IT can decrease security risk through ISO 27000 and PCI
Compliance-based security doesnt always provide protection against determined attacks. According to the investigation, Target was aware that such a breach could happen, but it still ignored warnings.
January 31, 2014 at 05:10 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Compliance-based security doesn't always provide protection against determined attacks. This was the unfortunate case in the recent breaches of Target, Neiman-Marcus, and Michaels Stores. According to the investigation, the retail chain was aware that such a breach could happen, but it still ignored warnings.
“Michaels knew that its POS systems were vulnerable to attack. Dr. Neal Krawetz, a cyber-security expert, published a white paper in August 2007 alerting major retailers, including Target, to the risk of POS cyber-attacks,” said Tom Loeser, a Hagens Berman partner and former federal prosecutor in the Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, in a statement.
The firm has filed a case against Target in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging the company is liable for consumers' losses. That complaint states that Krawetz alerted Target and other major national retail chains about their vulnerability to attack in a white paper outlining POS security issues.
“There are at least two compelling common facts among Target, Neiman Marcus and now Michaels,” Loeser said. “The first is that the method of attack and the tools used were not unknown. In addition to being warned as early as 2007 of the risk of this type of attack, the particular type of malware the attackers used was known to cyber-security experts as early as 2011, and a version very similar to the version in the Target data breach was known to experts as early as January 2013.”
“Second, none of these companies apparently had any clue that their network systems and security had been breached for quite some time after payment card data was flowing to the attackers,” Loeser continued. “Adequate monitoring of system traffic and data exfiltration is a rudimentary element of any reasonable network security protocol and early detection in these recent attacks could have prevented millions of consumers from having their financial and personal information stolen.”
Compliance requirements like the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standard (PCI/DSS) give the illusion of security, according to Information Week. These requirements reduce risk, however they are incomplete because they fail to provide flexibility to adjust according to a company's true security needs. Security is another business risk, so executives must look at the best information they can find in order to make the smartest decisions possible.
Recent court decisions demonstrate that meeting an industry-compliance requirement, like PCI, is insufficient in meeting the standard. The courts want to know whether corporations have done what is reasonable for their companies versus whether they have they met a compliance prerequisite. The challenge for security professionals is how to bridge this gap.
Many CIOs are faced with two directives: Adopt the ISO 27000 framework and improve PCI compliance. PCI is a subset of ISO 27000 security controls focused on the credit card payment zone, generally defined as anywhere on a network credit card information traverses and is stored. The answer to connecting the two seems to lie in the origins of PCI. ISO 27000 breaks information security into ten areas of focus and labels them from four to fourteen. Each of these has multiple security controls that provide guidance to reduce an organization's risk profile.
This combination will allow an organization the flexibility of ISO 27000 and still meet the requirements of PCI.
For more on data breaches, check out these articles:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFinancial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readGC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250