In the wake of the recent SolarWinds hack, a vendor compromise that infected tightly protected government agencies, the Biden administration is reported to be planning a new cybersecurity executive order as early this week. While a National Security Council spokeswoman said no decision has been made on the final content of the executive order, among the measures being reported is a new requirement that any vendors working with federal government agencies must report any suspected breaches to those agencies.
While there have been multiple previous attempts to establish breach notification laws through congress, industry resistance has previously been successful in halting the bills from passing. But now, following the two, massive hacks of SolarWinds and Microsoft over the past few months, there may not be much vendors can do to stop it this time.
Along with the breach notification requirement, the planned cybersecurity executive order is reported to contain a series of additional security requirements for software and programs used by federal agencies. This may include requiring federal agencies to take small, but essential security measures such as the use multi-factor authentication and data encryption.
Overall, the executive order appears to create broader levels of transparency and communication between software vendors and government agencies regarding cybersecurity. For example, since many pieces of software now link directly to other programs and services, the order is reported to also require a “software bill of materials” that lays out what the software contains and what other services it connects to. According to Reuters, the order may also create a cybersecurity incident response board, encouraging communication between government agencies, vendors, and victims.
If Biden signs the executive order, this may be a the first step towards a more robust and efficient response to the increasing cyber threats government agencies are facing. According to Reuters, this may also open the door towards broader public disclosure legislation. By being transparent and openly sharing information, both government agencies and private organization will benefit by helping to identify and mitigate threats more quickly and effectively.
We’ve written before about how the disruption and confusion of the COVID-19 pandemic has caused an uptick in phishing and disinformation campaigns. Yet, there is another dimension to this that is just beginning to become clear: how the isolation of remote work helps to create the conditions necessary for disinformation to take root.
In a report on the impacts of remote and hybrid work on employees, Microsoft highlights how remote work has shrunk our networks. Despite the ability to use video services like Zoom and Microsoft Teams to collaborate with others across the globe, the data reveals that remote work has actually caused us to consolidate our interactions to just those we work closely with, and far less with our extend networks. The result is that employees and teams have become siloed, creating a sort of echo chamber in which new and diverse perspectives are lost. According to Dr. Nancy Baym, Senior Principal Researcher at Microsoft, when are networks shrink, “it’s harder for new ideas to get in and groupthink becomes a serious possibility.”
The gap between interactions with our close network and our distant network created by remote work doesn’t just stifle innovation, it’s also what creates the conditions necessary for disinformation to thrive. When we are only exposed to information and perspectives that are familiar to us, it becomes harder and harder to question what we are being presented. If, for example, we are in a network of people who all believe Elvis is still alive, without exposure to other people who think Elvis in fact isn’t alive we would probably just assume there isn’t any reason to question what those around us are telling us.
The point is, without actively immersing ourselves within networks with differing perspectives, it becomes difficult to exercise our critical thinking abilities and make informed decisions about the validity of the information we are seeing. Remote and hybrid work is likely going to stick around long after the pandemic is over, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t steps we can take to ensure we don’t remained siloed within our shrunken networks. In order to combat disinformation within these shrunken networks we can:
1. Play the Contrarian
When being presented with new information, one of the most important ways to ensure we don’t blindly accept something that may not be true is to play the contrarian and take up the opposite point of view. You may ultimately find that the opposite perspective doesn’t make sense, but will help you take a step back from what you are being shown and give you the chance to recognize there may be more to the story than what you are seeing.
2. Engage Others
It may seem obvious, but engaging with opinions and perspectives that are different than what we are accustomed to is essential to breaking free of the type of groupthink that disinformation thrives on. It can also be a lot harder than it sounds. The online media ecosystem isn’t designed to show you a wide range of perspectives. Instead, it’s up to us to take the time to research other points of view and actively seek out others who see things differently.
3. Do a Stress Test
Once you have a better sense of the diversity of perspectives on any given topic, you’re now in a position to use your own critical thinking skills to evaluate what you — and not those around you — think is true. Taking in all sides of an issue, you can then apply a stress test in which you try to disprove each point of view. Which ever perspective seems to hold up the best or is hardest to challenge will give you a good base to make an informed decision about what you think is most legitimate.
From our personal lives to the office, searching for opposite and conflicting perspectives will help build resilience against the effects of disinformation. It can also even help to be more effective at spotting phish and social media campaigns. By looking past the tactics designed to trick us into clicking on a link or giving away information, and taking a few seconds to take a breathe, examine what we are looking at, and stress test the information we are being shown, we can be a lot more confident in our ability to tell the difference between phish and phriend.
Breaches happen all the time, but every so often one of those breaches breaks through into national headlines, serving as a watershed moment about where we are and where we need to be with regards to cybersecurity.One of those watershed moments occurred last December when it was revealed that Russian state-sponsored hackers breached the software developer SolarWinds, and from there managed to access some pretty tightly-sealed networks and systems across public and private sectors. But what exactly happened? Who does it effect? What can we learn to better protect our organizations?
One of the most striking aspects of the SolarWinds hack is that it was years in the making, taking a huge amount of discipline and patience to pull off and stay undetected. Forensic evidence found that the hackers gained access to Orion, the SolarWinds product that was compromised, back in late 2019. Yet, at that time, the hackers didn’t actually make any changes or launch an attack. Instead, they sat and waited in order to monitor, learn, and test SolarWind’s system to ensure they wouldn’t be caught.
Then, months later in May 2020, the hackers made their move — but not in the way most would expect. Typically, when someone wants to infect a piece of software with malware, they will modify the code behind the software. However, because security experts know to look for code modifications, these hackers decided to instead install their malware directly onto the software product itself. So, when an update for Orion was released, government agencies, and companies big and small downloaded an update that contained a backdoor for the hackers.
Between May, when malware was initially launched, and December, when the hack was discovered, the attackers were able to move throughout the networks and systems of any company using SolarWinds’ software that they wanted. And they were targeted, going after the emails of specific, high-valued individuals within affected organizations. From there, the goal was to maintain access, move around infected system, and hold onto access of specific individuals’ communications.
Much has been made about the level of sophistication involved in the attack — and it was. However, at root, this is a story about 3rd party risk. We’ve written before about the importance of vendor management, and the SolarWinds hack is an extreme case in point. Because most organization’s today depend in large part on 3rd party providers for everything from cloud storage, to product platforms, to network security, an attack like this doesn’t have a definitive end. Instead, the SolarWinds attack has the potential ripple across a web of interconnected organizations across the supply chain. According to Steven Adair, a security expert who helped with the incident response for SolarWind, the attackers “had access to numerous networks and systems that would allow them to rise and repeat [the] SolarWinds [attack] probably on numerous different scales in numerous different ways.” It’s therefore possible — and perhaps likely — that the full effects of the hack are still to be revealed.
If that doesn’t serve as a wake up call, we don’t know what will. And as it turns out, there are a number of effective and achievable steps organizations can take to mitigate 3rd party risk.
1. The Basics
It may not seem like much, but simply maintaining basic digital hygiene plays a big role in protecting against attacks. Strong password management, using multi-factored authentication, and network segmentation should be a cybersecurity baseline for all organizations. These are simple steps that serve as an organization’s first line of defense against an attack.
2. The Rule of Least Privilege
The rule of least privilege essential means providing the least amount of access for the least amount of time to systems and networks. This involves setting limits on what access you give to products and software as well as actively monitoring access privileges for employees, contractors, and vendors. Essentially, if something or someone doesn’t need access to a piece of your system, they shouldn’t be able to access it. If someone need access to a part of your network for 2 days, then their privileges should expire after 2 days. This will limit the ability for malicious users to move around systems, potentially preventing them from spreading to other, more sensitive environments.
A lot of organizations these days maintain event logs, which essentially keep a record of all network activity. While logs might not directly prevent a breach, these records are vital to asses the potentially damage and scope of an attack, allowing organizations to act swiftly and forcefully to remove the threat. However, keeping logs isn’t enough, it’s essential to also retain these logs. SolarWinds policy was to remove these logs after 90 days. The problem, of course, was that the attack was discovered far more than three months after the hackers breached the system, effectively making it impossible to gain any detailed insight into what the hackers were doing prior to August of 2020.
Combining Business and Security
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: it’s easy to see security needs as at best a nuisance and at worst a barrier towards optimal business performance, but this simply isn’t the case. As Steven Adair points out, a small company doesn’t need to hit the ground running with the best security products and a million code audits right out the gate. However, if businesses incorporate security concerns within business strategies, these organization can start to ask themselves: “Where are we now, what can we do now, and what can we do along the way?” Asking those questions might just make the difference down the road when the next watershed moment strikes.
Earlier this year we wrote about the fact that cyber attacks cost businesses millions of dollars per incident. But what about the cost of cybercrime on larger scale? This month, McAfee released a new report analyzing at the cost of cybercrime globally, and the findings are staggering.
The most startling news from the report is the jump in the overall cost of cybercrime globally. Between 2018 and 2020, McAfee found a nearly 50% increase in average global cost. Now, the estimated global cost of cybercrime is $945 billion — more than 1% of the global GDP.
Just as startling, however, is that the report found a myriad of additional damages organizations face after a cyber incident beyond direct financial costs. In their report, McAfee found that 92% of organizations surveyed identified “hidden costs” that effected them beyond direct monetary losses. These hidden costs can have long terms effects on an organization’s productivity and ability to prevent future attacks.
One of the main hidden costs the report covers is the “damage to company performance” after a cyber incident. These damages, according to the report, is primarily related to a loss in productivity and lost work hours as businesses attempt to recover from an attack — usually because system downtime and disruptions to normal operations. While these losses might be, to some extent, inevitable following an attack, McAfee’s report found that organizations routinely neglect one essential aspect of cybersecurity: communication within the organizations.
We’ve talked before about the importance of creating an incident response plan, but without communication and cooperation between all areas of an organization, these plans won’t be all that effective. According to the report, IT decision makers think some departments aren’t ever made aware that a cyber incident even happened. The breakdown in communication is especially damaging between IT and business leadership. “IT and line-of-business (LOB) decision makers,” the report says, “have different understandings of what, why, and how a company or government agency is experiencing an IT security incident.” In fact, the lack of communication goes so far as whether or not there is even a response plan at all. The report found that, in general, business leadership often believe there is a response plan in place when there isn’t one.
This lack of communication also extends to the nature and scope of an organization’s cyber risk. The report noted a significant lack of organization-wide understand of cyber risk, which, the report states, “makes companies and agencies vulnerable to social engineering tactics. Once a user is hacked, they do not always recognize the problem in time to stop the spread of malware.”
While there will almost always be disruptions and hidden costs following a cyber incident, McAfee’s report seems to indicate many of these losses are self-inflicted. The report shows that the most common change organizations make after a cyber incident is investment in new security software. And, while technical safeguards are certainly necessary, they are far from sufficient. Instead, organizations need to begin investing in policies and procedures that ensure organization-wide communication, knowledge, and response to cyber risk and incidents.
Ever since Apple announced new privacy features included in the release of OS 14, Facebook has waged a war against the company, arguing that these new features will adversely effect small businesses and their ability to advertise online. What makes these attacks so “laughable” is not just Facebook’s disingenuous posturing as the protector of small businesses, but that their campaign against Apple suggests privacy and business are fundamentally opposed to each other. This is just plain wrong. We’ve said it before and we’ll say is again: Privacy is good for business.
In June, Apple announced that their new mobile operating system, OS 14, would include a feature called “AppTrackingTransparency” that requires apps to seek permission from users before tracking activity between others apps and websites. This feature is a big step towards prioritizing user control of data and the right to privacy. However, in the months following Apple’s announcement, Facebook has waged a campaign against Apple and their new privacy feature. In a blog post earlier this month, Faceboook claims that “Apple’s policy will make it much harder for small businesses to reach their target audience, which will limit their growth and their ability to compete with big companies.”
And Facebook didn’t stop there. They even took out full-page ads in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post to make their point.
Given the fact that Facebook is currently being sued by more than 40 states for antitrust violations, there is some pretty heavy irony in the company’s stance as the protector of small business. Yet, this is only scratches the surface of what Facebook gets wrong in their attacks against Apple’s privacy features.
While targeted online adverting has been heralded as a more effective way for business to reach new audiences and start turning a profit, the groups that benefit the most from these highly-targeted ad practices are in reality gigantic data brokers. In response to Facebook’s attacks, Apple released a letter, saying that “the current data arms race primarily benefits big businesses with big data sets.”
The privacy advocacy non-profit, Electronic Frontier Foundation, reenforced Apple’s point and called Facebook’s claims “laughable.” Start ups and small business, used to be able to support themselves by running ads on their website or app. Now, however, nearly the entire online advertising ecosystem is controlled by companies like Facebook and Google, who not only distribute ads across platforms and services, but also collect, analyze and sell the data gained through these ads. Because these companies have a strangle hold on the market, they also rake in the majority of the profits. A study by The Association of National Advertisers found that publishers only get back between 30 and 40 cents of every dollar spent on ads. The rest, the EFF says, “goes to third-party data brokers [like Facebook and Google] who keep the lights on by exploiting your information, and not to small businesses trying to work within a broken system to reach their customers.”
Because tech giants such as Facebook have overwhelming control on online advertising practices, small businesses that want to run ads have no choice but to use highly-invasive targeting methods that end up benefitting Facebook more than these small businesses. Facebook’s claim that their crusade against Apple’s new privacy features is meant to help small businesses just simply doesn’t hold water. Instead, Facebook has a vested interest in maintaining the idea that privacy and business are fundamentally opposed to one another because that position suits their business model.
At the end of the day, the problem facing small business is not about privacy. The problem is the fundamental imbalance between a handful of gigantic tech companies and everyone else. The move by Apple to ensure all apps are playing by the same rules and protecting the privacy of their users is a good step towards leveling the playing field and thereby actually helping small business grow.
This also shows the potential benefits of a federal, baseline privacy regulation. Currently, U.S. privacy regulations are enacted and enforced on the state level, which, while a step in the right direction, can end up staggering business growth as organizations attempt to navigate various regulations with different levels of requirements. In fact, last year CEOs sent a letter to congress urging the government to put in place federal privacy regulations, saying that “as the regulatory landscape becomes increasingly fragmented and more complex, U.S. innovation and global competitiveness in the digital economy are threatened” and that “innovation thrives under clearly defined and consistently applied rules.”
Lastly, we recently wrote about how consumers are more willing to pay more for services that don’t collect excessive amounts of data on their users.This suggests that surveillance advertising and predatory tracking do not build customers, they build transactions. Apple’s new privacy features open up a space for business to use privacy-by-design principles in their advertising and services, providing a channel for those customers that place a value on their privacy.
Privacy is not bad for business, it’s only bad for business models like Facebook’s. By leveling the playing field and providing a space for new, privacy-minded business models to proliferate, we may start to see more organizations realize that privacy and business are actually quite compatible.