Technology: We're all human when it comes to info security
When retained by clients to conduct assessments on their information security policies and procedures, I am usually steered to a review of their technology solutions, including hardware-and software-based security solutions. However, I always point out to clients that the human factor usually presents the greatest risk with respect to information...
July 01, 2011 at 07:30 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This is the sixth and last in a series of columns on information security. Prior articles dealt with trade secret theft, ways to keep your data safe and with information security in light of the different types of technologies being deployed by companies. This article underscores the fact that despite all the technological advances with respect to information security, we are all human and often times represent the weakest link in securing data and other intellectual property.
When retained by clients to conduct assessments on their information security policies and procedures, I am usually steered to a review of their technology solutions, including hardware-and software-based security solutions. However, I always point out to clients that the human factor usually presents the greatest risk with respect to information security and the loss of intellectual property.
To underscore this fact, I just read an article about a test done earlier this year by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in which it wanted to see how hard it would be for someone to gain access to its computer systems. Apparently, at least according to the test results, it was not very difficult.
According to the article, DHS staff dropped USB thumb drives and other computer media in parking lots and in other places around government buildings and the buildings of private contractors. Of the employees and the contractors that picked up the “dropped” media, more than 60% plugged the USB devices (or loaded the CD) into their computers to see what was contained on the media. Further, if the CD or USB device had a logo or some other identifying information on it, more than 90% of those that picked them up put them into their computers. It goes without saying that these are astounding statistics.
Despite all the technological solutions that a company might deploy to prevent unauthorized access to their computers and networks, this very basic study shows that humans will be human and will apparently disregard basic security precautions if given the opportunity to do so. I would presume that if queried, most of the people that plugged (or otherwise put) the media into their computers would state that they knew of the risks in doing so, but did so anyway out of curiosity.
In addition to malware contained on media such as computer disks and thumb drives, it is worth noting that malware is often contained in attachments to e-mails. A review of many of the more serious recent data breaches show that employees obviously are not reluctant to open such attachments despite knowing that they may contain malware.
By way of example, the recent breach of the RSA Secure ID Platform was apparently brought about by e-mails that had contaminated spreadsheets attached to them. The spreadsheets contained an imbedded Adobe System's flash file that allowed hackers to infiltrate the employees' computers. The result was a breach of the RSA Secure ID Platform, which is used by many companies for data security.
In light of the increasingly sophisticated attacks with respect to data networks, and given the propensity of employees to fall for unsophisticated methods of attack, companies must be increasingly vigilant in their efforts to prevent and to mitigate such attacks.
Employee Training Should Not Be Overlooked
In addition to all of the technological solutions that companies employ such as firewalls and virus protection schemes, companies should not forget that ongoing and recurring employee training must be a vital component in their information security programs. All new employees must be trained in information security and must understand what they should and should not do with respect to their computers and the company's networks. I note that many companies provide this type of training.
However, one of the failings of many companies is that this training is not ongoing. A good practice would be for this type of training to be refreshed for all employees at least twice a year. This type of refresher would serve two purposes. First, it would reinforce what the employee has already been told with respect to information security and hopefully help the employee to remember the “dos” and “don'ts” of information security. Secondly, it would allow the company to present new vulnerabilities to the employees on a more timely basis than an annual refresher. For employees who are in the IT space or who are heavy users of mobile technology, quarterly refreshers might be in order.
Additionally, in light of the rise in both employees' and companies' use of social media such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other mobile applications, legal counsel and companies must regularly review their information security policies and procedures and adjust them accordingly. Part of this adjustment must include making certain that all employees are adequately trained with respect to the company's policies and procedures, and are aware of the ongoing and ever increasing risks facing companies with respect to the protection of the company's information assets and intellectual property. As we have seen, failure to do so could be catastrophic.
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 All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readGC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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