Healthcare Cybersecurity

Microsoft and NCCoE Start Working on Guidelines for Implementing an Effective Enterprise Patch Management Strategy

A new project has been launched by Microsoft and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) to develop guidance on developing and implementing an effective patch management strategy.

Following the (Not)Petya wiper attacks in 2017, Microsoft embarked on a voyage of discovery into why companies had failed to exercise basic cybersecurity hygiene and had not patched their systems, even though patches had been released months previously and could have protected against the attacks.

Over the past 12 months, feedback has been sought from the Department of Homeland Security, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Center for Internet Security on the risk of exploitation and patch management strategies. Microsoft has also sat down with customers to find out more about the challenges they face applying patches and to discover exactly why patching is often delayed and why in some cases patches are not applied.

These meetings revealed many companies were unsure about what they should be doing in terms of patch testing. In some cases, patch testing appeared to consist only of asking questions on online forums to see if anyone had experienced any problems with recently released patches. Many customers were unsure about how fast patches needed to be applied.

The meetings prompted Microsoft to form a partnership with NCCoE to develop an enterprise patch management strategy to help companies plan and implement an effective patching strategy. The aim of the initiative is to devise industry guidance and standards to help companies improve their patch management processes.

The project is just about to commence and will involve developing common patch management architectures and processes. Appropriate vendors will assist by building and validating implementation instructions in the NCCoE lab and the project will ultimately result in a new NIST Special Publication 1800 practice guide on patch management.

An invitation has now been extended to vendors with technology offerings that can help with patch management, such as scanning, reporting, deployment, and risk measurement. Individuals and organizations willing to share patch management tips and tactics, and the lessons they have learned are also welcome to participate.

Any vendor, organization, or individual that wishes to participate should contact the project team on at cyberhygiene@nist.gov

The post Microsoft and NCCoE Start Working on Guidelines for Implementing an Effective Enterprise Patch Management Strategy appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Adoption of Standards Improves Cybersecurity of Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) Devices

Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) technology is helping to increase efficiency, improve the quality of healthcare, and lower healthcare costs; however, IoMT introduces risks. The failure to reduce those risks to a low and acceptable level leaves IoMT devices vulnerable to cyberattacks. Those attacks can be expensive to resolve, which drives up the cost of healthcare and can result in patients coming to harm.

Not only must the devices be secured, cybersecurity must also be managed throughout the entire lifespan of the devices. Software and firmware must be kept up to date, patches must be applied promptly to fix vulnerabilities, and the devices need to be returned when they reach end of life and support comes to an end. Without a thorough understanding of the risks, securing IoMT devices can be a major challenge.

The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) has taken steps to improve the safety and security of IoMT devices and has been seeking solutions for securing large-scale IoMT device deployments to better protect the 9 million people under its care. The VA, in conjunction with the global safety science organization, UL, launched a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) Program for medical device cybersecurity in 2016. This week, the VA announced that the program has now been completed.

The program was conducted between 2016 and 2018 and used the UL 2900 Series of Standards as a benchmark to identify critical medical device cybersecurity vulnerabilities in large-scale connected medical device deployments, including lifecycle management and created baseline cybersecurity requirements for medical device manufacturers.

“This collaboration helped us uncover new insights and further accelerate the sharing of medical device cybersecurity information, standards and lifecycle requirements with the intention of benefiting not only the VA hospital system but also the larger U.S. healthcare system of providers and manufacturers,” explained Anura Fernando, UL’s chief innovation architect, Life and Health Sciences.

Throughout the two years, the VA and UL tested hypotheses to expand their understanding of medical device cybersecurity and identify security gaps between in-facility and in-home care and ensure product functionality for FIPS 140-2 compliance. A simulated hacking attack was also conducted on a UL 2900 certified medical device at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) site in Tampa, FL.

The report shows adoption of standards helps to ensure the safety and security of new medical devices. The findings of the study have resulted in the creation of a series of actionable steps that can be taken by healthcare organizations to improve the security of their medical devices.

“The report findings will help the VA ensure safety for its patient community while also serving as a model for how we can continue to drive innovation within the larger healthcare ecosystem,” said Marc Wine, Director, Technical Integration Support and Industry Liaison, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

CRADA findings included:

  • Use of UL 2900 Series of Standards and product testing/certification accelerated adoption of innovative healthcare technologies through improved pre-procurement product vetting and post-procurement product management.
  • Testing and certification improved confidence in product development processes, security control design evaluation, post market patch management support provided by device manufacturers.
  • Compliance with UL 2900 enhanced endpoint security resulted in improved allocation of cybersecurity resources allowing them to be focused on critical threats to veterans’ safety and security.

The post Adoption of Standards Improves Cybersecurity of Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) Devices appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Report Reveals the Most Common Cyber Threats Faced by Healthcare Organizations

A new report from Proofpoint offers insights into the cyber threats faced by healthcare organizations and the most common attacks that lead to healthcare data breaches.

Proofpoint’s 2019 Healthcare Threat Report highlights the ever-changing threat landscape and how the tactics used by cybercriminals are in a constant state of flux.

The study – conducted between Q2, 2018 and Q1, 2019 – shows how the malware variants used in attacks often change. Ransomware was a popular form of malware in Q2, 2018 and was used in many attacks on healthcare organizations, but ransomware incidents then dwindled rapidly as cybercriminals switched their attention to banking Trojans. For the remaining three quarters of the study period, banking Trojans were the malware variant of choice, although ransomware is now proving popular once again.

Proofpoint’s research shows banking Trojans were the biggest malware threat to healthcare organizations for the period of the study, accounting for 41% of malicious payloads delivered via email between Q2 2018 and Q1 2019. In Q1, 2019, the biggest threat came from the Emotet banking Trojan, which accounted for 60% of all malicious payloads.

While phishing attacks are a constant threat, malware attacks were more numerous over the period of study, although phishing attacks have increased considerably in 2019. Malware is often spread via email attachments, but URLs are also used to deliver malware. The embedded hyperlinks can direct users to phishing websites where credentials are stolen, but they can also send healthcare employees to websites where malware is silently downloaded. 77% of email-based attacks during the period of study used malicious URLs

Malicious emails are more likely to be opened if the sender of the email is known to the recipient. 95% of targeted healthcare companies received emails that spoofed their own trusted domain and 100% of targeted healthcare companies had their domain spoofed in attacks on their patients and business partners.

On average, targeted healthcare organizations received 43 imposter emails in Q1, 2019, an increase of 300% from Q1, 2018. Those attacks saw an average of 65 members of staff attacked at each healthcare organization.

While the subjects of the emails were highly varied, most commonly the subject lines contained the words “urgent”, “payment”, or “request.” Those words were included in 55% of malicious emails. Malicious emails are most commonly sent during business hours when employees are at their desks, usually between 7am and 1pm, Monday to Friday.

While spray and pray tactics are still used by cybercriminals to get their phishing emails and malware out to as many individuals as possible, many healthcare email attacks are much more targeted. Proofpoint analyzed email attacks at several healthcare organizations and found that some individuals are more targeted than others.

These “Very Attacked Persons” or VAPs include doctors/physicians, researchers, and admin staff at healthcare providers, customer support/sales staff, admin staff, and IT teams at health insurers, and executives, marketing employees, and logistics/sourcing and supply chain staff at pharma firms.

Shared email aliases used to request patient information or for patient portals received the most malicious emails. These email addresses have the potential to result in multiple malware infections and several responses to phishing emails.

Blocking these threats requires layered defenses. Anti-phishing and anti-malware solutions should be implemented to protect the email system, filtering controls are required to block web-based threats, anti-malware controls are required on endpoints, and employees must receive regular training to help them identify threats and condition them to take appropriate action when a suspicious email is received.

The post Report Reveals the Most Common Cyber Threats Faced by Healthcare Organizations appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

MITA Publishes New Medical Device Security Standard

The Medical Imaging & Technology Alliance (MITA) has released a new medical device security standard which provides healthcare delivery organizations (HDOs) with important information about risk management and medical device security controls to harden the devices against unauthorized access and cyberattacks.

The new voluntary standard – Manufacturer Disclosure Statement for Medical Device Security (MDS2) (NEMA/MITA HN 1-2019) – was developed in conjunction with a diverse range of industry stakeholders and aligns with the 2018 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Medical Device Cybersecurity Playbook, issued in October 2018.

The guidance explains that cybersecurity of medical devices is a shared responsibility. HDOs must collaborate with medical device manufacturers to ensure best practices are adopted. Device manufacturers, HDOs, government entities, and cybersecurity researchers need to work together to ensure threats to medical devices are managed and reduced to reasonable and appropriate levels.

The new standard is intended to help streamline communications between device manufacturers and HDOs, increase transparency of information, and clarify the roles of each with respect to the security of medical devices.

“Transparent information and speed of getting that information from manufacturers to health delivery organizations are crucial, and this Standard helps foster both,” said Tim Walsh, Principal Information Security Analyst – CIS Operations, Mayo Clinic, and member of the MDS2 Canvass Group.

The guidance includes information on the standard security controls incorporated into medical devices to ensure they meet industry standards and can be used safely and securely; however, it is the responsibility of HDOs to ensure that the devices are configured correctly. HDOs need to assess medical device security controls and determine whether they are appropriate, work within their own environments, and allow risk to be effectively controlled and managed.

Worksheets have been created for assessing the features and security capabilities of each medical device, including the specifications, the management of personally identifiable information, audit controls, authorization controls, data backup and disaster recovery functions, data integrity controls, anti-malware protections, connectivity, node authentication, security guidance, how cybersecurity upgrades will be performed throughout the lifecycle of devices, and other key information for HDOs.

Medical device manufacturers should complete the worksheets to provide HDOs with the technical information they will need to conduct their own security risk assessments and build their security risk management programs.

While the MDS2 form contains important technical information on medical devices, MITA warns that it is not intended to be used as the sole basis for medical device procurement, as writing medical device procurement specifications requires more extensive knowledge of an HDO’s security environment and healthcare mission.

The information on the MDS2 form must be combined with detailed information collected about the care delivery environment in which the devices will be used. Tools such as ECRI’s Guide for Information Security for Biomedical Technology are useful in this regard.

The post MITA Publishes New Medical Device Security Standard appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

HHS Proposes New Stark Law Safe Harbor Covering Cybersecurity Donations

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed changes to physician self-referral and federal anti-kickback regulations which will see the creation of a new safe harbor covering hospital donations of cybersecurity software and associated services to physicians.

The proposed law change is detailed in two new rules issued by the HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) which aim to modernize and clarify regulations that interpret the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and Physician Self-Referral law known as Stark Law.

The proposed rules are part of the HHS’s Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care which promotes value-based care by eliminating federal regulatory barriers that are impeding efforts to improve the coordination of care between providers.

“The digitization of the healthcare delivery system and related rules designed to increase interoperability and data sharing in the delivery of healthcare create numerous targets for cyberattacks,” explained OIG. “The healthcare industry and the technology used to deliver healthcare have been described as an interconnected ‘ecosystem’ where the ‘weakest link’ in the system can compromise the entire system.”

Physician practices are a possible weak link that could be exploited by threat actors to compromise the whole system. Many small healthcare providers lack the necessary resources to improve their security posture and ensure that their systems, networks, and patient data are adequately protected.

The proposed updates are intended to provide greater clarity for healthcare providers participating in value-based arrangements and are providing coordinated care for patients. They are intended to ease the compliance burden for healthcare providers while ensuring strong safeguards are maintained to protect patients and programs from fraud and abuse.

There is already an exception to Stark Law which permits healthcare providers to make EHR-related donations to physicians as well as donations of cybersecurity software and services. The proposed rule seeks to provide greater certainty for healthcare providers that such donations do not violate Stark Law.

The new safe harbor will remove real or perceived barriers that prevent parties from using cybersecurity technologies to improve security. The safe harbor was recommended by the HHS Healthcare Industry Cybersecurity Task Force in 2017 and will cover certain cybersecurity technologies and associated services that are essential for protecting against cyberattacks on the healthcare industry. Those attacks increase the costs of healthcare delivery and often prevent healthcare providers from accessing health records and other information essential for healthcare delivery.

In the context of the proposed rule changes, OIG defines cybersecurity as “the process of protecting information by preventing, detecting, and responding to cyberattacks.” Covered cybersecurity technology includes software or information technology that improves cybersecurity, but there are limitations on what can be donated. The rule includes software, cybersecurity training services, business continuity and data recovery services, services associated with security risk assessments, threat sharing services, and cybersecurity-as-a-service offerings.

The OIG rule does not permit donations of hardware as it could have uses outside of cybersecurity and would increase the risk of donations being made to influence referrals. OIG says it may consider updating its proposed rule to include certain types of stand-alone hardware that can only be used for cybersecurity purposes, such as multi-factor authentication dongles.

The proposed rules will help to reduce the cost of healthcare by helping smaller healthcare providers avoid the costs of improving their security posture and reduce the potential for costly cyberattacks. By receiving donations of necessary software and cybersecurity services, they will be able to direct funds to other items and services not covered by the proposed safe harbor.

“Administrative costs are driving up the cost of healthcare in America – to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. The Stark proposed rule is an important next step in President Trump’s healthcare agenda for Americans. We are updating our antiquated regulations to decrease burden for providers and helping bring down these increasingly escalating costs,” said CMS administrator Seema Verma.

“Regulatory reform has been a key piece of President Trump’s agenda not just for faster innovation and economic growth, but also better, higher-value healthcare. Our proposed rules would be an unprecedented opportunity for providers to work together to deliver the kind of high-value, coordinated care that patients deserve,” said HHS Secretary, Alex Azar.

The post HHS Proposes New Stark Law Safe Harbor Covering Cybersecurity Donations appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

McCombs School of Business Offers Nation’s First Healthcare-Specific Professional Cybersecurity Certification Program

The University of Texas at Austin McCombs School of Business has launched a unique healthcare-specific professional cybersecurity certificate program. The professional leadership and educational program is the first healthcare oriented cybersecurity certification program to be offered in the United States.

The Leadership in Healthcare Privacy and Security Risk Management program aligns with the NICE Cybersecurity Workforce Framework and will equip individuals with the knowledge and leadership skills they will need to effectively manage cyber risks faced by the healthcare industry.

Figures from the (ISC)² Global Information Security Workforce Study indicate the cybersecurity workforce gap is growing and there will be 1.8 million unfilled cybersecurity positions in 2022. The new certification program will help to address that shortfall in trained cybersecurity personnel, which is hampering many healthcare organizations’ efforts to address privacy and security risks.

The new course was developed in collaboration with the cybersecurity industry, healthcare privacy and security experts, and government agencies and is focused on risk management in the healthcare industry. The course aims to teach the necessary cybersecurity, risk assessment, and problem-solving skills to meet the needs of healthcare providers, vendors serving the healthcare industry, and government agencies.

The 8-week course will equip students with problem solving competencies and provide them with experience of healthcare security technologies through practical exercises and case studies. Tuition will be provided by experienced healthcare technology educators and cross-sector privacy and security experts. The course comprises of multiple thematic modules to provide students with core healthcare and privacy & security knowledge, processes to ensure organizational safety and security, policies and governance in healthcare entities, enterprise risk management and leadership in healthcare, along with practical applications of healthcare privacy and security.

The program will be constantly updated based on feedback from members of the privacy and cybersecurity industry on real-world cyber threats to ensure the program remains current and relevant.

The new program has been endorsed by the Texas Hospital Association, CynergisTek, and Clearwater Compliance. “What is unique about this curriculum is that they have integrated cybersecurity knowledge so that graduates of this program not only prepare themselves for a career in healthcare by learning practical skills, but they learn about where cybersecurity is important and why they need to understand it to be successful,” said Mac McMillan, co-founder and CEO of CynergisTek, Inc. “These are the type of visionary programs we need more of if we are going to close this gap in cybersecurity skills.”

The course is aimed at experienced professionals in cybersecurity, health IT, risk management, clinical professions, and information technology who are looking to move into non-technical leadership positions in healthcare privacy and security. The program will commence in July 2020.

The post McCombs School of Business Offers Nation’s First Healthcare-Specific Professional Cybersecurity Certification Program appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Pulse Connect, GlobalProtect, Fortigate VPN Vulnerabilities Being Actively Exploited by APT Actors

Vulnerabilities in popular VPN products from Pulse Secure, FortiGuard, and Palo Alto are being actively exploited by advanced persistent threat (APT) actors to gain access to vulnerable VPNs and internal networks.

The DHS’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and other cybersecurity agencies issued security advisories about multiple vulnerabilities in VPN products over the summer of 2019; however, many organizations have been slow to take action. Weaponized exploits for the vulnerabilities have now been developed and are being used by APT actors and exploit code is freely available online on GitHub and the Metasploit framework.

On October 1, 2019, the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre issued a warning about the vulnerabilities following several attacks on government agencies, the military, businesses, and the education and healthcare sectors. The National Security Agency (NSA) also issued a security advisory about the vulnerabilities along with mitigations on October 7.

The vulnerabilities are present in outdated versions of the Pulse Secure VPN (CVE-2019-11508 and CVE-2019-11538), the Palo Alto GlobalProtect VPN (CVE-2019-1579), and the Fortinet Fortigate VPN (CVE 2018-13379, CVE-2018-13382, CVE-2018-13383).

No mention was made about the APT actors responsible for the attacks, although there have been reports that the Chinese APT group APT5 has been conducting attacks on Pulse Secure and Fortinet VPNs.

The weaponized exploits allow APT actors to retrieve arbitrary files, including those containing authentication credentials. Those credentials can then be used to gain access to vulnerable VPNs, change configurations, remotely execute code, hijack encrypted traffic sessions, and connect to other network infrastructure.

The flaws are serious and require immediate action to prevent exploitation. The NSA security advisory urges all organizations using any of the above products to check to make sure they are running the latest versions of VPN operating systems and to upgrade immediately if they are not.

The NSA advisory also provides information on actions to take to check whether the flaws have already been exploited and steps to take if an attack is discovered. If a threat actor has already exploited one of the vulnerabilities and has obtained credentials, upgrading to the latest version of the OS will not prevent those credentials from being used.

The NSA therefore advises all entities running vulnerable VPN versions to reset credentials after the upgrade and before reconnection to the external network as a precaution, since it may be difficult to identify an historic attack from log files.

User, administrator, and service account credentials should be reset, and VPN server keys and certificates should be immediately revoked and regenerated. If a compromise is suspected, accounts should be reviewed to determine whether the attacker has created any new accounts.

The NSA has also provided recommendations for public-facing VPN deployment and long-term hardening controls.

The post Pulse Connect, GlobalProtect, Fortigate VPN Vulnerabilities Being Actively Exploited by APT Actors appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

An Internal Security Operations Center Cuts Data Breach Costs by More Than Half

A recent survey conducted by B2B International on behalf of Kaspersky Lab has revealed the average cost of an enterprise-level data breach has risen to $1.41 million from $1.23 million in 2018.

The increased risk of a data breach and the increasing remediation costs has prompted enterprises to invest more heavily in cybersecurity. When the Kaspersky Global Corporate IT Security Risks Survey was last conducted in 2018, average IT security budgets were $8.9 million. In 2019, budgets had increased to an average of $18.9 million.

The biggest costs from a data breach were found to be damage to the company’s credit rating and increased insurance costs, followed by the cost of hiring external security consultants, loss of business, brand repair, additional wages for internal staff, compensation, and financial penalties and regulatory fines.

While there are several things enterprises can do to cut data breach costs, the appointment of a dedicated Data Protection Officer (DPO) and deploying an internal Security Operations Center (SOC) are the two most important for reducing cyberattack-related costs.

A DPO is responsible for creating and implementing a data protection strategy and monitoring and managing compliance issues. 34% of enterprises that had a dedicated DPO said security incidents at their company did not result in financial losses, compared to 20% of businesses overall.

The average data breach cost at an organization with an internal SOC was $675,000 – Less than half the cost of a breach at an organization without an internal SOC. The equivalent cost at large SMBs (500+ employees) was $129,000. With an internal SOC in place to monitor and respond to security incidents, the cost of a data breach was reduced to $106,000.

The survey revealed outsourcing security to managed service providers can result in increased data breach costs, at least for enterprises. 23% of businesses that used an MSP for security experienced data breach costs in the range of $100,000 to $249,000, compared to 19% of businesses with an in-house IT security team.

Appointing a DPO and setting up an internal SOC can help to reduce the likelihood of a data breach occurring, but it does not mean all data breaches will be prevented. With these key personnel in place, when a breach does occur the company will be prepared and will be able to respond quickly and efficiently, which will keep the costs to a minimum.

Recruiting a DPO, hiring staff for an internal SOC, and purchasing the necessary tools to support those personnel can be a time consuming and costly process, but the survey shows investment in key internal security personnel is certainly worthwhile and can significantly reduce the costs of data breaches. 61% of enterprises and SMBs in the United States are planning on increasing investment in specialized IT staff in the next 12 months.

The post An Internal Security Operations Center Cuts Data Breach Costs by More Than Half appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Cybercriminals Switching from Business Email Compromise to Vendor Email Compromise Attacks

The number of ransomware attacks in the United States has increased sharply in 2019, but business email compromise (BEC) attacks have similarly increased. Symantec found an average of 6,029 businesses were targeted by BEC emails in the past 12 months and figures from the FBI indicate attacked entities lost $1,297,803,489 to the scams in 2018.

BEC attacks involve gaining access to business email accounts and using them for further attacks on the organization. Some BEC attacks are concerned with obtaining sensitive data such as W-2 forms for use in tax fraud, although mostly the attackers attempt to use the accounts to arrange fraudulent wire transfers. Access is gained to the CEO or other executives’ email accounts and messages are sent to the payroll department to reroute payments or to request wire transfers to attacker-controlled accounts.

This week, Agari has published details of new research that reveals a new BEC attack trend: Vendor email compromise attacks.  As with other types of BEC attacks, they involve highly realistic emails requesting payment of invoices, but the victim of the attack is not the company whose email accounts have been compromised. Those accounts are used to attack the company’s customers.

The vendor email compromise attacks start with a spear phishing email targeting the CEO or CFO. Once credentials have been obtained, the account is accessed, and mail forwarding rules are added. A copy of every received and sent email is then forwarded to the attacker, unbeknown to the account holder.

Over a period of weeks or months, the emails are studied and the attackers learn about customer billing cycles and typical invoice amounts. The attackers study the format of the emails, obtain the relevant logos, and use this information to create highly realistic fake invoices for the right amount at the right time.

The invoice requests are sent just a few days before payment would usually be made. The only thing that distinguishes a genuine and fraudulent request is a change to the usual bank account.

The attacks are often conducted on small to medium sized businesses such as those that provide materials or services to larger companies.  Each compromised email account could be used to send fraudulent invoices to many of the company’s customers, increasing the potential payout. The incredibly realistic requests are also less likely to arouse suspicion. “The context, the timing, the communication from the supposed vendor, the invoice itself – all look completely legitimate… that’s why this type of attack is extremely effective,” explained Agari.

These attacks are difficult for employees to identify as all the typical signs of fraudulent emails are lacking. There are no spelling mistakes, the grammar is perfect, and the emails are sent from genuine – not spoofed – email accounts.

Agari has been tracking the activity of one cybercriminal gang that is using this new tactic. The group, which Agari calls Silent Starling, has conducted more than 500 known attacks since the start of 2018 which have involved around 700 compromised employee email accounts. Many other cybercriminal gangs are using the same tactics.

“We expect VEC to be the largest threat for organizations worldwide over the course of the next 12-18 months,” warned Agari. “As cybercriminals evolve this attack modality, these scams will proliferate.”

The post Cybercriminals Switching from Business Email Compromise to Vendor Email Compromise Attacks appeared first on HIPAA Journal.