform their respective industries and change their risk profiles. Smart meters are being adopted to optimize electrical distribution and manage peak demand. This means they are taking a previously closed electrical distribution system and connecting it to the Internet. Unfortunately, there’s a culture clash between the Internet and electrical distribution worlds.

In healthcare, there are efforts to push patient information into Health Information Exchanges. These are meta-databases in the cloud to provide better and more responsive healthcare. Patients who need care away from home will have access to their private health information remotely. Regrettably, availability is trumping security on many rollouts. Healthcare.gov is more the standard and not the exception.

#2 A false sense of security
These industries view many cyber security threats in the abstract. There are no Targets or Home Depots in either industry, and arguably (at least as far as we know), sophisticated attackers are not attacking them. They’ve not had any near-death experiences, and because of the abstract nature of cyber security threats, leadership does not worry about attacks, and security budgets suffer. No daily threat of stolen money equals a false sense of security.

#3 Unfamiliar adversaries
Governmental organizations are used to getting attacked by nation states. Financial services companies are battling organized crime hacking syndicates who are both savvy and sophisticated. In the electrical and healthcare sectors, the likely adversaries will be nation states as part of a larger international crisis, or Eastern European hackers, when they find out how to monetize either target.

#4 Too much vendor trust
Both industries have a common denominator: highly trusted relationships with large systems and product vendors. But because they have worked so closely for a long time, they rarely question whether these partners conducted adequate security testing of their products or networks beyond simple vendor checklists. In the IT world, security leaders ALWAYS question vendor claims. In contrast, certain medical and electrical distribution products provide vendor lock-in and a client mismatch of power. Witness the many medical devices still running on Windows XP.

The healthcare and electrical industries share many of the same security issues as enterprises. But they also have a unique risk profile which makes them singularly less prepared to defend against sophisticated threats. Given the stakes, let’s hope this status quo changes soon.

 

John Dickson is an internationally recognized security leader, entrepreneur, and Principal at Denim Group Ltd. He has nearly 20 years of hands-on experience in intrusion detection, network security, and application security in the commercial, public, and military sectors. As ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
jdickson782
50%
50%
jdickson782,
User Rank: Author
10/31/2014 | 5:29:24 PM
Re: Accounting standard or security standard?
My overarching thought here is that every organization should have a general controls/ISO-27002 security assessment, but that this is only a starting point. More sophisticated organizations have multiple layers of security defense and do much more focused security testing to validate what's been implemented.
jdickson782
50%
50%
jdickson782,
User Rank: Author
10/31/2014 | 5:26:29 PM
Re: Healthcare
See my comments to Gary's post - unfortunately, there will have to be more high-profile losses before healthcare providers rate security up there with other risk management issues.
jdickson782
50%
50%
jdickson782,
User Rank: Author
10/31/2014 | 5:25:15 PM
Re: Stop signs are installed AFTER a traffic accident occurs.
Sadly, I think you are correct here.  Absent of more high-profile losses, many in the healthcare industry will view the threat as remote.  My thoughts in the article were really based on ~20 years reviewing healthcare organizations and their high-level posture.
Gary Scott
50%
50%
Gary Scott,
User Rank: Strategist
10/31/2014 | 4:31:27 PM
Stop signs are installed AFTER a traffic accident occurs.
Action follows demand.  Until a majority of patients are negativley affected by a security issue nothing will be done.
rzw122
50%
50%
rzw122,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/29/2014 | 5:50:46 PM
Healthcare
OMG! I let out a yelp of agreement as I sprang from my seat and began clapping after reading this commentary. This is an affirmation that I've long needed in my seemingly-solo quest to help medical practitioners understand the importance and value of securing their networks. Conversations with this those in this industry- even about minor perimeter security measures- are often met with shrugs or blank stares, but even more maddening are the reactions of whatever tech staff that physicians have managed to loosely piece together. These individuals are an enigma, for it is they who are the ones that we might expect to hold a more profound understanding of the consequences of lax security, or, in some cases, no security at all. Thank you for this piece.
GonzSTL
50%
50%
GonzSTL,
User Rank: Ninja
10/29/2014 | 1:17:17 PM
Re: Accounting standard or security standard?
@Ed Telders: Agreed, and that is precisely why I have asked for either the SAS 70 or SSAE 16. I wanted to know how religiously they followed their controls and to judge their "level of maturity" as you had put it.
Ed Telders
50%
50%
Ed Telders,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/29/2014 | 11:41:23 AM
Re: Accounting standard or security standard?
The SAS 70 was sunsetted in 2011 and replaced by the SSAE16 auditing standards.  They come in three flavors in the SOC1, SOC2, and SOC3 audit reports.  For each of them the reports can be a Type 1 or a Type 2.  In a Type 1 the audit simply looks at documentation and assesses them based on policies and statements, the Type 2 is where the controls are actually tested.  Naturally you want the Type 2.  Also the SOC1 is essentially the same as the old SAS 70 in that it is used to measure financial transactions and financial reporting.  Many have used that in the past as a means to assess vendors for security, although the SAS 70/SOC1 was never intended to be a security tool.  It does not assess the CIA triad nor does it look at actual enterprise security, only a subset of that.  The SOC2 Type 2 is the tool you want to look for to actually make a determination of the security posture and maturity of a vendor you're considering.  I would also recommend you review the detailed findings and managment responses to those findings to determine if any of them are of concern to you.  If for example, the audit has a finding detecting servers that are not patched, managment then responds that they have remediated them since the audit field work it sounds pretty reasonable.  Unless the number of servers found unpatched is larger than a reasonable number (ex. 100 out of 500 total) which would indicate a material procedural problem with that vendors processes.  The details can be a gold mine of information that can help you make a solid decision between vendors.  And yes the smaller "boutique" vendors and "startups" frequently haven't created this level of maturity that would be more typical of larger well-established providers, so buyer beware.
GonzSTL
50%
50%
GonzSTL,
User Rank: Ninja
10/29/2014 | 11:29:30 AM
Re: Accounting standard or security standard?
Yes, SAS 70 is an auditing standard designed to perform an in-depth examination of control objectives and activities. During the performance of this audit by an independent accounting and auditing firm, an organization's written controls are verified by auditing the actual activities related to the controls. These controls also include those specific to Information Technology and related processes. What I wanted to see was whether or not potential business partners actually practiced the controls they had in place, especially those specific to IT.
DBAJRACHARYAN/A
50%
50%
DBAJRACHARYAN/A,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/29/2014 | 9:55:04 AM
Accounting standard or security standard?
Is not SAS70 an auditing standard? Are you looking for data security standard or financial stability of the organization?
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
10/29/2014 | 9:03:49 AM
Re: public safety
The theft of personal information in healthcare has been pretty well documented (the prices for PII on the black market are at a record high). But my guess it will ake some life threatening medical event to shake consumer confidence in Healthcare IT -- and spur more serious action . For the power grid, holding a nation to a ransom in order to turn the lights back on is a really scary scenario.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Black Hat Q&A: Hacking a '90s Sports Car
Black Hat Staff, ,  11/7/2019
The Cold Truth about Cyber Insurance
Chris Kennedy, CISO & VP Customer Success, AttackIQ,  11/7/2019
6 Small-Business Password Managers
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  11/8/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprise
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprise
Security leaders are struggling to understand their organizations risk exposure. While many are confident in their security strategies and processes, theyre also more concerned than ever about getting breached. Download this report today and get insights on how today's enterprises assess and perceive the risks they face in 2019!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2011-5271
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-12
Pacemaker before 1.1.6 configure script creates temporary files insecurely
CVE-2014-3599
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-12
HornetQ REST is vulnerable to XML External Entity due to insecure configuration of RestEasy
CVE-2014-7143
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-12
Python Twisted 14.0 trustRoot is not respected in HTTP client
CVE-2018-18819
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-12
A vulnerability in the web conference chat component of MiCollab, versions 7.3 PR6 (7.3.0.601) and earlier, and 8.0 (8.0.0.40) through 8.0 SP2 FP2 (8.0.2.202), and MiVoice Business Express versions 7.3 PR3 (7.3.1.302) and earlier, and 8.0 (8.0.0.40) through 8.0 SP2 FP1 (8.0.2.202), could allow creat...
CVE-2019-18658
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-12
In Helm 2.x before 2.15.2, commands that deal with loading a chart as a directory or packaging a chart provide an opportunity for a maliciously designed chart to include sensitive content such as /etc/passwd, or to execute a denial of service (DoS) via a special file such as /dev/urandom, via symlin...