New Security Reports: Beware Of Your Partners

Written by Evan Schuman
June 13th, 2008

A pair of unrelated reports out this week are challenging several fundamental IT security assumptions, including that data breach laws will reduce consumer losses and that insiders account for more thefts than external evil-doers.

A Verizon Business security report analyzed more than 500 data breach incidents over four years and found that 73 percent started from the outside and only 18 percent were inside jobs.

That said, the report found that the dollars involved still favored the internal thief. "The median size as measured in the number of compromised records for an insider breach exceeded that of an outsider by more than 10 to one," the report said.

That’s good information to share with your business partners who, according to this report, are quite possibly ripping you off. Some 39 percent of the incidents "implicated partners," a "number that rose five-fold over the time period of the study," the report said.

The Verizon report also pointed fingers at lame IT management, finding that 66 percent of incidents "involved data the victim did not know was on the system." In a blow to self-audits, 75 percent of the breaches were not discovered by the victims.

It’s only fair to point out that, statistically, these numbers may have limited value because the 500 incidents analyzed were all Verizon clients. Does that mean that Verizon’s clients were more likely than most to have partners with sticky fingers? Not necessarily, but the kinds of breach situations where someone would reach out to a security consultant might be of a different nature than the norm.

Another report—this one out of Carnegie Mellon University—looked closely at whether data breach laws reduce consumer fraud losses. It found no evidence that support that commonly-held belief.

"We find no statistically significant effect that laws reduce identity theft, even after considering income, urbanization, strictness of law and interstate commerce," the CMU report said. "If the probability of becoming a victim conditional on a data breach is very small, then the law’s maximum effectiveness is inherently limited."

The report tries to quantify the impact on retailers and consumers. "If, indeed, the probability of a consumer suffering identity theft is low enough, then both firms and consumers could incur unnecessary costs by overreacting. Firms would incur the unnecessary costs of notifying consumers and consumers would incur the unnecessary costs from constantly freezing and thawing their credit reports," the report said. "These policies impede e-commerce and stifle technological development by discouraging firms to innovate using consumers’ personal information or stop collecting it altogether."


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.