Healthcare Cybersecurity

March 2020 Deadline for Compliance with New York SHIELD Act Data Security Requirements

In July 2019, the New York Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security (SHIELD) Act was signed into law. The New York SHIELD Act expanded the breach notification requirements for businesses that collect the personal information of New York residents. On March 21, 2020, the data security provisions of the New York SHIELD Act come into effect.

There are also exemptions for small businesses, which are deemed to be businesses with fewer than 50 employees, businesses with less than $3 million in gross revenues for each of the past 3 fiscal years, or businesses with less than $5 million in year-end total assets. In these cases, their data security program can be scaled according to the size and complexity of the business, the nature of business activities, and the sensitivity of the personal data collected.

For most HIPAA-covered entities, compliance will be relatively straightforward. Entities in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) are deemed to be in compliance with the New York SHIELD Act.

New York SHIELD Act Requirements for HIPAA Covered Entities

Compliance with HIPAA does not guarantee compliance with the New York SHIELD Act. While there is some overlap, the New York SHIELD Act covers different data types to HIPAA. HIPAA-covered entities that collect the personal data of New York State residents will need to ensure they are in compliance with the Act’s data security provisions for those data types.

One notable example of when the SHIELD Act applies and HIPAA does not, is for information technology systems that contain employee data but no protected health information. Employees’ social security numbers or driver’s license numbers, for example. While the data is not covered by HIPAA, the SHIELD Act requires reasonable technical, administrative, and physical safeguards to be implemented to ensure the data is safeguarded. The data security provisions of the SHIELD Act are detailed below.

The post March 2020 Deadline for Compliance with New York SHIELD Act Data Security Requirements appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

University of Kentucky and UK HealthCare Impacted by Month-Long Cryptominer Attack

The University of Kentucky (UK) has been battling to remove malware that was downloaded on its network in February 2020. Cybercriminals gained access to the UK network and installed cryptocurrency mining malware that used the processing capabilities of UK computers to mine Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

The malware caused a considerable slowdown of the network, with temporary failures of its computer system causing repeated daily interruptions to day to day functions, in particular at UK healthcare.

UK believes the attack was resolved on Sunday morning after a month-long effort. On Sunday morning, UK performed a major reboot of its IT systems – a process that took around 3 hours. UK believes the attackers have now been removed from its systems, although they will be monitoring the network closely to ensure that external access has been blocked. The attack is believed to have originated from outside the United States.

UK Healthcare, which operates UK Albert B. Chandler Hospital and Good Samaritan Hospital in Lexington, KY, serves more than 2 million patients. While computer systems were severely impacted at times, patient care was not affected and patient safety was not put at risk.

An internal investigation was launched and third-party computer forensics specialists were engaged to assist with the investigation. University spokesman Jay Blanton said it is hard to determine whether any sensitive data was viewed or downloaded. The belief is that the malware attack was solely conducted to hijack the “vast processing capabilities” of the UK network to mine cryptocurrency.

UK has taken steps to improve cybersecurity, including installing CrowdStrike security software. More than $1.5 million has been spent ejecting the hackers from the network and bolstering security.

Arkansas Children’s Hospital Reboots Systems to Deal with ‘Cybersecuirty Threat’

Arkansas Children’s Hospital in Little Rock has experienced a cyberattack that has impacted Arkansas Children’s Hospital and Arkansas Children’s Northwest. Its IT systems have been rebooted in an attempt to deal with the cyberthreat and a third-party digital forensics firm has been engaged to assist with the investigation.

The exact nature of the threat has not yet been disclosed and it is currently unclear when the attack will be resolved. All facilities are continuing to provide medical services to patients, but some non-urgent appointments may have to be rescheduled.

The investigation into the attack is ongoing, but at this stage, no evidence has been found to suggest patient information has been affected.

The post University of Kentucky and UK HealthCare Impacted by Month-Long Cryptominer Attack appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

53% of Healthcare Organizations Have Experienced a PHI Breach in the Past 12 Months

The 2019 Global State of Cybersecurity in Small and Medium-Sized Businesses Report from Keeper Security shows approximately two thirds of healthcare organizations have experienced a data breach in the past and 53% have experienced a breach of protected health information in the past 12 months.

The survey was conducted by the Ponemon Institute on 2,391 IT and IT security professionals in the United States, United Kingdom, DACH, Benelux, and Scandinavia, including 219 respondents from the healthcare industry.

Keeper Security reports indicates the average healthcare data breach results in the exposure of more than 7,200 confidential records and the average cost of a healthcare data breach is $1.8 million, including the cost of disruption to normal operations. The most common causes of healthcare data breaches are phishing attacks (68%), malware infections (41%), and web-based attacks (40%).

Healthcare data breaches have increased considerably in the past few years. Even though there is a high risk of an attack, healthcare organizations do not feel that they are well prepared. Only one third of IT and IT security professionals in the healthcare industry said they had enough budget to mount a strong defense to prevent cyberattacks. 90% of healthcare organizations devote less than 20% of their IT budget to cybersecurity, with an average allocation of just 13%. 87% said they did not have the personnel to achieve a more efficient cybersecurity posture. Even though emergency planning is a requirement of HIPAA, less than one third of respondents said they had a plan for responding to cyberattacks.

When asked about the importance of passwords for preventing data breaches, 66% of healthcare organizations agreed that good password security was an important part of their security defenses, but fewer than half of surveyed organizations have visibility into the password practices of their employees.

A second study conducted by the Ponemon Institute, on behalf of Censinet, shows healthcare vendors are also being targeted and are struggling to defend against cyberattacks. That survey revealed 54% of healthcare vendors have experienced at least one data breach in the past, and 41% of those respondents have experienced six or more data breaches in the past 2 years. For healthcare vendors, the average size of a data breach is over 10,000 records and the average cost of a breach is $2.75 million

When healthcare vendors experience a data breach it is common for customers to take their business elsewhere. 54% of healthcare vendors said a single data breach would result in a loss of business and 28% of healthcare vendors said they lost a customer when security gaps were discovered.

It is common for security gaps to go unnoticed, as 42% of respondents said healthcare providers do not require them to provide proof they are in compliance with privacy and data protection regulations. Even when security gaps are discovered, 41% of healthcare vendor respondents said they were not required to take any action.

Risk assessments are a requirement of HIPAA, but they are costly and time consuming to perform. Vendors spend an average of $2.5 million a year conducting risk assessments, but only 44% believe risk assessments improve their security posture which Censinet believes could be due to 64% of vendors finding risk assessments confusing and ambiguous.

59% of healthcare vendors said risk assessments become out of date within 3 months of being conducted, yet only 18% of respondents said their healthcare clients require them to complete risk assessments more than once a year.

“According to the research, 55 percent of vendors say that these certifications do not provide enough value for the cost, while 77 percent indicate challenges with the certification process, including respondents who believe it is too time-consuming, too costly and too confusing.” The solution could be automation. 61% of vendors believe workflow automation would streamline the risk assessment process and 60% believe workflow automation would reduce the cost of risk assessments by up to 50%.

The post 53% of Healthcare Organizations Have Experienced a PHI Breach in the Past 12 Months appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

‘SweynTooth’ Vulnerabilities in Bluetooth Low Energy Chips Affect Many Medical Devices

A group of 12 vulnerabilities dubbed SweynTooth have been identified by researchers at the Singapore University of Technology and Design which are present in the Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) chips manufactured by at least 7 companies.

BLE chips are used in smart home devices, fitness trackers, wearable health devices, and medical devices and give them their wireless connectivity. BLE chips with the SweynTooth vulnerabilities are used in insulin pumps, pacemakers, and blood glucose monitors as well as hospital equipment such as ultrasound machines and patient monitors.

It is not yet known exactly how many medical devices and wearable health devices are impacted by the flaws as manufacturers obtain their BLE chips from several sources. Some security researchers believe millions of medical devices could be vulnerable. BLE chips are used in around 500 different products. Hundreds of millions of devices could be affected.

The vulnerabilities are present in BLE chips manufactured by Cypress, Dialog Semiconductors, Microchip, NXP Semiconductors, STMicroelectronics, Texas Instruments, and Telink Semiconductor. The vulnerabilities have been assigned CVSS v3 base scores ranging from 6.1-6.9 out of 10.

7 of the vulnerabilities could be exploited to crash vulnerable devices, which would stop the devices communicating and may cause them to stop working entirely. 4 vulnerabilities could be exploited to deadlock devices, causing them to freeze and stop functioning correctly. One vulnerability could result in a security bypass which would allow an attacker to gain access to device functions that are usually only accessible by an authorized device administrator. The flaws can be exploited remotely by an attacker, although only if the attacker is within radio range of a vulnerable device. The range of BLE varies from device to device, with a maximum range of less than 100 m (328 ft).

Both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity Infrastructure and Security Agency (CISA) have issued alerts about the vulnerabilities this week. The FDA explained that affected device manufacturers have been notified about the flaws and are assessing which devices are affected. Mitigations are being developed that can be implemented to reduce the risk of exploitation until patches are released to correct the flaws.

Cypress, NXP, Texas Instruments, and Telelink have already released patches to correct the flaws. Dialog has issued two patches, with the remaining patches scheduled to be released by the end of March 2020. Currently, patches have yet to be released by Microchip and STMicroelectronics.

The FDA has advised BLE chip and device manufacturers to conduct risk assessments to determine the potential impact of the flaws. Healthcare providers have been advised to contact the manufacturers of their devices to find out if they are affected, and the actions they need to take to reduce the risk of exploitation. Patients have been advised to monitor their devices for abnormal behavior and to seek medical help immediately if they feel their medical devices are not functioning correctly.

The post ‘SweynTooth’ Vulnerabilities in Bluetooth Low Energy Chips Affect Many Medical Devices appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

IT Weaknesses at the National Institutes of Health Placed EHR Data at Risk

An audit of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) has revealed technology control weaknesses in the NIH electronic medical records system and IT systems that placed the protected health information of patients at risk.

NIH received $5 million in congressional appropriations in FY 2019 to conduct oversight of NIH grant programs and operations. Congress wanted to ensure that cybersecurity controls had been put in place to protect sensitive data and determine whether NIH was in compliance with Federal regulations.

The audit was conducted on July 16, 2019 by CliftonLarsonAllen LLP (CLA) on behalf of OIG to determine the effectiveness of certain NIH information technology controls and to assess how NIH receives, processes, stores, and transmits Electronic Health Records (EHR) within its Clinical Research Information System (CRIS), which contained the EHRs of patients of the NIH Clinical Center.

NHS has approximately 1,300 physicians, dentists and PhD researchers, 830 nurses, and around 730 allied healthcare professionals. In 2018, the Clinical Center had more than 9,700 new patients, over 4,500 inpatient admissions, and over 95,000 outpatient visits.

CLA found NIH had implemented controls to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of health data contained in its EHR and information systems, but those measures were not working effectively. Consequently, data in its EHR system and information systems could potentially have been accessed by unauthorized individuals and data was at risk of impermissible disclosure, disruption, modification, and destruction.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recommends primary and alternate EHR processing sites should be geographically separated. The geographical separation reduces the risk of unintended interruptions and helps to ensure critical operations can be recovered when prolonged interruptions occur. OIG found the primary and alternate sites were located in adjacent buildings on the NIH campus. If a catastrophic event had occurred, there was a high risk of both sites being affected.

The hardware supporting the EHR system was either approaching end of life or was on extended support. Four servers were running a Windows operating system that Microsoft had stopped supporting in 2015. NIH had paid for extended support which ran until January 2020, but OIG found there was no effective transition plan. OIG also found that NIH was not deactivating user accounts in a timely manner when employees were terminated or otherwise left NIH. 19 out of 26 user accounts that had been inactive for more than 365 days had not been deactivated, the accounts of 9 out of 61 terminated users were still active, and 3 out of 25 new CRIS users had changed their permissions without a form being completed justifying the change.

NIH informed CLA that it had delayed software upgrades until system upgrades were completed. NIH was in the process of upgrading its hardware at the time of fieldwork in anticipation of upgrades to CRIS. Software updates were due to be performed after the hardware upgrade had been completed.

NIH had implemented an automated tool to scan for inactive accounts and delete them, but the tool had not been fully implemented at the time of fieldwork. There were issues with the tool, such as problems tracking individuals who changed departments.

OIG recommended implementing an alternate processing site in a geographically distinct location and to take action to mitigate risks associated with the current alternative site until the new site is established. Policies and procedures should be implemented to ensure that software is upgraded prior to end of life, and NIH must ensure that its automated tool is functioning as intended. NIH concurred with all recommendations and has described the actions that have been and will be taken to ensure the recommendations are implemented.

The post IT Weaknesses at the National Institutes of Health Placed EHR Data at Risk appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

NIST Publishes Roadmap for Regional Alliances and Partnerships to Build the Cybersecurity Workforce

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has published a cybersecurity education and development roadmap based on data from five pilot Regional Alliances and Multistakeholder Partnerships to Stimulate (RAMPS) Cybersecurity Education and Workforce Development programs.

There is a currently a global shortage of cybersecurity professionals and the problem is getting worse. Data from CyberSeek.org shows that between September 2017 and August 2018, 313,735 cybersecurity positions were open and figures from the 2017 Global Information Security Workforce Study indicate that by 2022, 1.8 million cybersecurity professionals will be required to fill open positions.

To help address the shortfall, the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE), led by NIST, provided funding for the pilot programs in September 2016. The RAMPS cybersecurity education and development pilot programs were concerned with “energizing and promoting a robust network and ecosystem of cybersecurity education, training, and workforce development.”

The pilot programs involved forming regional alliances, through which the workforce needs of businesses and non-profit organizations become better aligned with the learning objectives of education and training providers, there is enlargement of the pipeline of students pursuing cybersecurity careers, more Americans are trained and moved into middle-class jobs in cybersecurity, and support is provided for local economic development to stimulate job growth.

The main focus of the programs is bringing together employers with cybersecurity skill shortages and educators who can help to develop a skilled workforce to meet industry needs.

The pilot programs were run by: Arizona Statewide Cyber Workforce Consortium, Cincinnati-Dayton Cyber Corridor, the Cyber Prep Program in Southern Colorado, the Hampton Roads Cybersecurity Education, Workforce and Economic Development Alliance in Southeast Virginia, and the Partnership to Advance Cybersecurity Education and Training in New Your City and the Capital District.

Each of the pilot programs adopted a different approach to address the shortage of skilled cybersecurity workers in their respective regions. Some of the common challenges faced by each program were employers that were unsure of their cybersecurity needs, a disconnect between workforce supply and demand, resources for education and workforce development programs were not coordinated, and it proved difficult to retain skilled cybersecurity workers in small communities.

The roadmap was created based on the successes of each program and includes guidance on how the common challenges can be addressed and the best practices and lessons learned from conducting the pilot programs.

There are four primary components necessary to build successful alliances to promote and build the cybersecurity workforce: Establishing program goals and metrics; developing strategies and tactics; measuring impact and results; and sustaining the effort. The document provides examples of each of the activities that proved successful in the pilot programs.

The document is not intended to act as a how to guide for setting up successful regional alliances, but it will be useful to those seeking guidance on how to organize and facilitate regional efforts to improve cybersecurity education and workforce development. In order to build a successful cybersecurity education and workforce development program, local and regional experts will need to provide their input as they will be familiar with the cybersecurity needs of their communities.

The document – A Roadmap for Successful Regional Alliances and Multistakeholder Partnerships to Build the Cybersecurity Workforce – can be downloaded from NIST on this link (PDF).

The post NIST Publishes Roadmap for Regional Alliances and Partnerships to Build the Cybersecurity Workforce appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

What is DNS Filtering?

What is DNS filtering, how does it work, and why is it such an important cybersecurity measure for blocking phishing and malware attacks? In this post we will explain why DNS based filtering is so important and the benefits of internet content control for cybersecurity.

What is DNS Filtering?

The Domain Name System (DNS) is an integral part of the internet and is used to match alphanumeric domain names with the unique IP addresses that allow websites to be found by computers. When a request is made by a user to access a website by typing a URL into their browser or by clicking a hyperlink, before a connection is made the location of the website must be determined and that requires an IP address.

To find the IP address for a website a query is sent to a recursive DNS server. The recursive DNS server will contact other DNS servers to find the IP address. When the DNS lookup has been completed and the IP address found it is passed to the web browser, a connection is made, and the web content is loaded in the browser. The DNS is incredibly efficient at matching domain names with their IP addresses and the multi-step process is completed in a fraction of a second.

The DNS allows the location of websites to be found to enable the sites to be displayed in browsers, but no distinction is made between benign and malicious content. DNS filtering is a method used to filter out undesirable and malicious content.

The DNS is used as a basic, fast, low-bandwidth filter to make it harder for users to access malicious web content such as sites hosting phishing kits, exploit kits, or malware. Controls can also be applied to prevent users from visiting illegal or otherwise prohibited web content.

Using DNS Filtering for Web Security

Rather than using standard DNS infrastructure to perform DNS lookups and discover IP addresses, a DNS filtering service provider is inserted into the process. A service provider maintains a database of categorized websites that have been determined to be safe, along with blacklists of webpages that are not.

When users try to visit websites, the service provider will only provide DNS lookup requests if the website is safe and has not been blacklisted. Since websites have been categorized, content controls can be applied. If the administrator has set policies prohibiting the accessing of gambling websites, dating sites, gaming sites, and pornography, a connection to those sites will not be permitted.

With a DNS filter in place, when a user attempts to access a malicious or prohibited website, they will be directed to a local DNS block page and will be informed that the website cannot be accessed. By using this method of internet content control, costly phishing attacks, malware infections, and data breaches can be prevented.

Summary

DNS filtering is a fast and effective method of exercising control over the content that can be accessed by network uses and an important cybersecurity measure to prevent users from navigating to malicious web content. With a DNS filter in place, it is possible to block the majority of online threats before any harm is caused.

A DNS filter will allow you to:

  • Block the web-based component of a phishing attacks
  • Prevent malware and ransomware downloads from the internet
  • Control the web content employees can access and avoid HR issues
  • Control bandwidth use
  • Limit productivity losses

The post What is DNS Filtering? appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

January 2020 Healthcare Data Breach Report

In January, healthcare data breaches of 500 or more records were reported to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights at a rate of more than one a day.

As our 2019 Healthcare Data Breach Report showed, 2019 was a particularly bad year for healthcare data breaches with 510 data breaches reported by HIPAA-covered entities and their business associates. That equates to a rate of 42.5 data breaches per month. January’s figures are an improvement, with a reporting rate of 1.03 breaches per day. There was also a 15.78% decrease in reported breaches compared to December 2019.

healthcare data breaches February 2019 to January 2020

Healthcare data breaches in January

While the number of breaches was down, the number of breached records increased by 17.71% month-over-month. 462,856 healthcare records were exposed, stolen, or impermissibly disclosed across 32 reported data breaches. As the graph below shows, the severity of data breaches has increased in recent years.

Largest Healthcare Data Breaches in January 2020

Name of Covered Entity State Covered Entity Type Individuals Affected Type of Breach Location of Breached Information
PIH Health CA Healthcare Provider 199,548 Hacking/IT Incident Email
Douglas County Hospital d/b/a Alomere Health MN Healthcare Provider 49,351 Hacking/IT Incident Email
InterMed, PA ME Healthcare Provider 33,000 Hacking/IT Incident Email
Fondren Orthopedic Group L.L.P. TX Healthcare Provider 30,049 Hacking/IT Incident Network Server
Native American Rehabilitation Association of the Northwest, Inc. OR Healthcare Provider 25,187 Hacking/IT Incident Email
Central Kansas Orthopedic Group, LLC KS Healthcare Provider 17,214 Hacking/IT Incident Network Server
Hospital Sisters Health System IL Healthcare Provider 16,167 Hacking/IT Incident Email
Spectrum Healthcare Partners ME Healthcare Provider 11,308 Hacking/IT Incident Email
Original Medicare MD Health Plan 9,965 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure Other
Lawrenceville Internal Medicine Assoc, LLC NJ Healthcare Provider 8,031 Unauthorized Access/Disclosure Email

Causes of January 2020 Healthcare Data Breaches

2019 saw a major increase in healthcare data breaches caused by hacking/IT incidents. In 2019, more than 59% of data breaches reported to the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights were the result of hacking, malware, ransomware, phishing attacks, and other IT security breaches.

Causes of January 2020 Healthcare Data Breaches

Hacking/IT incidents continued to dominate the breach reports in January and accounted for 59.38% of all breaches reported (19 incidents). 28.13% of reported breaches were classified as unauthorized access/disclosure data breaches (9 incidents), there were two reported theft incidents, both involving physical records, and 2 cases of improper disposal of physical records. Ransomware attacks continue to plague the healthcare industry, but phishing attacks are by far the biggest cause of healthcare data breaches. As the above table shows, these attacks can see the PHI of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of patients exposed or stolen.


Hacking/IT incidents tend to be the most damaging type of breach and involve more healthcare records than other breach types. In January, 416,275 records were breached in hacking/IT incidents. The average breach size was 21,909 records and the median breach size was 6,524 records. 26,450 records were breaches as a result of unauthorized access/disclosure incidents. The average breach size was 26,450 records and the median breach size was 2,939 records.

11,284 records were stolen in theft incidents with an average breach size of 5,642 records. The two improper disposal incidents saw 2,812 records discarded without first rendering documents unreadable and undecipherable. The average breach size was  1,406 records. 
Location of breached protected health information

Regular security awareness training for employees has been shown to reduce susceptibility to phishing attacks, but threat actors are conducting increasingly sophisticated attacks. It is often hard to distinguish a phishing email from a genuine message, especially in the case of business email compromise scams.

What is needed to block these attacks is a defense in depth approach and no one technical solution will be effective at blocking all phishing attacks. Defenses should include an advanced spam filter to block phishing messages at source, a web filter to block access to websites hosting phishing kits, DMARC to identify email impersonation attacks, and multi-factor authentication to prevent compromised credentials from being used to access email accounts.

Healthcare Data Breaches by Covered Entity

Healthcare providers were the worst affected by data breaches in January with 25 reported breaches of 500 or more healthcare records. Five breaches were reported by health plans, and two breaches were reported by business associates of HIPAA-covered entities. There were a further three data breaches reported by covered entities that had some business associate involvement.

January 2020 Healthcare Data Breaches by Covered Entity

January 2020 Healthcare Data Breaches records exposed covered entity

Healthcare Data Breaches by State

HIPAA covered entities and business associates in 23 states reported data breaches in January. California and Texas were the worst affected with three reported breaches in each state. There were two breaches reported in each of Florida, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, and New York, and one breach was reported in each of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia.

HIPAA Enforcement in January 2020

There were no financial penalties imposed on HIPAA covered entities or business associates by the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights or state attorneys general in January.

There was a notable increase in the number of lawsuits filed against healthcare organizations that have experienced data breaches related to phishing and ransomware attacks.

January saw a lawsuit filed against Health Quest over a July 2018 phishing attack, Tidelands Health is being sued over a December 2019 ransomware attack, and a second lawsuit was filed against DCH Health System over a malware attack involving the Emotet and TrickBot Trojans that occurred in October 2019. These lawsuits follow legal action against Kalispell Regional Healthcare and Solara Medical Supplies in December.

The trend has continued in February with several law firms racing to be the first to file lawsuits against PIH Health in California over a 2019 phishing attack that exposed the data of more than 200,000 individuals.

These lawsuits may cite HIPAA violations, but since there is no private cause of action under HIPAA, legal action is taken over violations of state laws.

The post January 2020 Healthcare Data Breach Report appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Alarming Number of Medical Devices Vulnerable to Exploits Such as BlueKeep

The healthcare industry is digitizing business management and data management processes and is adopting new technology to improve efficiency and cut costs, but that technology, in many cases, has been added to infrastructure, processes, and software from a different era and as a result, many vulnerabilities are introduced.

The healthcare industry is being targeted by cybercriminals who are looking for any chink in the armor to conduct their attacks, and many of those attacks are succeeding. The healthcare industry is the most targeted industry sector and one third of data breaches in the United States happen in hospitals.

According to the recently published 2020 Healthcare Security Vision Report from CyberMDX almost 30% of healthcare delivery organizations (HDOs) have experienced a data breach in the past 12 months, clearly demonstrating that the healthcare industry is struggling to address vulnerabilities and block cyberattacks.

Part of the reason is the number of difficult-to-secure devices that connect to healthcare network. The attack surface is huge. It has been estimated that globally there are around 450 million medical devices connected to healthcare networks and 30% of those devices are in the United States. That equates to around 19,300 connected medical devices and clinical assets per hospital in the United States. It is not uncommon for large hospitals to have more than 100,000 connected devices. On average, one in 10 devices on hospital networks are medical devices.

The report reveals 80% of device makers and HDOs say medical devices are difficult to secure due to a lack of knowledge on how to secure them, a lack of training on secure coding practices, and pressure to meet product deadlines.

71% of HDOs say they do not have a comprehensive cybersecurity program that includes medical devices, and 56% believe there will be a cyberattack on their medical devices in the next 12 months. That figure jumps to 58% when you ask medical device manufacturers. Even if an attack occurred, only 18% of HDOs say they are confident that they would be able to detect such an attack.

45% of Medical Devices Vulnerable to Flaws Such as BlueKeep

CyberMDX’s analysis revealed 61% of medical devices are exposed to some degree of cyber risk. 15% are exposed to BlueKeep flaws, 25% are exposed to DejaBlue flaws, and 55% of imaging devices run on outdated software that is vulnerable to exploits such as BlueKeep and DejaBlue. Overall, around 22% of Windows devices on hospital networks are vulnerable to BlueKeep.

BlueKeep and DejaBlue are vulnerabilities that can be exploited via Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP). The flaws can be exploited remotely and allow an attacker to take full control of vulnerable devices. BlueKeep is also wormable, so malware could be created that could spread to other vulnerable devices on a network with no user interaction required.

BlueKeep affects older Windows versions – Windows XP to Windows 7 and Windows Server 2003 to 2008 R2 – but many medical devices run on those older operating systems and have not been updated to protect against exploitation. DejaBlue affects Windows 7 and later versions.

Even Linux-based operating systems are vulnerable. Approximately 15% of connected hospital assets and 30% of medical devices are vulnerable to a flaw known as SACK Panic. It has been estimated that around 45% of medical devices are vulnerable to at least one flaw.

Prompt Patching is Critical, But That’s Not Straightforward

CyberMDX’s research found that 11% of HDOs don’t patch their medical devices at all and when patches are applied, the process is slow. 4 months after a vulnerability as serious as BlueKeep is discovered, an average hospital will only have patched around 40% of vulnerable devices.

The situation could actually be far worse, as the report reveals 25% of HDOs do not have a full inventory of their connected devices and an additional 13% say their inventory is unreliable. 36% do not have a formal BYOD policy and CyberMDX says a typical hospital has lost track of around 30% of its connected devices.

Patching medical devices is no easy task. “Where vulnerabilities concern unmanaged devices, there is no easy way to identify the relevant patch level for each device and no way to centrally push patches (through the active directory and SCCM) to devices distributed throughout the organization,” explained CyberMDX. “For these devices, technicians must individually investigate and manually attend the affected devices.”

Alarmingly, even though medical devices are vulnerable to attack, a majority of HDOs neglect granular network segmentation or segment their networks for reasons other than security, so when network segmentation is used, segments contain a variety of different devices with some connections open to the internet.

If flaws are exploited, many HDOs would struggle to detect an attack. More than a third of HDOs do not continuously monitor their connected devices and a further 21% identify, profile, and monitor their devices manually.

So, What is the Solution?

Improving the security of medical devices is no easy task, as CyberMDX explains. It requires “continuous review of configuration practices, segmentation, network restrictions, appropriate use, credential management, vulnerability monitoring, patching & updating, lifecycle management, recall tracking, access and role controls, compliance assurance, pen testing, live context-aware traffic monitoring & analysis, oversight of partner and third-party security practices, and more.” Further, “If you don’t know what devices you have networked, you won’t be able to understand their individual attack vectors.”

Improving security is certainly a daunting task, but the goal is not to make your organization 100% secure, as that would be an impossible goal. The aim should be to address the most important issues and to significantly reduce the attack surface.

“By more clearly defining lifecycle-wide security responsibilities and expectations with your vendors, by restricting functionally unnecessary in-VLAN communications, by investing in staff-wide cyber training, by normalizing basic network hygiene practices (like password and access management, patching & updating, etc.), and by tweaking security policies (at the NAC or firewall level) specifically for monitors, infusion pumps, and patient tracking devices, you can dramatically shrink your attack surface in short order,” suggest CyberMDX.

The post Alarming Number of Medical Devices Vulnerable to Exploits Such as BlueKeep appeared first on HIPAA Journal.