Healthcare Cybersecurity

180,000 Patient Records Dumped Online by The Dark Overlord

Posted by HIPAA Journal

It is a nightmare scenario far worse than a ransomware attack. A hacker infiltrates your network, steals patient data and then threatens to publish those data if you do not pay a ransom.

That is the modus operandi of TheDarkOverlord, who conducted numerous attacks on healthcare organizations over the past few months. Sizable ransom demands were issued – which TDO referred to as ‘modest’ – with threats issued to sell or publish the data if the victims refused to pay or ignored the requests. Many healthcare organizations chose not to pay up.

TDO has now made good on his/her promise and has published the data of more than 180,000 patients online, several months after the attacks occurred.

Aesthetic Dentistry of New York City, OC Gastrocare of Anaheim, CA, and Tampa Bay Surgery Center in Tampa, FL have all had highly sensitive patient data published online last week . The data of 3,496 patients of Aesthetic Dentistry, 34,100 patients of OC Gastrocare, and 134,000 patients of Tampa Bay Surgery Center can now be freely downloaded. A link to the website where the data were dumped was sent out by TDO on Twitter last week.

At least nine healthcare organizations are known to have been attacked by TDO last year according to databreaches.net, which has been tracking the TDO attacks.

Some of those organizations have had their patient data listed for sale on the darknet marketplace, TheRealDeal. TDO claimed last year that buyers had been found for some of the stolen data. It is unclear whether attempts were made to sell the 180,000 patient records and no buyers could be found, hence the publication of the data.

None of the organizations impacted by the latest data dump have submitted breach reports to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights, although some of the other victims of TDO have issued breach reports to OCR and have notified their patients.

Extortion attempts – either using ransomware or threats of publication of data – have now become commonplace. The FBI recommends never paying a ransom demand as it only encourages further attacks. There is also no guarantee that payment of the ransom demand will see decryption keys issued or stolen data permanently and securely deleted.

It is likely that many patients whose data are stolen would also feel the same way about payment of the ransom demand. However, regardless of whether a ransom is paid, patients should be notified and allowed to take precautions to protect their identities and financial accounts. Failure to notify patients of such a data breach would be a violation of HIPAA Rules, and could see the organization in question issued with a sizable fine for non-compliance.

The post 180,000 Patient Records Dumped Online by The Dark Overlord appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Act of 2017 Approved by SST Committee

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Cybercriminals may not be targeting small healthcare practices to the same extent as large health systems, but as the OCR’s data breach portal shows, cyberattacks on small healthcare organizations occur frequently.

When cyberattacks occur they can be catastrophic for small businesses. Figures from the National Cybersecurity Alliance suggest 60% of small businesses cease trading within 6 months of experiencing a cyberattack. Faced with the financial burden of resolving a data breach, it is no surprise that so many businesses fail to make it through the next six months.

In order to prevent cyberattacks and keep sensitive health data secure, small healthcare organizations must effectively manage cybersecurity risks. However, many cybersecurity resources and security frameworks have been developed for medium to large sized businesses. Smaller organizations typically lack the necessary resources to be able to implement highly effective cybersecurity defenses and few have skilled cybersecurity staff to monitor and manage cybersecurity risks.

NIST has developed a cybersecurity framework to help organizations protect critical infrastructure, and while adoption of the framework can be advantageous for many businesses, for smaller organizations the demands are too great.

Late last year, NIST released a new guide specifically to help small businesses improve their cybersecurity posture. The guide was based on the NIST Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity and outlined best practices and standards and explained how an information security program can be implemented that balanced security with the capabilities of small businesses. Now further guidance for small businesses will be issued, following the approval of new legislation by the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology last week.

The NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Act of 2017 calls for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to provide small to medium sized businesses with new guidance to allow them to reduce cybersecurity risk.

The NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Act requires NIST to develop clear and concise guidelines and make available appropriate tools, best practices, standards and methodologies to help small businesses identify, assess, manage and reduce cybersecurity risks. Those tools and guidelines will be based on the NIST Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.

The new act does not make it mandatory for small businesses to access and follow the new guidance and best practices, although using the new resources will help small businesses effectively manage risk and prevent data breaches. The guidance and best practices, when completed, will be made available through the NIST website.

According to Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), “The NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Act will help ensure that our small businesses have the information they need to protect themselves from cyber-attacks.”

Due to a squeeze on spending at NIST, the costs of developing the new resources and guidelines will have to be found from its existing budget. NIST has been given a year to develop and release the new guidance and resources.

The post NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Act of 2017 Approved by SST Committee appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

NCCIC Warns of Highly Sophisticated Campaign Delivering Multiple Malware Variants

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) has issued an alert about an emerging sophisticated campaign affecting multiple industry sectors.

The attacks have been occurring for at least a year, with threat actors using stolen administrative credentials and certificates to install multiple malware variants on critical systems. A successful attack gives the threat actors full access to systems and data, while the methods used allow the attackers to avoid detection by conventional security solutions.

While many organizations have been attacked, one of the main targets has been IT service providers. Gaining access to their systems has allowed the actors to conduct attacks on their clients and gain access to their environments. The method of attack allows the actors to bypass conventional monitoring and detection tools and, in many cases, results in the attackers gaining full access to networks and stored data.

NCCIC is still investigating the campaign so full information is not yet available, although an advance warning has been issued to allow organizations to search for signs of a potential system compromise and take appropriate action to mitigate risk.

While multiple tactics, techniques and procedures are used in the campaign, credentials primarily are stolen using malware. Those credentials are then used to gain access to business environments. Once access has been gained, the attackers use PowerShell for reconnaissance, to assess business networks and move laterally within those networks.

Communication with the C2 uses RC4 cipher communications over port 443; however, the domains frequently change IP address, with domains commonly spoofed to make them appear as Windows update sites and other legitimate domains.

While many malware variants are used by the threat actors two of the most common variants are the REDLEAVES remote administration Trojan (RAT) and the sophisticated Remote Access Tool (RAT) PLUGX/SOGU, both of which are executed via DLL side-loading.

REDLEAVES is capable of passing a range of information about the user’s system and allows the attackers to run commands on the infected system. PLUGX provides the attackers with complete C2 capabilities including the ability to take screenshots and silently download files with all C2 communications encrypted to prevent detection.

NCCIC has compiled and published indicators of compromise (IOCs) to allow organizations to identify intrusions and malware infections. Organizations have been advised to continuously analyse their systems for those IOCs via their normal intrusion detection systems.

It may not be possible for organizations to prevent their systems from being attacked, but if appropriate defences are put in place it will make it much harder for the threat actors to infiltrate systems and operate undetected. NCCIC says no single set of defensive techniques will avert malicious activity; however, adopting a multi-layered approach to security will allow organizations to construct an effective barrier to prevent attacks.

IOCs, details of the attack methods and suggested mitigations are available for download from NCCIC on this link.

The post NCCIC Warns of Highly Sophisticated Campaign Delivering Multiple Malware Variants appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Majority of Organizations Failing to Protect Against Mobile Device Security Breaches

Posted by HIPAA Journal

A recent report published by Dimensional Research has highlighted the growing threat of mobile device security breaches and how little organizations are doing to mitigate risk.

Cybercriminals may view employees as one of the weakest links in the security chain, but mobile devices are similarly viewed as an easy way of gaining access to data and corporate networks.

According to the report, the threat of mobile cyberattacks in growing. Two out of ten companies have already experienced a mobile device cyberattack, although in many cases, organizations are not even aware that a cyberattack on a mobile device has occurred.

The survey, which was conducted on 410 security professionals, found that two thirds of respondents were doubtful they would be able to prevent a cyberattack on mobile devices and 51% believed the risk of data theft/loss via mobile devices was equal to or greater than the risk of data theft/loss from PCs and laptops. Yet, a third of respondents said they did not adequately protect mobile devices.

94% of respondents said cyberattacks on mobile devices will become more frequent while 79% said the already difficult task of securing mobile devices will become harder.

A broad range of attack methods are used to gain access to mobile devices and the networks and accounts to which they connect. Malware infections are most common cause of mobile device security breaches, being involved in 58% of attacks. Text message phishing attacks were reported by 54% of organizations as were man-in-the-middle attacks and connections to malicious Wi-Fi networks. Intercepted calls and text messages (43%) and keylogging and credential theft (41%) made up the top five attack methods.

Even though mobile device security breaches are occurring with increasing frequency, 38% of companies have yet to implement a dedicated mobile device security solution.

Virtually all staff members carry mobile phones at work. Many employees use them for work communications and to access sensitive data. While laptop computers are frequently lost or stolen and are often protected, the risk of mobile devices being lost or stolen is greater yet the devices are poorly protected.

When asked about the reasons why a mobile device security solution was not used, a lack of budget (53%) and shortage of resources (41%) were the primary reasons. For 37% of respondents, the perceived risk of a data breach or security incident did not justify the cost a dedicated security solution. However, 62% of companies are aware of the increasing risk of mobile device security breaches and are dedicating more funds to securing mobile devices.

Since the devices are likely to store far less data than desktops, the perceived cost of a mobile device breach may be lower. However, the survey revealed that IT security professionals did not believe that to be the case. 37% of respondents said a mobile data breach would likely cost the company more than $100,000 to resolve, with 23% expecting the cost to be in excess of $500,000.

David Gehringer, Principal at Dimensional Research said, “The research consistently revealed that the overall focus and preparedness of security for mobile devices is severely lacking,” and pointed out that “security professionals identified the risk of mobile devices, but focus and resources assignment seem to be waiting for actual catastrophes to validate the need to properly prepare their defenses.”

As we have already seen on countless occasions, such a strategy can prove costly. That cost is likely to be much higher than the cost of implementing a security solution to protect mobile devices.

The post Majority of Organizations Failing to Protect Against Mobile Device Security Breaches appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Rise in Business Email Compromise Scams Prompts IC3 Warning

Posted by HIPAA Journal

There has been a massive increase in business email compromise scams over the past three years. In the past two years alone, the number of companies that have reported falling for business email comprise scams has increased by 2,370% according to new figures released by the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3).

In the past three years, cybercriminals have used business email compromise scams to fraudulently obtain more than $5 billion. U.S. organizations lost more than $1.5 billion to BEC scams between October 2013 and December 2016.

The rise in BEC attacks has prompted IC3 to issue a new warning to businesses, urging them to implement a range of defenses to mitigate risk.

What are Business Email Compromise Scams and How Do They Work?

A business email compromise scam – also known as an email account compromise – involves an attacker gaining access to an email account of an executive and sending an email request to a second employee via the compromised email account. The request can be a bank transfer or a request to email data. Since the email comes from within an organization, the request is much less likely to arouse suspicion. Further, since a CEO, CTO or CFO email account is often involved, the email recipient is less likely to question the request.

Business email compromise scams often start with a phishing email. The aim of the phish is to obtain login credentials to email accounts, which can be provided by employees directly via a phishing website or obtained using malware.

Once access to an email account is gained, the attackers send an email request to another individual in the company requesting a bank transfer or asking for sensitive data to be emailed. This year has seen an increase in the latter during tax season. Email requests have been sent to HR and payroll departments requesting W-2 tax statements for all employees. Numerous healthcare organizations have been fooled into sending the data.

The majority of fraudulent transfer requests ask for payments to be sent to foreign bank accounts in China and Hong Kong. Just because a healthcare organization does not make wire transfers to Asia, does not mean they are not at risk. IC3 reports that fraudulent transfers have been sent to bank accounts in 103 countries. Even if wire transfers are not made and checks are issued, organizations are still at risk. The attackers choose the payment method most commonly used by the targeted organization.

Typical Business Email Compromise Scams

There are many different variants of business email compromise scams, although the most common scams reported to IC3 are:

Bogus Invoice Scams

A compromised email account is used to gather information on frequently used suppliers. An email is then sent to a member of the billings/finance department requesting a transfer be made to that supplier, including a change to the usual bank account. The typical transfer amounts can be checked from past invoices and set accordingly so as not to arouse suspicion.

Business Executive Scams

Business executive scams involve an email being sent from a compromised executive email account to a member of the payroll/billings department requesting a bank transfer be made. This could involve a new supplier or an existing supplier.

Vendor Invoice Scams

In this scam, the victim is a vendor or client. The compromised email account is scanned and details gathered on clients and vendors. An email containing an invoice is then sent to the vendor/client requesting urgent payment.  Vendors/clients may lack awareness of BEC scams and make payment.

Friday Afternoon Scams

Typically performed on a Friday afternoon after financial institutions have closed, or at the end of the business day, these scams often involve the impersonation of an attorney or law firm used by the organization. Time-sensitive payments are requested with the targets often pressured into keeping the payments secret.

Data Theft Scams

Compromised email accounts are used to send requests to payroll/HR departments requesting tax summaries for all employees who worked during the past fiscal year. Other PII of employees may also be requested. In the case of healthcare organizations, similar scams may be performed requesting patients’ PHI and can be sent to any individual who has access to EHRs.

How Can Organizations Mitigate Risk?

Raising awareness of business email compromise scams is essential, especially with the employees most likely to be targeted – payroll, billings and HR department employees. Internal prevention techniques should also be implemented to block the initial phishing attempts to prevent access to email accounts being gained.

Internal policies and procedures should be implemented that require a two-step verification process before any new transfer request or request for sensitive information is processed. IC3 recommends setting up non-email based out-of-band communication channels to verify significant transactions. Digital signatures should also be used by parties on each side of a transaction to verify identities. A secondary sign off policy should be implemented for all requests to send sensitive data via email.

Two-factor authentication should be considered for all email accounts to protect the account in the event that a password is compromised. To reduce the risk of passwords being guessed, password policies should be implemented ensuring only strong passwords can be set.

All requests to send data or make transfers should be very carefully scrutinized. Any out-of-the-ordinary request or change to business practices should prompt the recipient to independently verify the request or suggested change to business practices.

Spam filters and intrusion detection systems should be configured to flag or quarantine all emails using extensions similar to the company’s email to prevent spoofing.

Organizations should encourage all employees never to use the reply option when responding to email requests, instead using the forward option and manually typing in the email addresses or selecting the email address from a contact list.

A culture of security should be developed, with training provided to all staff warning of the risks of opening emails, attachments and clicking hyperlinks sent from unknown senders. The risks of business email compromise scams should also be clearly explained to all staff.

A system of reporting suspect emails should also be implemented to allow action to be taken to prevent other employees from falling for the same scam.

The post Rise in Business Email Compromise Scams Prompts IC3 Warning appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Bitglass Publishes 2017 Healthcare Data Security Report

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Bitglass has recently published its 2017 Healthcare Data Breach Report, the third annual report on healthcare data security issued by the data protection firm.

For the report, Bitglass conducted an analysis of healthcare data breach reports submitted to the Department of Health and Human’ Services Office for Civil Rights.

The report confirms 2016 was a particularly bad year for healthcare industry data breaches. Last year saw record numbers of healthcare data breaches reported, although the number of healthcare records exposed in 2016 was lower than in 2015. In 2016, 328 healthcare data breaches were reported, up from 268 incidents in 2015. Last year’s healthcare data breaches impacted around 16.6 million Americans.

The good news is that while incidents are up, breaches are exposing fewer healthcare records. If the colossal data breach at Anthem Inc., which exposed 78.8 million healthcare records, is considered an anomaly and is excluded from last year’s figures, the number of individuals impacted by healthcare data breaches has fallen for two years in a row. That trend looks set to continue in 2017, although the number of data breaches already reported by healthcare organizations remains high.

The 2017 Healthcare Data Security Report confirms that the biggest problem area is unauthorized disclosures, which accounted for 40% of breaches last year. Those figures include deliberate acts by healthcare employees and unintentional errors that left data exposed.

The report’s authors explain the rise in unauthorized disclosures saying, “Unauthorized disclosures continue to tick up and are now the leading cause of breaches as data moves to cloud and mobile and as external sharing becomes easier.”

Those incidents have exposed the records of many Americans, but hacking is the biggest cause of exposed and stolen records. More records were stolen as a result of hacking than all of the other breach causes combined.

80% of all exposed/stolen healthcare records in 2016 were the result of hacks and the five largest healthcare data breaches of 2016 were all due to hacking and IT incidents. The same is true of 2017 so far. With the exception of the largest reported breach this year, all other breaches in the top five were the result of hacking.

Largest Healthcare Data Breaches of 2016

 

Rank Organization Entity Type Individuals Affected Cause of Breach
1 Banner Health Healthcare Provider 3,620,000 Hacking/IT Incident
2 Newkirk Products Business Associate 3,466,120 Hacking/IT Incident
3 21st Century Oncology Healthcare Provider 221,3597 Hacking/IT Incident
4 Valley Anesthesiology Consultants Healthcare Provider 882,590 Hacking/IT Incident
5 County of Los Angeles Departments of Health and Mental Health Healthcare Provider 749,017 Hacking/IT Incident
6 Bon Secours Health System Incorporated Healthcare Provider 651,971 Hacking/IT Incident
7 Peachtree Orthopaedic Clinic Healthcare Provider 531,000 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure
8 Radiology Regional Center, PA Healthcare Provider 483,063 Hacking/IT Incident
9 California Correctional Health Care Services Healthcare Provider 400,000 Loss
10 Community Health Plan of Washington Health Plan 381,504 Theft

 

Largest Healthcare Data Breaches of 2017 (January-April)

 

Rank Organization Entity Type Individuals Affected Cause of Breach
1 Commonwealth Health Corporation Healthcare Provider 697,800 Theft
2 Urology Austin, PLLC Healthcare Provider 279,663 Hacking/IT Incident
3 VisionQuest Eyecare Healthcare Provider 85,995 Hacking/IT Incident
4 Washington University School of Medicine Healthcare Provider 80,270 Hacking/IT Incident
5 Emory Healthcare Healthcare Provider 79,930 Hacking/IT Incident
6 Stephenville Medical & Surgical Clinic Healthcare Provider 75,000 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure
7 Primary Care Specialists, Inc. Healthcare Provider 65,000 Hacking/IT Incident
8 ABCD Pediatrics, P.A. Healthcare Provider 55,447 Hacking/IT Incident
9 WellCare Health Plans, Inc. Health Plan 24,809 Hacking/IT Incident
10 Denton Heart Group Healthcare Provider 21,665 Theft

 

Healthcare Security Spending is Increasing

Fortunately, healthcare organizations have realized they need to increase spending on data and network security defenses. Security budgets growing rapidly and while not quite at the level of the retail sector, they are fast catching up.

While healthcare organizations are committed to protecting the privacy of patients, one of the main drivers behind the increase in security investment is the cost of breach resolution. The cost of data breaches makes investment in cybersecurity defenses a priority.

The authors of the 2017 Healthcare Data Breach Report point out that healthcare data breaches cost more to resolve than breaches experienced by other industries. Figures from the Ponemon Institute show that a healthcare data breach costs organizations an average of $402 per compromised record. For other industries, the average is $221 per compromised record. With such high costs, lax data security simply isn’t an option.

Bitglass CEO Nat Kausik, said “While threats to sensitive healthcare data will persist, increased investments in data-centric security and stronger compliance and disclosure mandates are driving down the impact of each breach events.”

The post Bitglass Publishes 2017 Healthcare Data Security Report appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Survey Explores Trust in Healthcare Organizations’ Ability to Keep Data Secure

Posted by HIPAA Journal

A recent survey by Accenture has explored consumers’ attitudes about healthcare data security and the impact of healthcare data breaches on consumers.

The survey revealed the extent to which individuals had suffered losses as a result of a data breach, how consumers felt their organization handled data breaches and the effect those breaches had on trust.

Trust in Healthcare Providers and Insurers is High

In the United States, trust in healthcare providers’ and health insurers’ ability to keep sensitive data secure is high. 88% of respondents said they trusted their physician or other healthcare providers ‘somewhat’ (53%) or ‘a great deal’ (36%). Trust in hospitals was slightly lower at 84% (54% somewhat / 30% a great deal). Health insurers and laboratories that process medical tests fared slightly worse, both somewhat trusted by 54% of respondents and trusted a great deal by 28% of respondents.

Distrust –not at all trusted or not trusted very much – was highest in urgent care clinics (25%), non-medical staff at physicians’ and healthcare providers’ offices (36%) and tech companies that provide wearables and health apps (43%). As a comparison, 56% said they somewhat trusted or trusted the government a great deal with respect to health data security. 32% didn’t trust the government very much and 13% didn’t trust the government at all.

80% of consumers were very confident or somewhat confident in their healthcare providers’ data security measures, with trust in health insurers’ data security measures a fraction lower at 79%. The measures put in place by health app and device companies only received the highest two ratings by 63% of consumers.

Trust may be fairly high, but a quarter of U.S. consumers have experienced a breach of their healthcare data and half of those individuals have been a victim of medical identity theft as a direct result. Consumers have been forced to cover costs as a result of the exposure of their data, with 88% of individuals spending an average of $2,528.

More than a third of those individuals said their hospital had experienced the breach. 22% said their pharmacy or urgent care clinic had been breached with health insurers’ and physicians’ offices the next worst affected, with 21% of consumers saying they were the source of the breach.

Even with HIPAA Rules requiring breach notifications to be sent to patients, half of those impacted by a health data breach said they found out about it on their own. Only 36% of respondents said their company told them about the breach, although 91% said action was taken by that company in response to the breach.

The breach response was rated as being handled very well by 25% of respondents and somewhat well by 51% of respondents. 18% said the breach response was not handled very well and 6% said it was not handled well at all.

Trust in Healthcare Organizations May Improve After a Data Breach

While healthcare data breaches have the potential to destroy patients’ and health plan members’ trust in their providers, the survey showed that is not always the case. In fact, in 41% of cases, consumers’ trust in their healthcare organizations increased after a data breach.

12% of respondents said they ended up trusting their providers much more, 29% said they trusted their providers a little more and 24% said the breach response made no difference to trust levels.

The results show just how important it is for the breach response to be handled well. 34% of respondents said they lost trust in their healthcare organization after a breach was experienced.

Getting the breach response right is essential if healthcare organizations want to ensure trust is not negatively affected. For that to happen, organizations must be prepared for the worst and have policies and procedures that can be rapidly implemented when a breach is discovered.

Fast notifications are important for consumers as they need to take action to secure their accounts and protect their identities. 91% of respondents said they personally took action when they discovered their health data had been stolen. The faster that process can take place, the less likely consumers are to experience losses.

Getting breach notifications right is also important. If trust is to be built, consumers need to be reassured that privacy and security is taken seriously. Consumers should also be informed about the actions that are being taken in response to the breach to ensure a similar incident will not occur in the future. However, this is an area that could be improved.

Only 27% of companies explained the cause of the breach and just 26% the breach has prompted them to add new security protocols. Only 22% explained how future breaches would be prevented.

Fewer than a quarter of companies (24%) explained the potential consequences of the breach to consumers and only 23% offered identity theft protection services.

The post Survey Explores Trust in Healthcare Organizations’ Ability to Keep Data Secure appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

HIMSS Privacy and Security Forum Offers Insight into Healthcare Cyber Threat Landscape

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Next week, the HIMSS Privacy and Security Forum will be taking place in San Francisco. The two-day conference provides an opportunity for CISOs, CIOs and other healthcare leaders to obtain valuable information from security experts on the latest cybersecurity threats, along with practical advice on how to mitigate risk.

More than 30 speakers will be attending the event and providing information on a broad range of healthcare cybersecurity topics, including securing IoT devices, preventing phishing and ransomware attacks, creating compliant security relationships and effective strategic communication and risk management.

The conference will include keynote speeches from George Decesare, Senior VP and Chief Technology Risk Officer at Kaiser Permanente, Jane Harper, Director of Privacy & Security Risk Management at the Henry Ford Health System, CERT’s Matt Trevors, and M.K. Palmore, FBI San Francisco’s Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the SF Cyber Branch.

George Decesare leads Kaiser Permanente’s cybersecurity, technology risk and compliance programs and identity and access management initiatives and ensures Kaiser Permanente continues to protect the ePHi of its 10.2 million members. Decesare will be explain the current healthcare threat landscape and will be offering invaluable advice to attendees on how they can secure their own networks from attack. He will also be offering an overview of how Kaiser Permanente operates its cybersecurity programs and manages risk.

While patients were previously tied to a healthcare organization, now they are able to easily change providers. Many do following a cybersecurity breach that exposes their health information. Jane Harper will be explaining the importance of including consumerism in risk management probability models and will cover techniques for risk management and how changes in healthcare have affected the risk environment.

Matt Trevors will be explaining how healthcare organizations can develop security controls that meet the requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule. In his speech, Trevors will explain whether simply meeting HIPAA Security Rule requirements will be sufficient to prevent data breaches. Trevors will also explain how healthcare organizations can use the Center for Internet Security’s Critical Security Controls (CIS CSC) to help them meet HIPAA Security Rule requirements and will offer advice on the Cyber Resilience Review (CRR) – A free tool that can be used by healthcare organizations to assess their security programs.

M.K. Palmore will be providing an invaluable insight into the current healthcare cybersecurity threat landscape, including an up-to-the-minute overview of the latest threats, including phishing attacks, insider threats, and business email compromise scams. Palmore will be covering some of the recent FBI investigations and will explain how breaches occurred and how they could have been prevented.  Palmore will also explain how healthcare organizations can access the FBI’s considerable resources and use its data to prevent data breaches.

The HIMSS Privacy and Security Forum will be taking place at the Grand Hyatt Union Square, on May 11-12, 2017. Further information can be found on this link.

The post HIMSS Privacy and Security Forum Offers Insight into Healthcare Cyber Threat Landscape appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Greenway Health Ransomware Attack Stops 400 Clients from Accessing EHRs

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Tampa, Florida-based practice management software and EHR vendor, Greenway Health, has experienced a ransomware attack that has affected around 5% of its client base – approximately 400 healthcare organizations.

It is unclear whether the ransomware infection resulted in EHR data being encrypted, although clients were temporarily prevented from accessing the cloud-based Intergy EHR/medical management platform. Those clients were forced to resort to using pen and paper while Greenway Health worked to restore its system.

Fortunately, all client data were backed up and could be recovered, although that process took time. On April 22, 2017, third-party rapid response security firms were brought in to remove the infection and restore data. A spokesperson for Greenway Health said the teams were “working around the clock to restore access to affected Intergy hosted customers.”  As of yesterday, around half of affected clients had access to the Intergy system restored.

While the cloud-based platform was taken out of action, Greenway Health has not uncovered any evidence to suggest that patient data were accessed or exfiltrated. The ransomware infection was rapidly contained and there are no signs that the infection has spread to other systems, although Greenway Health is continuing to monitor the situation. Greenway Health said there was little or no data loss.

Since the investigation into the attack is ongoing, few details on the specifics have been released. Greenway Health has not announced which ransomware variant was involved, how the ransomware was installed on its system, and whether all data were recovered from backups or if the ransom demand was paid.

Greenway Health’s CEO, Scott Zimmerman, said “Though we build extensive safeguards into our products and services, no Internet-based system is completely immune from attack.” Zimmerman also explained that the company is “continuously focused on evaluating additional measures that we may take to further enhance our defenses against cybercrime.”

EHR vendors typically have highly advanced cybersecurity protections in place, but this incident shows that no company is immune to attack. The ransomware attack should serve as a warning for all healthcare providers that use cloud-based EHR systems. ePHI access may be lost, so it is essential that contingency plans are developed to ensure that a cyberattack on their EHR vendor does not majorly impact healthcare operations.

The post Greenway Health Ransomware Attack Stops 400 Clients from Accessing EHRs appeared first on HIPAA Journal.