Recently, a widespread global ransomware attack has struck hospitals, communication, and other types of companies and government offices around the world, seizing control of affected computers until the victims pay a ransom. This widespread ransomware campaign has affected various organizations with reports of tens of thousands of infections in as many as 99 countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, Taiwan, France, and Japan. The software can run in as many as 27 different languages. The latest version of this ransomware variant, known as WannaCry, WCry, or Wanna Decryptor, was discovered the morning of May 12, 2017, by an independent security researcher and has spread rapidly.
China has finalized a broad new Cyber Security Law, its first comprehensive data privacy and security regulation. It addresses specific privacy rights previously adopted in the European Union and elsewhere such as access, data retention, breach notification, mobile privacy, online fraud and protection of minors.
There is plenty in the new law to irritate international businesses operating in China. It requires in general that Chinese citizens’ data be stored only in China, for starters, possibly requiring global corporations to maintain separate IT systems for Chinese data. Most of the privacy enhancements benefiting citizens align with those required in the European Union, but it is unclear how the Chinese will expect compliance, particularly since, as with many Chinese laws, its language is vague as to its scope, application and details. This vagueness leaves interpretation to the State Council, the chief administrative authority in China, headed by Premier Li Keqiang.
The law expands Chinese authorities’ power to investigate even within a corporation’s Chinese data systems, and provides for draconian penalties for non-compliance by business entities or responsible individuals include warnings, rectification orders, fines, confiscation of illegal gains, suspension of business operations or the revocation of the entity’s business license. Continue Reading China Finalizes New Cyber Security Law
We have all heard this before, but just how bad things really are? According to Verizon’s 2016 Data Breach Investigations Report (“DBIR”), insider and privilege misuse was once again one of the leading causes of incidents and breaches in 2015, accounting for 10,489 total incidents, 172 with confirmed data disclosure. Some of this misuse is perpetrated by malicious actors driven by motivation of financial gain and some of it is due to actions of well-meaning employees who either lacked cybersecurity awareness or simply made a mistake.
While there are no perfect answers for addressing the multitude of possible insider attacks, which can range from privilege abuse, to data mishandling, to the use of unapproved hardware, software, and workarounds, to email misuse, implementing the steps below can go a long way in reducing the risks.
Five Steps to Reduce Insider Misuse
Michael Coscia, the first person convicted as a “spoofer” under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, has been sentenced to 3 years in prison. Coscia is not a young hacker kid or even a computer whiz, he is a fifty-four-year-old commodities trader and owner of New Jersey-based Panther Energy Trading.
Coscia was convicted in November 2015 for artificially bumping up commodities prices by using computer algorithms to quickly place large orders through commodity markets in Chicago and London which he then cancelled within milliseconds. These placed-then-cancelled trades were alleged to have had effects on the pricing of the commodities that benefitted Coscia to the tune of more than $100,000 per month in 2011. Continue Reading Federal Court Sentences First Convicted Spoofer Under Dodd-Frank to 3 Years
In his “Data Is a Toxic Asset” blog post, Bruce Schneier argues that data is a toxic asset and that the lesson all the recent data breaches are teaching us is that storing this asset is “dangerous,” because it makes companies vulnerable to hackers, the government, and employee error. Schneier suggests addressing data breaches through stronger regulation at every stage of the data lifecycle and through personal liability of corporate executives. “Data is a toxic asset,” concludes Schneier, “We need to start thinking about it as such, and treat it as we would any other source of toxicity. To do anything else is to risk our security and privacy.” Continue Reading Is Data Really a “Toxic” Asset?