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.

Comments
What Scares Me About Healthcare & Electric Power Security
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
Thomas Claburn
50%
50%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Ninja
10/28/2014 | 7:08:33 PM
Re: public safety
>now it's time for the public to be better informed on this.

If only the public cared. And for those who do, the healthcare market is so screwed up that it's unlikely consumers will be able to vote with their feet -- they'll have to wait until open enrollment periods to switch providers and then they're likely to face few real choices. And if you're electricity provider is lax in its security, you probably have nowhere else to go.
Kelly Jackson Higgins
50%
50%
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
10/28/2014 | 3:40:41 PM
public safety
What worries me is that the world outside of our security bubble won't truly take security seriously until there's a tangible attack that affects public safety, etc. The increasingly networked consumer space is bringing this issue to the fore--now it's time for the public to be better informed on this.
GonzSTL
50%
50%
GonzSTL,
User Rank: Ninja
10/28/2014 | 3:34:30 PM
Re: Validation
Agree completely. During security reviews of potential vendors, I've asked for SAS 70 or SSAE 16 audit results if they have a current one, or a review of their security policies. Surprisingly, one potential vendor we looked into had none of those. Can you believe that? Not even security policies! So of course we expressed a lack of interest, and the next day, they miraculously came up with rudimentary security policies specific to our request. They indicated that they simply adopted the policies of one of their business partners who gave them permission to do so. One little problem – the policies reflected the name of their business partner, and not their own company. I couldn't believe how sloppy they were and naturally, my recommendation was "NO!!!"
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
10/28/2014 | 1:18:15 PM
Re: Validation
Vendors need to receive the same scrutiny that you would provide to your own enteprise. They are handling your data. If they store your data or are connected via VPN, your corporation is taking a risk which needs to be acknowledged. Their compromise and is your compromise. You need to ensure that they follow stringent standards that you hold your own enterprise, to safeguard the data. Cryptology methods need to safeguard data in transit and at rest. Firewalls and DMZ's positioned to secure different severities of data. Active scanning to determine that no outside malicious influence has already circumvented your perimeter. There are many others, but a good template is to follow best security practices for data handling.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
10/28/2014 | 12:54:20 PM
Re: Validation
Interesting, ryan. What are some of the "measures" you are asking vendors about?
RyanSepe
100%
0%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
10/28/2014 | 12:41:37 PM
Validation
Working for a healthcare enterprise I can vouch for many of these significant mismatches. Especailly "Too much vendor trust". However, at my organization we are starting to crack down on ensuring Business Associate Agreements are signed that mandate certain measures be performed by vendors that want to do business with us. This along with legal documentation need to be present ensure that vendors are providing due diligence for data security. Vendors are concerned mainly with functionality and due to this, security tends to fall by the wayside. I feel that if vendors are held to higher standards and industry starts cracking down on the stringence of their protocols that the security initiative will be represented much better.
<<   <   Page 2 / 2


Mobile Banking Malware Up 50% in First Half of 2019
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/17/2020
7 Tips for Infosec Pros Considering A Lateral Career Move
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2020
For Mismanaged SOCs, The Price Is Not Right
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment:   It's a PEN test of our cloud security.
Current Issue
IT 2020: A Look Ahead
Are you ready for the critical changes that will occur in 2020? We've compiled editor insights from the best of our network (Dark Reading, Data Center Knowledge, InformationWeek, ITPro Today and Network Computing) to deliver to you a look at the trends, technologies, and threats that are emerging in the coming year. Download it today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-3697
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
UNIX Symbolic Link (Symlink) Following vulnerability in the packaging of gnump3d in openSUSE Leap 15.1 allows local attackers to escalate from user gnump3d to root. This issue affects: openSUSE Leap 15.1 gnump3d version 3.0-lp151.2.1 and prior versions.
CVE-2019-3694
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
A Symbolic Link (Symlink) Following vulnerability in the packaging of munin in openSUSE Factory, Leap 15.1 allows local attackers to escalate from user munin to root. This issue affects: openSUSE Factory munin version 2.0.49-4.2 and prior versions. openSUSE Leap 15.1 munin version 2.0.40-lp151.1.1 a...
CVE-2019-3693
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
A symlink following vulnerability in the packaging of mailman in SUSE SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12; openSUSE Leap 15.1 allowed local attackers to escalate their privileges from user wwwrun to root. Additionally arbitrary files could be changed to group mailman. Th...
CVE-2019-3687
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
The permission package in SUSE SUSE Linux Enterprise Server allowed all local users to run dumpcap in the &quot;easy&quot; permission profile and sniff network traffic. This issue affects: SUSE SUSE Linux Enterprise Server permissions versions starting from 85c83fef7e017f8ab7f8602d3163786d57344439 t...
CVE-2019-3692
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
The packaging of inn on SUSE SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11; openSUSE Factory, Leap 15.1 allows local attackers to escalate from user inn to root via symlink attacks. This issue affects: SUSE SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 inn version 2.4.2-170.21.3.1 and prior versions. openSUSE Factory inn versi...