Healthcare Data Security

MongoDB and AWS Incorporate New Security Controls to Prevent Data Breaches

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Amazon has announced that new safeguards have been incorporated into its cloud server that will make it much harder for users to misconfigure their S3 buckets and accidentally leave their data unsecured.

While Amazon will sign a business associate agreement with HIPAA-covered entities, and has implemented appropriate controls to ensure data can be stored securely, but user errors can all too easily lead to data exposure and breaches. Those breaches show that even HIPAA-compliant cloud services have potential to leak data.

This year has seen many organizations accidentally leave their S3 data exposed online, including several healthcare organizations. Two such breaches were reported by Accenture and Patient Home Monitoring. Accenture was using four unsecured cloud-based storage servers that stored more than 137 GB of data including 40,000 plain-text passwords. The Patient Home Monitoring AWS S3 misconfiguration resulted in the exposure of 150,000 patients’ PHI.

In response to multiple breaches, Amazon has announced that new safeguards have been implemented to alert users to exposed data. While there are reasons why organizations would want their Amazon S3 buckets accessible over the Internet without the need for authentication, in most cases stored data should be protected.

To reduce the potential for data exposure, Amazon is implementing a warning system that will alert users when authentication controls are not active. A bright orange button will now appear throughout the AWS console to alert users when their S3 buckets are accessible without the need for authentication. Administrators will be able to control the privacy settings of each S3 bucket using an access control list, and publicly available buckets will be clearly displayed. Daily and weekly reports will also highlight which buckets are secure, and which are accessible by the public.

MongoDB Update Makes Databases Secure by Default

In addition to the data breaches resulting from exposed Amazon S3 buckets, many organizations have reported breaches involving unsecured MongoDB databases this year. Worldwide, more than 27,000 organizations had their databases accessed, data stolen, and their databases deleted. The attackers issued demands for payment to return the stolen data.

While MongoDB incorporates all the necessary safeguards to prevent unauthorized accessing of databases, those safeguards must be activated. Many organizations failed to realize that the default configuration was not secure.

MongoDB has responded to the breaches and has taken the decision to implement default security controls for the new version of the database platform, which is scheduled to be released next month. MongoDB 3.6 will only have localhost enabled by default. Users that require their databases to be accessible over the internet will be required to switch on that feature. Doing so will make the databases accessible by anyone, so to restrict access, authentication controls will need to be manually switched on. The new secure default configuration will make it harder for data to be accidentally exposed online.

The post MongoDB and AWS Incorporate New Security Controls to Prevent Data Breaches appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

2017 Data Breach Report Reveals 305% Annual Rise in Breached Records

Posted by HIPAA Journal

A 2017 data breach report from Risk Based Security (RBS), a provider of real time information and risk analysis tools, has revealed there has been a 305% increase in the number of records exposed in data breaches in the past year.

For its latest breach report, RBS analyzed breach reports from the first 9 months of 2017. RBS explained in a recent blog post, 2017 has been “yet another ‘worst year ever’ for data breaches.”

In Q3, 2017, there were 1,465 data breaches reported, bringing the total number of publicly disclosed data breaches up to 3,833 incidents for the year. So far in 2017, more than 7 billion records have been exposed or stolen.

RBS reports there has been a steady rise in publicly disclosed data breaches since the end of May, with September the worst month of the year to date. More than 600 data breaches were disclosed in September.

Over the past five years there has been a steady rise in reported data breaches, increasing from 1,966 data breaches in 2013 to 3,833 in 2017. Year on year, the number of reported data breaches has increased by 18.2%.

The severity of data breaches has also increased. In 2016, 2.3 billion records were exposed in the first 9 months of the year. In 2017, the figure jumped to 7.09 billion.

The majority of the exposed records in 2017 came from five breaches, which exposed approximately 78.5% of all the records exposed so far in 2017.

The breach at DU Caller exposed 2,000,000,000 records; the River City Media breach saw 1,374,159,612 records exposed; An unnamed web breach exposed 711,000,000 records; and the EmailCar breach saw 267,000,000 records exposed.

Those five breaches made the top ten list of the worst data breaches of all time, and were ranked as the 2nd, 3rd,  4th, and 9th worst data breaches of all time. With the exception of one breach in 2014, all of the top ten data breaches of all time have been discovered in 2016 (4) and 2017 (5).

While the above five breaches involved the most records, the most severe data breach of the year to date was the breach at Equifax, which exposed the records of 145,500,000 individuals. The breach only ranks in 18th place in the list of the worst data breaches of all time, but RBS rates it as the most severe data breach of 2017 due to the nature of data obtained by the hackers.

The main cause of 2017 data breaches, by some distance, was hacking. 1,997 data breaches were due to hacks, 433 breaches were due to skimming, phishing was behind 290 breaches, viruses caused 256 breaches, and 206 breaches were due to web attacks.

Web attacks may have come in at fifth place in terms of the number of breaches, but the attacks resulted in the greatest number of exposed records – 68.5% of the total. Hacking accounted for 30.9% of exposed records.

The business sector has been worst affected by data breaches in 2017, accounting for 68.5% of the total, followed by ‘unknown’ on 12.6%. Medical data breaches were in third place accounting for 8.5% of the total.

RBS reports that there have been 69 data breaches reported in 2017 that involved the exposure or more than a million records.

The Risk Based Security 2017 Data Breach Report can be viewed here.

The post 2017 Data Breach Report Reveals 305% Annual Rise in Breached Records appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Healthcare Data Breach Statistics Questioned

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Large healthcare providers experience more data breaches than smaller healthcare providers, at least that is what the healthcare data breach statistics from a spring Johns Hopkins University’s Care School of Business report show.

For the study, the researchers used breach reports submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights. HIPAA-covered entities are required to submit breach reports to OCR, and under HITECT Act requirements, OCR publishes the breaches that impact more than 500 individuals.

The Ge Bai, PhD., led study, which was published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, indicates between 2009 and 2016, 216 hospitals had reported a data breach and 15% of hospitals reported more than one breach. The analysis of the breach reports suggest teaching hospitals are more likely to suffer data breaches – a third of breached hospitals were major teaching centers. The study also suggested larger hospitals were more likely to experience data breaches.

Now, a team of doctors from Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, TN have called the data breach statistics details in the Johns Hopkins study into question, pointing out a number of potential errors could have crept in due to the nature of the data available. Daniel Fabbri, PhD wrote to JAMA Internal Medicine pointing out that the claims made by Bai and his team may not be correct.

“Such a broad claim neglects inherent biases in data collection and reporting practices,” wrote Fabbri in the letter.  He explained that the data set available to the researchers only includes data breaches of 500 or more individuals, not smaller breaches which are not published. Larger hospitals have more patients, and could therefore be more likely to reach the 500-patient threshold for inclusion in the data set.

The researchers also argue, that in order for a breach to be reported, it must first be detected. Larger cybersecurity budgets mean more cybersecurity staff and better technology. Breaches are more likely to be detected by larger hospitals, whereas a breach at a smaller healthcare organization may remain undetected for longer. Regardless of size, hospitals are likely to be able to detect lost or stolen devices, but detecting insider breaches is likely to take much longer for smaller hospitals that lack technology and the resources to conduct internal audits of data access logs.

They also explain that there may be issues with the quality of the data. Just because it is a requirement of HIPAA to report data breaches, that does not necessarily mean that healthcare organizations will.

The Vanderbilt team explain “This nonuniform treatment of breaches based on size, instead of impact, offense, or rate-per-employee biases the results and can negatively impact perceived patient privacy and security risks. Small-scale violations are just as important and can be even more impactful.”

Bai and her team have responded to the letter and have agreed that there are issues with the 500-individual threshold for reporting, but explain that larger hospitals have more PHI and “combined with teaching hospitals’ need for broad data access, this creates significant targets for cyber criminals, compared with smaller institutions that might be the main reason for their relatively high risks of data breaches.”

It stands to reason that large healthcare organizations, with larger volumes of health data are an attractive target for cybercriminals. Large quantities of data mean a big payday for hackers. However, that does not necessarily mean they are targeted by cybercriminals much more than smaller organizations. Fort Knox holds significant gold reserves, but most bank robbers attack easier targets. TheDarkOverlord, a hacking group well known for targeting the healthcare industry, tends to attack smaller healthcare organizations – They are typically easier to attack as they do not have the resources or staff of their larger counterparts to devote to cybersecurity.

What is clear, is that based on the data available, obtaining meaningful healthcare data breach statistics is problematic. As the Vanderbilt researchers explained, it is difficult to conduct meaningful research based on the data set available, especially research that could be used as a basis to change hospital privacy practices.

The post Healthcare Data Breach Statistics Questioned appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

How Can Healthcare Organizations Prevent Phishing Attacks?

Posted by HIPAA Journal

The threat from phishing is greater than ever before. Healthcare organizations must now invest heavily in phishing defenses to counter the threat and prevent phishing attacks and the theft of credentials and protected health information.

Phishing on an Industrial Scale

More phishing websites are being developed than ever before. The scale of the problem was highlighted in the Q3 Quarterly Threat Trends Report from Webroot. In December 2016, Webroot reported there were more than 13,000 new phishing websites created every day – Around 390,000 new phishing webpages every month. By Q3, 2017, that figure had risen to more than 46,000 new phishing webpages a day – around 1,385,000 per month. The report indicated 63% of companies surveyed had experienced a phishing related security incident in the past two years.

Phishing webpages need to be created on that scale as they are now detected much more rapidly and added to blacklists. Phishing websites now typically remain active for between 4-6 hours, although that short time frame is sufficient for each site to capture many users’ credentials. Many of those websites also have an SSL certificate, so they appear to users to be secure websites. A website starting with HTTPS is no guarantee that it is not being used for phishing.

Study Provides Insight into Phishing Tactics

While phishers often use their own domains to phish for credentials, a recent report from Duo Security showed legitimate websites are increasingly being compromised and loaded with phishing kits. The study identified more than 3,200 unique fishing kits spread across 66,000 URLs. These phishing kits are being traded on underground marketplaces and sold to accomplished phishers and wannabe cybercriminals. 16% of those URLs were on HTTPS websites.

Duo Security notes that persistence is maintained by creating a .htaccess file that blocks the IP addresses of threat intelligence gathering firms to prevent detection. The Webroot report also highlighted an increase in the use of benign domains for phishing.

The phishing kits are typically loaded into the wp-content, wp-includes, and wp-admin paths of WordPress sites, and the signin, images, js, home, myaccount, and css folders on other sites. Organizations should monitor for file changes in those directories to ensure their sites are not hijacked by phishers. Strong passwords should also be used along with non-standard usernames and rate limiting on login attempts to improve resilience against brute force attacks.

How to Prevent Phishing Attacks

Unfortunately, there is no single solution that will allow organizations to prevent phishing attacks, although it is possible to reduce risk to an acceptable level. In the healthcare industry, phishing defenses are a requirement of HIPAA and steps must be taken to reduce risk to a reasonable and acceptable level. The failure to address the risk from phishing can result in financial penalties for noncompliance.

Defenses should include a combination of technological solutions to prevent the delivery of phishing emails and to block access to phishing URLs. Employees must also receive regular training to help them identify phishing emails.

As OCR pointed out in its July Cybersecurity newsletter, HIPAA (45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(5)(i)) requires organizations to provide regular security awareness training to employees to help prevent phishing attacks. OCR explained that “An organization’s training program should be an ongoing, evolving process and flexible enough to educate workforce members on new cybersecurity threats and how to respond to them.”

Due to the increased use of HTTPS, it is no longer sufficient for users to check that the site is secure to avoid phishing scams. While a site starting with HTTPS does give an indication that the site is secure, it is important that end users do not automatically trust those websites and let their guard down. Just because a website has an SSL certificate it does not mean it can be trusted. Users should also be told to pay particular attention to the domain name to make sure that they are visiting their intended website, and always to exercise caution before deciding to disclose any login credentials.

Even with security awareness training, employees cannot be expected to recognize all phishing attempts. Phishers are developing increasingly sophisticated phishing emails that are barely distinguishable from genuine emails. Websites are harder to identify as malicious, emails are well written and convincing, and corporate branding and logos are often used to fool end users. Technological solutions are therefore required to reduce the number of emails that reach inboxes, and to prevent users from visiting malicious links when they do.

A spam filtering solution is essential for reducing the volume of emails that are delivered. Organizations should also consider using a web filtering solution that can block access to known phishing websites. The most effective real-time URL filtering solutions do not rely on blacklists and banned IP addresses to block attacks. Blacklists still have their uses and can prevent phishing attacks, but phishing websites are typically only active for a few hours – Before the sites are identified as malicious and added to blacklists. A range of additional detection mechanisms are required to block phishing websites. Due to the increase in phishing sites on secure websites, web filters should be able to decrypt, scan, and re-encrypt web traffic.

Healthcare organizations should also sign up to threat intelligence services to receive alerts about industry-specific attacks. To avoid being swamped with irrelevant threat information, services should be tailored to ensure only treat information relevant to each organization is received.

The post How Can Healthcare Organizations Prevent Phishing Attacks? appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

When Should You Promote HIPAA Awareness?

Posted by HIPAA Journal

All employees must receive training on HIPAA Rules, but when should you promote HIPAA awareness? How often should HIPAA retraining take place?

HIPAA-covered entities, business associates and subcontractors are all required to comply with HIPAA Rules, and all workers must receive training on HIPAA. HIPAA training should ideally be provided before any employee is given access to PHI.

Training should cover the allowable uses and disclosures of PHI, patient privacy, data security, job-specific information, internal policies covering privacy & security, and HIPAA best practices.

The penalties for HIPAA violations, and the consequences for individuals discovered to have violated HIPAA Rules, must also be explained. If employees do not receive training, they will not be aware of their responsibilities and privacy violations are likely to occur.

Additional training must also be provided whenever there is a material change to HIPAA Rules or internal policies with respect to PHI, following the release of new guidance, or implementation of new technology.

HIPAA Training Cannot be a One-Time Event

The provision of training at the start of an employment contract is essential, but training cannot be a one-time event. It is important to ensure employees do not forget about their responsibilities, so retraining is necessary and a requirement for continued HIPAA compliance.

HIPAA does not specify how often retraining should occur, as this is left to the discretion of the covered entity. HIPAA only requires retraining to be conducted ‘regularly.’ The industry best practice is for retraining to take place annually.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule Administrative requirements, detailed in 45 CFR § 164.530, require all members of the workforce to receive training on HIPAA Rules and policies and procedures with respect to PHI. Training should be provided, as appropriate, to allow employees to conduct their work duties and functions within the covered entity. One training program therefore does not fit all. HIPAA training for the IT department is likely to be different to training provided to administrative workers. The Privacy Rule requires training to be provided for all new employees “within a reasonable timeframe”.

The HIPAA standard 45 CFR § 164.308(a)(5) covers two types of training – Job-specific training and security awareness training, neither of which can be a one-time event.

While it is important to provide training for HIPAA compliance and security awareness, it is also important to ensure that training has been understood, that it is remembered, and to ensure HIPAA Rules are followed on a day to day basis. It therefore recommended that you promote HIPAA awareness throughout the year.

How to Promote HIPAA Awareness

There is no hard and fast rule for HIPAA retraining and there are many ways that healthcare organizations can promote HIPAA awareness. While formal training sessions can be conducted on an annual basis, the use of newsletters, email bulletins, posters, and quizzes can all help to raise and maintain awareness of HIPAA Rules.

In the case of security awareness training this is especially important. Annual training on HIPAA is a good best practice, but it is important to promote HIPAA awareness with respect to security more frequently. It is a good best practice to provide security awareness training biannually and issue cybersecurity updates on a monthly basis. Any specific threats to the workforce should be communicated as necessary – new phishing threats for instance. However, care should be taken not to bombard employees with threat information, to avoid employees suffering from alert fatigue.

When HIPAA Retraining Required?

In addition to annual refresher training sessions, retraining on HIPAA Rules is recommended following any privacy or security violation and after a data breach has been experienced.

While the individuals concerned should be retrained, it is a good best practice to take these incidents as a training opportunity for all staff to ensure similar breaches do not occur in the future. If one employee makes a mistake with HIPAA, it is possible that others have failed to understand HIPAA requirements or are making similar mistakes.

The post When Should You Promote HIPAA Awareness? appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Is G Suite HIPAA Compliant?

Posted by HIPAA Journal

Is G Suite HIPAA compliant? Can G Suite be used by HIPAA-covered entities without violating HIPAA Rules?

Google has developed G Suite to include privacy and security protections to keep data secure, and those protections are of a sufficiently high standard to meet the requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule. Google will also sign a business associate agreement (BAA) with HIPAA covered entities. So, is G Suite HIPAA compliant? G Suite can be used without violating HIPAA Rules, but HIPAA compliance is more about the user than the cloud service provider.

Making G Suite HIPAA Compliant (by default it isn’t)

As with any secure cloud service or platform, it is possible to use it in a manner that violates HIPAA Rules. In the case of G Suite, all the safeguards are in place to allow HIPAA covered entities to use G Suite in a HIPAA compliant manner, but it is up to the covered entity to ensure that G Suite is configured correctly. It is possible to use G Suite and violate HIPAA Rules.

Obtain a BAA from Google

One important requirement of HIPAA is to obtain a signed, HIPAA-compliant business associate agreement (BAA).

Google first agreed to sign a business associate agreement with healthcare organizations in 2013, back when G Suite was known as Google Apps. The BAA must be obtained prior to G Suite being used to store, maintain, or transmit electronic protected health information. Even though privacy and security controls are in place, the failure to obtain a BAA would be a HIPAA violation.

Obtaining a signed BAA from Google is the first step toward HIPAA compliance, but a BAA alone will not guarantee compliance with HIPAA Rules.

Configure Access Controls

Before G Suite can be used with any ePHI, the G Suite account and services must be configured correctly via the admin console. Access controls must be set up to restrict access to the services that are used with PHI to authorized individuals only. You should set up user groups, as this is the easiest way of providing – and blocking – access to PHI, and logs and alerts must be also be configured.

You should also make sure all additional services are switched off if they are not required, switch on services that include PHI ‘on for some organizations,’ and services that do not involve PHI can be switched on for everyone.

Set Device Controls

HIPAA-covered entities must also ensure that the devices that are used to access G Suite include appropriate security controls. For example, if a smartphone can be used to access G Suite, if that device is lost or stolen, it should not be possible for the device to be used by unauthorized individuals. A login must be required to be entered on all mobiles before access to G Suite is granted, and devices configured to automatically lock. Technology that allows the remote erasure of all data (PHI) stored on mobile devices should also be considered. HIPAA-covered entities should also set up two-factor authentication.

Not All Google Services are Covered by the BAA

You may want to use certain Google services even if they are not covered by the BAA, but those services cannot be used for storing or communicating PHI. For example, Google+ and Google Talk are not included in the BAA and cannot be used with any PHI.

If you do decide to leave these services on, you must ensure that your policies prohibit the use of PHI with these services and that those policies are effectively communicated to all employees. Employees must also receive training on G Suite with respect to PHI to ensure HIPAA Rules are not accidentally violated.

What Services in G Suite are HIPAA Compliant?

At the time of writing, only the following core services of G Suite are covered by Google’s BAA, and can therefore be used with PHI:

  • Gmail (Not free Gmail accounts)
  • Calendar
  • Drive
  • Apps Script
  • Keep
  • Sites
  • Jamboard
  • Hangouts (Chat messaging only)
  • Google Cloud Search
  • Vault

Google Drive

In the case of Google Drive, it is essential to limit sharing to specific people. Otherwise it is possible that folders and files could be accessed by anyone over the Internet> drives should be configured to only allow access by specific individuals or groups. Any files uploaded to Google Drive should not include any PHI in titles of files, folders, or Team Drives.

Gmail

Gmail, the free email service offered by Google, is not the same as G Suite. Simply using a Gmail account (@gmail.com) to send PHI is not permitted. The content of Gmail messages is scanned by third parties. If PHI is included, it is potentially being ‘accessed’ by third parties, and deleting an email does not guarantee removal from Google’s servers. Free Gmail accounts are not HIPAA compliant.

G Suite HIPAA Compliance is the Responsibility of Users

Google encourages healthcare organizations to use G Suite and has done what it can to make G Suite HIPAA compliant, but Google clearly states it is the responsibility of the user to ensure that the requirements of HIPAA are satisfied.

Google help healthcare organziations make G Suite HIPAA compliant, Google has developed guidance for healthcare organizations on setting up G Suite: See Google’s G Suite HIPAA Implementation Guide.

The post Is G Suite HIPAA Compliant? appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

New Study Reveals Lack of Phishing Awareness and Data Security Training

Posted by HIPAA Journal

There is a commonly held view among IT staff that employees are the biggest data security risk; however, when it comes to phishing, even IT security staff are not immune. A quarter of IT workers admitted to falling for a phishing scam, compared to one in five office workers (21%), and 34% of business owners and high-execs, according to a recent survey by Intermedia.

For its 2017 Data Vulnerability Report, Intermedia surveyed more than 1,000 full time workers and asked questions about data security and the behaviors that can lead to data breaches, malware and ransomware attacks.

When all it takes is for one employee to fall for a phishing email to compromise a network, it is alarming that 14% of office workers either lacked confidence in their ability to detect phishing attacks or were not aware what phishing is.

Confidence in the ability to detect phishing scams was generally high among office workers, with 86% believing they could identify phishing emails, although knowledge of ransomware was found to be lacking, especially among female workers. 40% of female workers did not know what ransomware was, compared to 28% of male workers. 31% of respondents said they did not know what ransomware was prior to taking part in staff training sessions.

The survey revealed security awareness training was lacking at many businesses. 30% of office workers said they did not receive regular training on how to deal with cyber threats. Even though the threat level has risen significantly in the past two years, many businesses have not responded. The 2015 data vulnerability report shows 72% of companies regularly communicated cyber threat information to employees and provided regular training, but in 2017 little has changed. Only 70% of companies provide regular training and threat information to employees. 11% of companies offered no security training whatsoever.

The recently published Global State of Security Survey by Pricewaterhouse Coopers, which was conducted globally on 9,500 executives in 122 countries, suggests the percentage of companies that do not provide security awareness training may well be far higher – 48% of respondents to that survey said they have no employee security awareness training program in place.

Many Employees Pay Ransoms Personally

One of the most interesting insights into ransomware attacks on businesses from the Intermedia study was many employees are so embarrassed and concerned about installing ransomware that they pay the ransom demand out of their own pocket.

Out of the office workers that had experienced a ransomware attack, 59% personally paid the ransom. 37% said the ransom was paid by their employer. The average ransom payment was $1,400. The ransom was typically paid quickly in the hope that data could be restored before anyone else found out about the attack.

While employees were not asked whether they would be made to pay the ransom by their employers, paying the ransom quickly to prevent anyone discovering the attack is unlikely to work. Even when the ransom is paid, businesses still experience considerable downtime. The same study also indicates one in five ransom payments will not see viable decryption keys provided by the attackers.

The post New Study Reveals Lack of Phishing Awareness and Data Security Training appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act (SHIELD Act) Introduced by NY AG

Posted by HIPAA Journal

The Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act (SHIELD Act) has been introduced into the legislature in New York by Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman. The aim of the act is to protect New Yorkers from needless breaches of their personal information and to ensure they are notified when such breaches occur.

The program bill, which was sponsored by Senator David Carlucci (D-Clarkstown) and Assembly member Brian Kavanagh (D-Manhattan), is intended to improve protections for New York residents without placing an unnecessary burden on businesses.

The introduction of the SHIELD Act comes weeks after the announcement of the Equifax data breach which impacted more than 8 million New Yorkers. In 2016, more than 1,300 data breaches were reported to the New York attorney general’s office – a 60% increase in breaches from the previous year.

Attorney General Schneiderman explained that New York’s data security laws are “weak and outdated” and require an urgent update. While federal laws require some organizations to implement data security controls, in New York, there are no obligations for businesses to implement safeguards to secure the personal identifying information of New Yorkers if the data held on residents does not include a Social Security number.

The SHIELD Act will require all businesses, regardless of where they are based, to adopt reasonable administrative, physical, and technical safeguards for if they hold the sensitive data of New Yorkers. The laws will also apply if entities do not do business in the state of New York.

While many states have introduced data breach notification laws that require individuals impacted by breaches of information such as username/password combos and biometric data to be notified of the incidents, in New York, there are no such requirements. The Shield Act will change that and bring state laws in line with many other U.S. states.

Breach notification requirements will be updated to include breaches of username/password combos, biometric data, and protected health information covered by HIPAA laws. Breach notifications will be required if unauthorized individuals are discovered to have gained access to personal information as well as in cases of data theft.

Attorney General Schneiderman is encouraging businesses to go above and beyond the requirements of the SHIRLD Act and receive independent certification of their security controls to make sure they exceed the minimum required standards.

A flexible standard is being introduced for small businesses to ease the regulatory burden. Safeguards can be appropriate to the organization’s size for businesses employing fewer than 50 members of staff if gross revenue is under $3 million or they have less than $5 million in assets.

HIPAA-covered entities, organizations compliant with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and NYS DFS regulations will be deemed to already be compliant with the data security requirements of the SHIELD Act.

The failure to comply with the provisions of the SHIELD Act will be deemed to be a violation of General Business Law (GBL § 349) and will allow the state attorney general to bring suit and seek civil penalties under GBL § 350(d).

The post Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act (SHIELD Act) Introduced by NY AG appeared first on HIPAA Journal.

HIMSS Draws Attention to Five Current Cybersecurity Threats

Posted by HIPAA Journal

In its October Cybersecurity report, HIMSS draws attention to five current cybersecurity threats that could potentially be used against healthcare organizations to gain access to networks and protected health information.

Wi-Fi Attacks

Security researchers have identified a new attack method called a key reinstallation (CRACK) attack that can be conducted on WiFi networks using the WPA2 protocol. These attacks take advantage of a flaw in the way the protocol performs a 4-way handshake when a user attempts to connect to the network. By manipulating and replaying the cryptographic handshake messages, it would be possible to reinstall a key that was already in use and to intercept all communications. The use of a VPN when using Wi-Fi networks is strongly recommended to limit the potential for this attack scenario and man-in-the-middle attacks.

BadRabbit Ransomware

Limited BadRabbit ransomware attacks have occurred in the United States, although the NotPetya style ransomware attacks have been extensive in Ukraine. As with NotPetya, it is believed the intention is to cause disruption rather than for financial gain. The attacks are now known to use NSA exploits that were also used in other global ransomware attacks. Mitigations include ensuring software and operating systems are kept 100% up to date and all patches are applied promptly. It is also essential for that backups are regularly performed. Backups should be stored securely on at least two different media, with one copy stored securely offsite on an air-gapped device.

Advanced Persistent Threats

A campaign conducted by an APT group known as Dragonfly has been ongoing since at least May 2017. The APT group is targeting critical infrastructure organizations. The typical attack scenario is to target small networks with relatively poor security, and once access has been gained, to move laterally to major networks with high value assets. While the group has primarily been attacking the energy sector, the healthcare industry is also at risk. Further information on the threat and the indicators of compromise can be found on the US-CERT website.

DDE Attacks

In October, security researchers warned of the risk of Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE) attacks targeting Outlook users. This attack scenario involves the use of calendar invites sent via phishing emails. The invites are sent in Rich Text Format, and opening the invites could potentially result in the installation of malware. Sophos warned of the threat and suggested one possible mitigation is to view emails in plaintext. These attacks will present a warning indicating attachments and email and calendar invites contain links to other files. Users should click no when asked to update documents with data from the linked files.

Medical Device Security

HIMSS has drawn attention to the threat of attacks on medical devices, pointing out that these are a soft-spot and typically have poor cybersecurity protections. As was pointed out with the APT critical infrastructure attacks, it is these soft spots that malicious actors look to take advantage of to gain access to networks and data. HIMSS has warned healthcare organizations to heed the advice of analysts, who predict the devices will be targeted with ransomware. Steps should be taken to isolate the devices and back up any data stored on the devices, or the computers and networks to which they connect.

Medical device security was also the subject of the Office for Civil Rights October cybersecurity newsletter.

While not specifically mentioned in its list of current cybersecurity threats, the threat from phishing is ongoing and remains one of the most serious threats to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of PHI. The threat can be reduced with anti-phishing defenses such as spam filtering software and with training to improve security awareness.

The post HIMSS Draws Attention to Five Current Cybersecurity Threats appeared first on HIPAA Journal.