Author Archives: HIPAA Journal

Healthcare Data Breach Report: April 2018

April was a particularly bad month for healthcare data breaches with both the number of breaches and the number of individuals impacted by breaches both substantially higher than in March.

There were 41 healthcare data breaches reported to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights in April. Those breaches resulted in the theft/exposure of 894,874 healthcare records.

Healthcare Data Breach Trends

For the past four months, the number of healthcare data breaches reported to OCR has increased month over month.

Healthcare data breaches by month

For the third consecutive month, the number of records exposed in healthcare data breaches has increased.

HEalthcare records exposed by month

Causes of Healthcare Data Breaches in April 2018

The healthcare industry may be a big target for hackers, but the biggest cause of healthcare data breaches in April was unauthorized access/disclosure incidents. While cybersecurity defences have been improved to make it harder for hackers to gain access to healthcare data, there is still a major problem preventing accidental data breaches by insiders and malicious acts by healthcare employees.

Causes of Healthcare Data Breaches in April 2018

Records exposed by breach type (April 2018)

Largest Healthcare Data Breaches in April 2018

More than half of the healthcare records exposed in April were the result of a single security incident at the California Department of Developmental Services. Thieves broke into California Department of Developmental Services offices, stole electronic equipment, and started a fire. Digital copies of PHI on the stolen equipment were encrypted and were therefore not exposed. Most of the PHI was in physical form and it does not appear any paperwork was taken by the burglars.

While hacking usually results in the highest number of exposed/stolen records, in April the most serious breaches in terms of the number of individuals affected, were unauthorised access/disclosure incidents. In April there were 11 major breaches involving the theft/exposure of more than 10,000 records.

Covered Entity Entity Type Records Exposed Breach Type
CA Department of Developmental Services Health Plan 582,174 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure
Center for Orthopaedic Specialists – Providence Medical Institute (PMI) Healthcare Provider 81,550 Hacking/IT Incident
MedWatch LLC Business Associate 40,621 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure
Inogen, Inc. Healthcare Provider 29,528 Hacking/IT Incident
Capital Digestive Care, Inc. Healthcare Provider 17,639 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure
Iowa Health System d/b/a UnityPoint Health Business Associate 16,429 Hacking/IT Incident
Knoxville Heart Group, Inc. Healthcare Provider 15,995 Hacking/IT Incident
Athens Heart Center, P.C. Healthcare Provider 12,158 Hacking/IT Incident
Fondren Orthopedic Group L.L.P. Healthcare Provider 11,552 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure
Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services Healthcare Provider 11,000 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure
Carolina Digestive Health Associates, PA Healthcare Provider 10,988 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure

Location of Breached PHI

One of the main causes of healthcare breaches in April was phishing attacks. There were nine data breaches involving the hacking of email accounts in April. The high number of phishing attacks highlights the need for healthcare organizations to invest in technology to prevent malicious emails from being delivered to employees’ inboxes and to improve security awareness of the workforce.

Location of Breached PHI (April 2018)

Data Breaches by Covered Entity

The majority of breaches in April were reported by healthcare providers, followed by health plans and business associates. While five breaches were reported by business associates, there was business associate involvement in at least 11 incidents in April.

Data Breaches by Covered Entity (April 2018)

Healthcare Data Breaches by State

California is the most populated state and often tops the list for healthcare data breaches, although in April Illinois was the worst affected state with 6 reported breaches. California was second worst with 5 breaches, followed by Texas with 3 breaches.

Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia, and Wisconsin each has two breaches reported, while Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee each had one reported breach in April.

Financial Penalties for HIPAA Covered Entities

The HHS’ Office for Civil Rights has only issued two financial penalties for HIPAA violations so far in 2018, with no cases resolved since February.

There was one HIPAA violation case resolved by a state attorney general in April. Virtua Medical Group agreed to resolve violations of state and HIPAA laws with the New Jersey attorney general’s office for $417,816.

The breach that triggered the investigation exposed the names, diagnoses, and prescription information of 1,654 New Jersey residents. The information was accessible over the Internet as a result of a misconfigured server.

A Division of Consumer Affairs investigation alleged Virtua Medical Group had failed to conduct a thorough risk analysis and did not implement appropriate security measures to reduce risk to a reasonable and acceptable level.

The post Healthcare Data Breach Report: April 2018 appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Lincare Settles W-2 Phishing Scam Lawsuit for $875,000

The respiratory therapy supplier Lincare Inc., has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by employees whose W-2 information was sent to cybercriminals when an employee responded to a phishing scam.

On February 3, 2017, a member of Lincare’s human resources department received an email from a high-level executive requesting copies of W-2 information for all employees of the firm. Believing the email was a genuine request, the employee responded and attached W-2 information for ‘a certain number of employees of Lincare and its affiliates.’

After discovering the accidental disclosure of sensitive information, Lincare contacted affected employees and offered them two years of credit monitoring, identity theft insurance, and remediation services without charge.

On October 16, 2017, three employees – Andrew Giancola, Raymond T. Scott, and Patricia Smith – took legal action against Lincare alleging negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The lawsuit survived a motion to dismiss and following mediation a settlement was agreed. Lincare has agreed to pay $875,000 to settle the case with no admission of liability. $550,000 will be paid in compensation for class members with a further $325,000 reserved to compensate class members who experience an eligible incident such as the filing of a fraudulent/false tax, opening of a fraudulent/false loan, or the opening of a fraudulent/false credit card.

W-2 Phishing Scams and How to Protect Against Them

Last year, more than 100 U.S. organizations fell victim to W-2 phishing scams during tax season, resulting in the disclosure of more than 120,000 employees’ W-2 information. Many of the employees whose personal information was exposed had their identities stolen and fraudulent tax returns filed in their names.

W-2 phishing scams are simple but highly effective. These Business Email Compromise (BEC) attacks involve a scammer posing as a senior executive. An email is sent to an employee in the finance, payroll, or HR department requesting copies of W-2 Forms of employees who have worked for the company in the past year.

In some cases, the email address of an executive is spoofed, although the most effective campaigns involve the use of the executive’s email account. Access to the account is usually gained through a phishing attack or by guessing a weak password using brute force tactics. The scam abuses trust in executives and the unwillingness of employees to question requests from senior executives.

Last year both the FBI and the IRS issued warnings over the sharp rise in BEC attacks during tax season, many of which targeted healthcare organizations and educational institutions. Databreaches.net tracks reports of successful W-2 phishing attacks and detailed 145 attacks in 2016 and well over 100 in 2017. The true figure will undoubtedly be considerably higher as not all companies publicly announce that they have fallen for such a scam.

The cost of the attacks can be considerable for the victims and, as this settlement shows, the companies whose employees have been fooled by the scams.

Preventing attacks requires a combination of administrative and technical measures.

  • Spam filtering solutions can reduce the potential for phishing emails to be delivered to employees and can block spoofed emails, although they will not block emails sent from a compromised email account.
  • The workforce, especially finance, payroll, and HR employees, should receive security awareness training and be alerted to the threat.
  • Consider introducing internal policies that prohibit executives from making requests for W2 information via email.
  • Policies should be developed that require any request for W-2 information via email to be verified by phone or face to face before any data are provided.

The post Lincare Settles W-2 Phishing Scam Lawsuit for $875,000 appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

GAO: Medical Records Can be Difficult and Expensive to Obtain

A recent audit conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has shown patients still face many challenges obtaining copies of their health information and healthcare providers and insurers are struggling to meet HIPAA requirements – and in some cases – are breaching HIPAA Rules.

A 21st Century Cures Act provision required GAO to conduct a study on patient access to medical records. The audit involved interviews with stakeholders, vendors, provider organizations, patient advocates, and state and HHS officials. The audit was conducted in four states – Ohio, Kentucky, Rhode Island and Wisconsin – which were chosen, in part, due to the range of fees charged for providing patients with copies of their medical records.

Under HIPAA, patients are permitted to request copies of their health records from their providers. Patients can request their health records in paper or digital form and the requests must be processed within 30 days. HIPAA-covered entities are allowed to charge a reasonable, cost-based fee for providing patients with copies of their health data.

Patients obtain copies of their health information for several reason: To take a more active role in their own healthcare, to take their medical records to new providers, to resolve disputes with their insurers, to provide to lawyers, or for disability claims.

Patients also make requests for their records to be forward on to another person or entity by their provider, such as when they want a second opinion from another physician. Third parties may also be instructed by patients to obtain copies of their health records – a lawyer for example.

The GAO audit determined that the fees charged by providers varied considerably from state to state and for different types of request.

Some states have established fee schedules, formulas and limits for allowable fees. Three of the states – Ohio, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin – have established per-page fee amounts and different rates for obtaining medical images such as copies of X-rays. Ohio has established a per-page fee amount for third party requests, Rhode Island has a maximum fee for providers that use an EHR for patient and patient-directed requests, while Kentucky allows patients to obtain one free copy of their medical records and sets a maximum charge of $1 per page for any additional copies.

While HIPAA stipulates that providers can only charge a reasonable, cost-based fee for patient requests and patient-directed requests, those limits do not apply to third party requests for copies of data, and the charges are often considerably higher.

Excessive Fees Charged for Providing Copies of Health Information

In 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights issued guidance for HIPAA-covered entities on the fees that could be charged for providing patients with copies of their health information.  Even so, some providers are not following HIPAA Rules.

In the GAO report, examples are provided of the excessive fees that have been charged. One patient was charged a fee of $148 for a single PDF of their medical records, and two patients were each charged more than $500 for a single request to obtain a copy of their medical records. One patient was charged a retrieval fee by a release-of-information (ROI) vendor for a copy of her health records, even though such fees are not permitted under HIPAA. There have also been cases of providers charging annual subscription fees for providing access to medical records.

One problem faced by patients whose medical conditions have required many visits to physicians is the amount of data stored by their providers. Their health records span many pages and fees are charged per page. That can make obtaining copies of health records prohibitively expensive.

The GAO report indicates many patients have made attempts to obtain copies of their medical records from their providers but cancelled the requests when they discovered to cost of doing so. There have been cases where providers have refused patients who have requested copies of their health records and patients have failed to challenge their providers.

The report made it clear that even though efforts have been made to improve understanding of HIPAA Rules, many patients are still unsure of their rights under HIPAA.

Healthcare Organizations Face Major Challenges Providing Access to Health Records

It is not only a challenge for patients to obtain their health records. Many providers also face challenges finding and retrieving information and processing the requests. Often, patients’ data are stored in digital format and on paper/film. Paper records may be stored in different locations and digital records stored in multiple EHRs.

Many providers find it difficult to allocate the necessary resources to the task of providing copies of medical records to patients and staff struggle to find the time to process requests due to extremely busy workloads.

Thorough checks must be made of the records to make sure patients are only provided with data from their own records. Sometimes, the process of transferring data from physical records to digital versions result in different patient records being merged.

There are also security challenges. While HIPAA allows patients to receive digital copies of their data, on a memory stick for example, plugging in such a device could introduce a malware infection.

Some healthcare providers have eased the strain by making patient health information available through patient portals. This has helped reduce the number of requests for providing copies of health data. Unfortunately, patient portals do not contain entire health records and patients may not be able to get the information they need.

Interviews with OCR officials revealed hundreds of complaints have been submitted by patients who have experienced difficulties accessing their medical records. The most common complaints are the failure of a provider to process requests for copies of health information within 30 days, excessive fees for the information, the failure to respond to requests to send health records to caregivers and family members, and denying requests from parents to obtain copies of their children’s medical records.

OCR is currently considering whether any further guidance is required to clarify allowable fees under HIPAA Rules, further to the guidance it issued on the matter in 2016.

The post GAO: Medical Records Can be Difficult and Expensive to Obtain appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Do You Have a GDPR Data Retention Policy?

All companies that collect or process the personal information of EU residents must ensure they have a compliant GDPR data retention policy, but what should that entail?

GDPR Data Retention Rules

Article 5 explains that when personal data are collected or processed, it must only be for purposes that are “adequate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which [data] are processed.” Those purposes must be clearly explained at the time of collection.

Under GDPR, organizations are required to adhere to the minimization principle, which applies to the amount of personal data stored and the length of time the information is retained.

When data need to be retained, appropriate security controls should be applied to prevent the unauthorized accessing, use, or processing of data and measures should be implemented to prevent accidental loss, destruction, or damage. Efforts must be made to ensure that all data retained remain accurate and are kept up to date and inaccurate data are removed.

GDPR data retention is covered in Article 5(e), which explains that data should only be retained for as long as is required to achieve the purpose for which data were collected and are being processed. The exceptions to this are when data need to be retained “for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes.”

Recital 39 of GDPR explains that when data are retained, strict time limits should be established by the data controller to ensure data are not retained for longer than is strictly necessary. The data controller is required to conduct periodic reviews and ensure that data are securely erased when no longer required.

GDPR applies to personal data that could be used to identify an individual. If data are required to be kept for longer, the information should be de-identified to prevent individuals from being identified from the data.

There are good reasons for the rules on data retention. The longer data are kept, the greater the chance that data will become out of date and the harder it becomes to ensure data are accurate. In the event of a data breach, the more data that are stored on individuals, the greater the potential for harm.

Developing a Compliant GDPR Data Retention Policy

You should already have developed a GDPR data retention policy, although if you have yet to do so now is the time to conduct a review of your data retention policies and update them accordingly. Now is also the time to ensure that any personal data of EU residents that are currently stored are deleted if the original purpose for which they have been collected has been achieved.

To help with the creation of a GDPR data retention policy use the checklist below:

GDPR Data Retention Policy Checklist

  • Stipulate what data are covered by your policies
  • Set strict time limits on how long data are retained
  • Cover the methods that should be used to delete physical and digital data
  • Ensure it is explained, at the time of collection, how long data will be retained or how the decision will be made to delete data that are no longer required
  • Schedule regular reviews of stored data to determine whether the information is still required
  • Some types of data may need to be retained for longer than others. This should be detailed in your policy
  • It is particularly important to ensure that sensitive data are deleted promptly and are not stored for longer than is strictly necessary – Sensitive data includes sexual orientation, race, beliefs, and health information
  • Ensure your policy covers deletion of personal data if an EU resident exercises their right to be forgotten
  • Stipulate exceptions to general rules on data retention – federal and state laws, litigation holds etc.
  • Make sure that all employees are aware of your GDPR data retention policy.
  • A GDPR data retention policy must be documented. It may need to be provided to regulators in the event of an audit or investigation of a complaint.

GDPR Compliance Deadline

The General Data Protection Regulation becomes effective on May 25, 2018, after which severe financial penalties can be issued to companies and individuals who fail to meet the requirements of GDPR. The penalty for non-compliance with GDPR is up to 20 million Euros or 4% of global annual turnover, whichever is the greater.

If you are not yet compliant with GDPR requirements or have yet to start your compliance program, it is unlikely you will be able to comply with all aspects of GDPR ahead of the deadline. It is therefore essential that you have documentation that proves you have at least made an attempt to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and that your efforts are ongoing.

The post Do You Have a GDPR Data Retention Policy? appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Former Employee of Nuance Communications Stole PHI of 45,000 Patients

In a recent filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Burlington, MA-based Nuance Communications disclosed it experienced a data breach involving the protected health information of 45,000 individuals in December 2017.

Nuance Communications stated in its May 10, 2018 SEC filing that a third party accessed certain reports hosted on a single Nuance transcription platform, which was promptly shut down when unauthorized access was discovered. The filing states law enforcement was notified about the breach and assisted with the investigation and apprehended the individual responsible.

There is no mention of when the breach was discovered, although the company has notified all customers who used the platform to allow them to issue notifications to affected individuals.

One of those customers, The San Francisco Health Network, published a substitute breach notice on its website on May 11 providing further information on the breach.

The breach notice explains that the protected health information of 895 patients who received medical services at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital or Laguna Honda Hospital was accessed between November 20 and December 9, 2017.

The types of information accessed includes names, birth dates, medical record numbers, patient numbers, and dictated notes. The notes included providers’ assessments of patients, diagnoses, dates of service, and treatment and care plans.

The law enforcement investigation uncovered the identity of the individual – a former employee of Nuance Communications – and determined that individual accessed a transcription platform without authorization. The Justice Department told the San Francisco Health Network that all stolen data have been recovered and no evidence has been found to suggest the PHI was disclosed to other individuals or used for any purpose.

The FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice requested notifications be delayed while the criminal investigation into the breach was conducted. It is unclear whether criminal charges have been filed against the individual responsible.

The SEC filing also includes details of the cost of the NotPetya wiper attack on Nuance Communications in June 2017. Most of the costs associated with the attack were covered in fiscal year 2017, which included a loss of $68 million in revenues primarily due to service disruption and reserves established for customer refund credits. The remediation and restoration efforts also cost an additional $24 million.

There attack also contributed to “a year-over-year decline in the annualized line run-rate in our on-demand healthcare solutions and in the estimated three-year value of on-demand contracts; a year-over-year decline in hosted revenue and an increase in restructuring and other charges.” Nuance Communications expects to have to cover additional costs throughout the remainder of fiscal year 2018 to enhance and upgrade its information security protections to prevent future cyberattacks.

The post Former Employee of Nuance Communications Stole PHI of 45,000 Patients appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Eye Care Surgery Center Data Breach Impacts 2,553 Patients

A laptop computer containing the protected health information of 2,553 patients of Eye Care Surgery Center, Inc., of Baton Rouge, LA has been stolen.

The theft was discovered by Eye Care Surgery Center on February 26, 2018. While there is no mention of where the device was stolen from in the company’s substitute breach notice, the actions taken following the breach suggest the device was taken from its facilities rather than the vehicle of an employee.

The theft prompted Eye Care Surgery Center to install a new multi-camera system at its facilities, both inside and outside buildings. The decision has also been taken to use encryption on most of the portable electronic devices used by Eye Care Surgery Center to prevent any future theft incidents from exposing any protected health information.

An investigation was conducted to determine the types of information stored on the device and the patients affected by the incident. Highly sensitive information such as health insurance information, Social Security numbers, and financial information were not stored on the device. The breach was limited to names, birth dates, and diagnosis information. No reports have been received to suggest any of the information stored on the device have been misused.

Affected individuals have now been notified of the breach by mail and the incident has been reported to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights.

The post Eye Care Surgery Center Data Breach Impacts 2,553 Patients appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Healthcare IT Security Budgets Frozen Despite Increase in Cyberattacks

A recent report from Black Book Research has revealed more than 90% of healthcare organizations have experienced a data breach since Q3 2016, yet IT security spending at 88% of hospitals remains at 2016 levels.

The data comes from a survey of more than 2,400 security professionals from 680 provider organizations. The aim of the study was to identify the reasons why the healthcare industry is particularly vulnerable to cyberattacks.

Black Book Research explains in the report that since 2015 there have been more than 180 million healthcare records stolen, with approximately one in 12 healthcare consumers affected by a data breach at a provider organization. Nine out of ten healthcare providers have experienced a breach, but almost 50% of providers have experienced more than 5 data breaches since Q3, 2016.

There has been a marked increase in healthcare data breaches over the past three years, with cybercriminals and nation state-backed hackers increasingly targeting the healthcare industry. Even though cyberattacks are on the rise, healthcare IT security budgets are not increasing. It is proving difficult to find the necessary money to make significant improvements to cybersecurity defenses since cybersecurity does not generate revenue. Part of the problem is a lack of funds to replace vulnerable legacy systems and devices. There simply isn’t the money available to commit to such an undertaking.

96% of IT professionals believe that threat actors now have the upper hand and medical enterprises are not identifying and addressing vulnerabilities quickly enough. Each year security posture should improve as cybersecurity programs mature, but that does not appear to be the case in healthcare. Only 12% of respondents believe their security posture will improve in 2019, and 23% of provider organizations believe their security posture will be worse next year.

Money is being spent on cybersecurity solutions, although all too often solutions are purchased blindly, with IT departments lacking vision or discernment. The study revealed 92% of data security product and service decisions have been made at the C-suite level, with department managers having no input into purchasing decisions.

89% of surveyed CIOs said they purchased cybersecurity solutions to meet compliance requirements rather than to reduce risk. When cybersecurity solutions are purchased, it is rare for the effectiveness of those solutions to be evaluated. Only 4% of organizations surveyed had a steering committee that evaluated the impact of investments in cybersecurity.

Healthcare providers appear to have realized the benefits of appointing a chief information security officer (CISO) yet recruiting a suitably qualified person to fill the position is proving difficult. As a result of the inability to recruit staff, 21% of healthcare providers have turned to MSPs to provide security-as-a-service or have outsourced security to partners and consultants.

Engaging the services of a cybersecurity vendor prior to an attack allows hospitals to negotiate the best deal; however, many hospitals have been placed at a severe disadvantage by seeking help from third parties following a cybersecurity incident. 58% of hospitals only chose to outsource security following a cybersecurity breach.

While scanning for vulnerabilities allows healthcare organizations to identify and address weaknesses to prevent data breaches, 32% of healthcare organizations did not perform a scan prior to suffering a cyberattack.

A fast response to a cyberattack can greatly limit the harm caused, although detecting cyberattacks and data breaches remains a major challenge. 29% of healthcare organizations lack a security solution that allows them to instantly detect and respond to a cyberattack.

While most hospitals have developed an incident response plan, 83% of surveyed healthcare organizations have not performed a cybersecurity incident drill to test the effectiveness of their incident response plan. Without testing, it is not possible to tell how effective the plan will be.

A lack of security objectives in strategic and tactical plans, insufficient funding, poorly chosen cybersecurity solutions, and a reactive rather than proactive cybersecurity strategy makes the healthcare industry particularly prone to attack. Until changes are made to address all of those areas, the healthcare industry will remain particularly vulnerable to attack and cyberattacks are likely to continue to increase.

The post Healthcare IT Security Budgets Frozen Despite Increase in Cyberattacks appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Warnings Issued Over Vulnerable Medical Devices

Warnings have been issued by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT) about vulnerabilities in several medical devices manufactured by Silex Technology, GE Healthcare, and Phillips. If the vulnerabilities were to be exploited, an unauthorized individual could potentially take control of the devices.

Phillips Brilliance CT Scanners

In early May, Phillips alerted the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) about security vulnerabilities affecting its Brilliance CT scanners. Phillips has been working to remediate the vulnerabilities and has been working with DHS to alert users of its devices to help them reduce risk. There have been no reports received to suggest any of the vulnerabilities have been exploited in the wild.

Three vulnerabilities have been discovered to affect the following scanners:

  • Brilliance 64 version 2.6.2 and below
  • Brilliance iCT versions 4.1.6 and below
  • Brillance iCT SP versions 3.2.4 and below
  • Brilliance CT Big Bore 2.3.5 and below

See ICS-CERT advisory (ICSMA-18-123-01)

The Brilliance CT scanners operate user functions within a contained kiosk environment in the Windows OS. The vulnerability – CVE-2018-8853 – could be exploited to allow an unauthorized individual or kiosk application user to gain unauthorized elevated privileges and access to unauthorized resources from the underlying Windows OS.

CVE-2018-8861 is a vulnerability in the Brilliance CT kiosk environment which could be exploited to allow an unauthorized attacker or limited access kiosk user to break out of the containment of the kiosk environment, gain elevated privileges from the underlying Windows OS, and access resources from the operating system.

CVE-2018-8857 is a vulnerability associated with hard-coded credentials used for inbound authentication and outbound communication. Those credentials could be compromised, allowing access to the system to be gained.

CVE-2018-8853 and CVE-2018-8861 both have a CVSS v3 base score of 6.1, while CVE-2018-8857 has a CVSS v3 base score of 8.4.

The vulnerabilities cannot be exploited remotely and require user interaction. According to a statement issued by Phillips, “An attacker would need local access to the kiosk environment of the medical device to be able to implement the exploit.” If exploited, the attacker could execute commands with elevated privileges and gain access to “restricted system resources and information.” The vulnerability would require a low level of skill to exploit.

The vulnerabilities are considered low-risk, but under the company’s responsible disclosure policy, an advisory was issued to alert users to the risk and provide information to reduce risk to a minimal level.

Phillips recommends only using Brilliance CT products within the specifications authorized by Phillips, such as only using Phillips-approved software, system services, and security configurations. Physical controls should also be implemented to limit access to the devices.

Phillips has taken action by remediating hard-coded credentials for its Brilliance iCT 4.x system and later versions and will continue to assess further options for remediating the vulnerabilities.

Silex SX-500, SD-320AN Wireless and GE Healthcare MobileLink

Two vulnerabilities have been discovered to affect certain Silex Technology products and GE Healthcare MobileLink technology. The vulnerabilities, tracked as CVE-2018-6020 and CVE-2018-6021, have been assigned a CVSS v3 rating of 6.5 and 7.4 respectively. See ICS-CERT advisory (ICSMA-18-128-01)

The following products are susceptible to one or both of the vulnerabilities:

GEH-500 (V 1.54 and earlier), SX-500 (all versions), GEH-SD-320AN (V GEH-1.1 and earlier), and SD-320AN (V 2.01 and earlier). The following GE MAC Resting ECG analysis systems may use vulnerable MobileLink Technology: MAC 3500, MAC 5000 (E.O.L 2012), MAC 5500 and MAC 5500 HD.

The vulnerabilities would require a low level of skill to exploit and could allow an unauthorized individual to modify system settings and remotely execute code. ICS-CERT notes that public exploits for the vulnerabilities are available.

CVE-2018-6020 concerns a lack of verification of authentication when making certain POST requests, which could allow the modification of system settings. CVE-2018-6021 concerns an improperly sanitized system call parameter, which could allow remote code execution.

The following recommendations have been made by Silex/GE Healthcare:

To mitigate CVE-2018-6020 on GE MobileLink/SX-500, users should enable ‘update’ account within the web interface, as this is not enabled by default.  To prevent changes to device configuration, users should set a secondary password for the ‘update’ account.

Silex Technology and GE Healthcare have produced updated firmware to resolve the CVE-2018-6021 vulnerability for GE MobileLink/GEH-SD-320AN, which will be available for download from May 31, 2018 once testing has been completed.

NCCIS suggests users should minimize network exposure for control system devices and/or systems to ensure they cannot be accessed over the Internet. All controls systems and remote devices should be located behind firewalls and isolated from business networks. If remote access is required, a VPN should be used.

NCCIC has advised users to conduct an impact analysis and risk assessment prior to any attempt to mitigate the vulnerabilities.

The post Warnings Issued Over Vulnerable Medical Devices appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

8,300 Cerebral Palsy Research Foundation of Kansas Patients Informed of 10-Month Exposure of PHI

An oversight has caused a database used by Cerebral Palsy Research Foundation of Kansas (CPRF) to have its security protections removed for a period of 10 months, exposing the protected health information (PHI) of 8,300 patients.

The vulnerable demographic database was discovered on March 10, 2018 and was immediately secured. The investigation into the breach determined that while the database had been created on a secure subdomain in early 2000, when CPRF switched its servers in 2017 the database was not identified resulting in the accidental removal of security protections. During the time that the database was vulnerable it is possible that personal and health information was accessed by unauthorized individuals.

The breach was limited to personal information and personal health information relating to the type of disability suffered by patients. No financial information or donor information was exposed. Individuals affected by the breach had received services from CPRF between 2001 and 2010.

It is unclear whether any of the exposed information was accessed by unauthorized individuals during the time that the database was left unsecured. Out of an abundance of caution, CPRF is offering all affected individuals one year of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services free of charge.

As part of its investigation and vulnerability remediation efforts, CPRF performed a complete audit of all domains, subdomains, and databases and discovered no further vulnerabilities existed. Data security policies have now been reinforced as have policies and procedures related to employee transitions to prevent future errors which could potentially lead to the exposure of PHI. CPRF has also contracted a third-party to perform regular vulnerability scans and penetration tests.

All affected individuals have been notified of the privacy breach by mail and a breach report has been submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights.

The post 8,300 Cerebral Palsy Research Foundation of Kansas Patients Informed of 10-Month Exposure of PHI appeared first on HIPAA Journal.