Israeli Software

Now it’s some lazy journalist at Information Week aiding and abetting the pseudo-statistics of of the Ponemon Institute – screaming headlines of  the cost of data breaches of PHI – protected healthcare information

According to Information Week; Analysis: Healthcare Breach Costs May Reach $800 Million

Since the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act or HITECH Act of 2009 came to being, a number of new privacy, security and reporting and non-compliance penalty provisions went into effect. And as summarized by this report from HITRUST, there have been 108 entities who have reported security breaches since September of last year.

Those breaches comprise about 4 million people and records.

In the analysis, Chris Hourihan Manager, CSF Development and Operations, HITRUST used the 2009 Ponemon Institute Cost of a Data Breach Study [.pdf], which found the average cost for each record within a data breach to be $204. That’s $144 of indirect costs and $60 of direct costs. An overview of the Ponemon study is available here.

What is the connection between the Ponemon studies (sponsored by data security vendors) and the PHI leakages.

Nothing.

Why is a PII leak and a meaningless plug number of $60 relevant to PHI (which requires a combination of medical data and personal identifiers?

Why can’t someone make a phone call and ask how much the companies actually paid in fines and then make a few more phone calls and start estimating ancillary costs and direct costs such as legal.

Why not just multiply by the average cost of an iPhone?

After all you can steal data with your mobile easily enough can’t you.

Aug 7, 2010 WASHINGTON, D.D.—U.S. Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR) and John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-WV) today introduced legislation to require businesses and nonprofit organizations that store consumers’ personal information to put in place strong security features to safeguard sensitive data, alert consumers when this data has been breached, and provide affected individuals with the tools they need to protect their credit and finances. Currently, there is no single federal standard for guarding many types of consumer information.

I cannot believe my eyes – “no single federal standard”??

I am at a loss to understand why the US needs another data security bill – when there are already a plethora of regulations regarding personal information – Graham Leach Bliley (financial services), PCI DSS (credit cards), HIPAA (health care) and the state data security bills (CA SB 1386, Mass Data privacy etc.. ).  This is without even mentioning FISMA and the NIST security requirements for implementing HIPAA. With Obamacare in effect – it seems to me that the gold standard for PII protection will soon become HIPAA and since health care appears to becoming nationalized in the US – NIST will soon be the king of data security control frameworks.

Looking at data security  as an exercise in providing cost effect security countermeasures, it appears to me that the bill is most likely either a public relations play  or congressional logrolling. The interesting item is the requirement to provide credit card monitoring services after a breach for a year – perhaps the bill is intended to help stimulate the business of companies like Experian, Symantec, RSA and Mcafee.

The US does not need more data security regulation (requiring “strong security features” whatever that means) because with over 350 million US credit cards breached – the data is already out there. This bill is equivalent to closing the barn door after the horses have already fled.

What I would recommend to the esteemed Senators is a totally different approach – one adopted by Poland. Poland, which is a member of the EU and subject to the EU Privacy Law decided a few years back to make data security breaches expensive. If a firm in Poland breaches personal data – they are liable to up to a 2.5% fine of their annual gross revenue.

None of this hokey – “provide monitoring services and notify within 60 days” nonsense. Make US data breachers pay for their security vulnerabilities and even the playing field with the consumers – who are indeed paying the price for poor data security at American retailers and banks.

If you deploy or are considering data security technology from Websense, Fidelis, Verdasys , Guardium, Imperva or Sentrigo – do you give a DAM ?

It seems that DLP (data loss prevention)  vendors are moving up the food chain into DAM (database activity monitoring)? As customers deploy two products in parallel (for example Imperva and Fidelis) for DLP and DAM – the opportunity for reducing TCO (total cost of ownership) seems to be a clear imperative.

Both Websense and Fidelis Security  provide DLP functionality for structured data in databases (Fidelis calls it internal DLP) and Websense provides fairly granular fingerprinting of combinations of relational table columns using their PreciseID technology.

Although Websense focuses on deep content analysis and stays away from application security, Verdasys provides application logging at the end point and Fidelis provides application analysis via the network session in addition to the deep content inspection. Both are functions strongly related to database activity monitoring.

Here are the goals I would put down for database activity monitoring, due to the high level of interaction with client/sever and Web applications

It’s World Cup season and Mondial fever will probably put a lot of regional conflicts on the back burner for the next month – not to mention put a dent in a lot of family budgets (husbands buying the latest 60 inch Sony Bravia and wives on retail therapy while the guys are watching football)

I  wanted to write a review of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa video game (it would have been a great excuse for my wife) but I don’t have the right platform – I use Ubuntu and I have neither an Xbox 360 nor a Playstation 3.

It’s ironic that the South African  World cup game doesn’t run on Ubuntu.  It would have been a huge marketing coup and poetic justice if the game software was released for Ubuntu in a GPL license.

That got me thinking about open source licensing and it’s advantages for developing countries, which really got my hackles up  after reading the Seventh Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study – that screams:  Software Theft Remains Significant Issue Around the World

The rate of global software piracy climbed to 43 percent in 2009. This increase was fueled in large part by expanding PC sales in fast-growing, high-piracy countries and increasing sales to consumers — two market segments that traditionally have higher incidents of software theft. In 2009, for every $100 worth of legitimate software sold, an additional $75 worth of unlicensed software made its way onto the market. There was some progress in 2009 — software rates actually dropped in almost half of the countries examined in this year’s study.

Given the global recession, the software piracy picture could have taken a dramatic turn for the worse. But progress is being outstripped by the overall increases in piracy globally — and highlights the need for governments, law enforcement and industry to work together to address this vital economic issue.
Below are key findings from this year’s study:

• Commercial value of software theft exceeds $50 billion: the commercial value of unlicensed software put into the market in 2009 totalled $51.4 billion.
• Progress on piracy held through the recession: the rate of PC software piracy dropped in nearly half (49%) of the 111 economies studied, remained the same in 34% and rose in 17%.
• Piracy continues to rise on a global basis: the worldwide piracy rate increased from 41% in 2008 to 43% in 2009; largely a result of exponential growth in the PC and software markets in higher piracy, fast growing markets such as Brazil, India and China.

I would not take the numbers IDC and BSA bring at face value. The IDC/BSA estimates are guesses multiplied several times. They start off by assuming that each unit of copied software represents a direct loss of sale for software vendor – patently a false assertion.

If it were true, then the demand for software would be independent of price and perfectly inelastic.

A drop in price usually results in an increase in the quantity demanded by consumers. That’s called price elasticity of demand. The demand for a product becomes inelastic when the demand doesn’t change with price. A product with no competing alternative is generally inelastic. Demand for a unique antibiotic, for example is highly inelastic. A patient will pay any price to buy the only drug that will kill their infection.

If software demand was perfectly inelastic, then everyone would pay in order to avoid the BSA enforcement tax. The rate of software piracy would be 0. Since piracy rate is non-zero, that proves that the original assertion is false. (Argument courtesy of the Wikipedia article on price elasticity of demand )

Back when I ran Bynet Software Systems – we were the first Microsoft Back Office/Windows NT distributor in Israel. I had just left Intel – where we had negotiated a deal with Microsoft that allowed every employee to make a copy of MS Office for home usage. Back in 1997 – after the Windows NT launch, the demand for NT was almost totally inelastic – Not There, Nice Try, WNT is VMS + 1 etc. We could not give the stuff away in the first year. Customers were telling us that they would never leave Novell Netware. Never. But, NT got better from release to release and the big Microsoft marketing machine got behind the product. After two years of struggle and selling retail boxes and MLP for NT, demand picked up. Realizing that there IS price elasticity of demand for software – Microsoft dropped retail packaging and moved to OEM licensing, initially distributing OEM licenses via their two tier distribution channel and later totally cutting out the channel and dealing directly with the computer vendors like HP, Dell and IBM for OEM licenses of NT, XP and 2000, 2003 etc. Vista continued with this marketing strategy and most Vista sales were not retail boxes but pre-installed hardware. After Windows 7 released – users have been upgrading en-masse, proving once again the elasticity of demand for a good product.

Microsoft (who are a major stakeholder in BSA) probably don’t have a major piracy problem with operating system sales. Let’s run some numbers. In 2008 –  Microsoft Windows Vista sales were at about a 9 million unit/quarter run rate. Microsoft June 2008 quarterly revenue was $15.8 BN. Single unit OEM pricing for a Windows operating system  is about $80 and in a volume deal – maybe $20. Let’s assume an average of $50/OEM license. This means that the operating system  accounts for about 50*3*9/15800 = 8.5% of Microsoft revenue.

The BSA Global Piracy Study states that the “median piracy rate in is down one percentage point from last year” – 1 percent of 8.5 percent is meaningless for Microsoft – in dollar terms – BSA work to reduce piracy is less meaningful than a 7 percent drop in the US Dollar rate in 2009.

Microsoft might have a problem with their cash cow – Microsoft Office. Microsoft Office 2007 retails for $450 but is available in an academic license for less than $100. Open Office 2.4 runs just fine on Windows 7 and XP and retails for $0. At those prices, sizable numbers of users are just sliding down the elasticity curve – calling into serious question the IDC/BSA statistics on software piracy.

But there is more to software piracy than providing software at a reasonable price. In poor areas of the world – assuming that the BSA efforts at combating software piracy are successful - only the very rich would have access to applications like Microsoft Office. The middle and lower class people won’t have the opportunity to become MS Office-literate because the prices would be too high. For that I only have three words -download Open Office – the free and open productivity suite.

Finally – I can only anonymously quote a senior Microsoft executive who told me a number of years ago that off the record, Microsoft didn’t mind people copying the software and using a crack because it was a good way of introducing new users to the technology and inducing them to buy the new, improved and supported release a year or two later.

Best practices for data security are still evolving – as there are no industry-standard data security metrics and a confusing array of regulatory compliance and industry standards – PCI DSS 1.2, Sarbanes-Oxley, FISMA, ISO2700x – just to name a few.

Organizations (government included) currently use a combination of tactics – penetration testing, vulnerability analysis (usually at the network and sometimes at the application software layer), “fire and forget” compliance exercises and technology countermeasures such as IPS/IDS, network DLP, agent DLP, database firewalls, encryption on demand, Web application firewalls.

The one countermeasure I have never seen is standardized screening.  Borrowing an approach from health-care, consider the following:

Standardized screening for suicide risk in primary care can detect adolescents with suicidal ideation, allowing referral to a behavioral healthcare center before a fatal or serious suicide attempt is made, according to the results of a study reported online April 12 and published in the May print issue of Pediatrics.

“Several associations and federal agencies have called for depression screening in pediatric primary care,” writes Matthew B. Wintersteen, PhD, from Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “Screening for suicide risk is a natural adjunct to this call….To our knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively examine the impact of standardized screening for suicide risk on detection and referral rates in pediatric primary care.”

The goals of the study were to evaluate whether brief standardized screening for suicide risk in pediatric primary care practices could improve detection of youth with suicidal ideation, maintain improved rates of detection and referral, and be duplicated in other practices.

It seems to me that duplicating brief standardized screening to data security practice is eminently possible.   A possible approach would involve using a standard threat model based on a comprehensive set of security controls – (ISO 27001 would work fine for this purpose).  The process would start with a pre-screening preparation exercise that an organization could do in the office in 1-2 hours.   After the preparation exercise, a group of 3-5 people from a business unit would meet with a data security specialist for the standardized screening that would walk through the threat model and gauge probability of occurrence of vulnerabilities and  percent damage to assets by threats.  Based on my experience, this sort of walk-through would take 2-3 hours using the structured threat model.  The result of the threat analysis would be a level of value at risk to the organization for data security and indeed a 1/2 day qualifies as brief enough.

One of the famous canons in the Jewish Passover “seder” ritual is 4 questions from 4 sons – the son who is wise, the son who is wicked, the son who is innocent and the son who doesn’t know enough to ask.

I sometimes have this feeling of Deja vu when considering data security technology solutions. Although the analogy is not at all parallel – I have written a list of 4 questions to be asked when considering a DLP solution – these questions require clear, authoritative answers just like in the Passover seder (להבדיל).

1. What is the key threat scenario?
2. How much Value at Risk is on the table?
3. Who owns the project?
4. Does the DLP technology fit the threat scenario?

1 – What is the key threat scenario?

Here are some typical threat scenarios – the key threat scenario should keep a C-level executive awake at night.

See http://www.software.co.il/wordpress/2010/02/is-there-a-business-need-for-dlp/

2 – What is your value at risk?

Once you have identified the key threat scenario, you must know how much value at risk is generated when a threat exploits vulnerabilities to cause damage to assets. The basis for measuring VaR (value at risk) is the asset value (generally determined by the CFO) -

VaR = asset value x threat probability x estimated damage to asset value in a percentage

The VaR is reduced by a set of security countermeasures that also have a cost. VaR is best calculated in a data security based risk assessment that uses DLP technology to measure frequencies of threat occurrence and a calculative threat model to derive VaR.

Most companies are not at a sufficient level of security maturity to do this exercise themselves – and will need an independent consultant with specific data security expertise and the ability to do analytical threat modeling.

Within a couple weeks, you should be able to get a picture of your current data security events, know your data value at risk in Euro and build a prioritized program for cost-effective DLP countermeasures.

See http://www.software.co.il/wordpress/2010/01/building-a-business-case-for-dlp/

3 – Who owns the project?

Beware of organizational politics and silos and conflicting agendas.  Need I say more?

4 – Does the DLP technology fit the threat scenario?

Just because the vendor sold you an anti-virus product doesn’t mean that his DLP technology is a good fit (even if it’s free)

Example A:  A network DLP solution may be required with 1GB throughput, if the technology saturates at 200MB/S then the solution is not a good fit.

Example B:  An agent DLP solution may be required that is capable of identifying IP in AutoCAD files; if the content analysis software is incapable of decoding AutoCAD, then the countermeasure does not mitigate the vulnerability.

Most people tend to view content protection as a recording industry or corporate espionage  issue.   We have forgotten that people who plagiarize original content are also violating content security – someone else’s security in this case.

My colleague Anthony Freed (who runs Information Security Resources) recently got an email from computer scientist and mathematician, Aaron Krowne.  Aaron got plagiarized by no less than the the NY Times. The original story that Aaron reported is here – NY Times Caught Lifting Implode-O-Meter, Other Online Pubs’ Material

With Aaron’s kind permission, I’ve decided to republish  the original article verbatim as a public service to my data security clients in the tech, bio-pharma and telecom industries – because it could happen to you also. Paraphrasing and proper citations are the kind of thing they teach you in elementary school and this is a blunt reminder to remember what Ms. Bates, your third grade teacher taught you.

We knew it was happening, but it looks like it was more extensive and systematic than we first thought:

How long did New York Times editors know of Kouwe’s story copying?

Shockingly, Kouwe wrote the below, justifying his plagiarism and failures to attribute (my bold, and comments in italics):

To be able to do something before it exists,
sense before it becomes active,
and see before it sprouts.

The Book of Balance and Harmony

(Chung-ho chi).
A medieval Taoist book

Will security vendors, large to small  (Symantec, Mcafee, nexTier, ANBsys and others..) succeed in restoring balance and harmony to their customers by relabeling their product suites as unified content security (Websense) or enterprise information protection (Verdasys)?

I don’t think so.

Unfortunately – data security is not an enterprise suite kind of problem like ERP. You don’t have harmony, synergy and control over business process; you have orthogonal attack vectors:

• Human error – cc’ing a supplier by mistake on a classified RFP document
• System vulnerabilities – Production servers with anonymous file transfer protocol (FTP) turned on
• Criminal activity – Break-ins, bribes and double agents (workers who spy for other groups or companies)
• Industrial competition/breach of non-disclosure agreements – the actuary who went to work for the competition

After 5 years of hype, most  customers have a high awareness of DLP products but fewer (especially outside the US) are buying DLP technologies  and even fewer are succeeding with their DLP implementations. This stems from the customer and vendors’ inability to answer two simple questions:

1. Who is the buyer?
2. What is her motivation to protect information?

A common question I hear from my clients, is, “Who should ‘own’ data security technology?” Is it the vice president, internal auditor, chief financial officer, CIO or CSO, our security consultants or our IT outsourcing vendor; IBM Global Services?

If there is no clear business need for information protection (the kind that a CEO can enunciate in a  sentence) – the company is not going to buy DLP technology.

The business need for data security derives directly from  the CEO and his management team. In firms with outsourced IT infrastructure, the need for data security becomes more acute as more people are involved with less allegiance to the firm.

To help qualify an organization’s business need for DLP technology, let’s examine the decision drivers, or what compels companies to buy data security products, and the decision-makers, or those who sign off on the products. Let’s look at seven industries: banking, credit card issuing, insurance, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, health care and technology.

INDUSTRY	TYPICAL DATA SECURITY DRIVERS	DECISION – MAKERS
BANKING	A real event, such as theft of confidential customer account information by trusted insiders Privacy regulations such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, HIPAA The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, for transparency and timeliness in reporting of significant events	CSO or CIO
CREDIT CARD ISSUERS	Ongoing theft of customer transactional information by customer service reps Data breach threat to credit card numbers that haven’t yet been printed on plastic cards and issued to card holders Privacy regulations, Sarbanes-Oxley , nondisclosure agreements with business partners	The security officer or information security officer (many issuers have separate functions for physical and information security)
INSURANCE	A real event, such as theft of customer lists by competitors Fear of losing actuarial data Exposure to data leakage of credit card numbers in online systems	General counsel, VP of internal audit, CFO
PHARMACEUTICALS	Theft of chemistry, manufacturing and control information, product formulation and genome data by trusted insiders Difficulty in preserving secrecy of sensitive intellectual property prior to patent filings Sensitivity of company records during due diligence processes	General counsel, CFO, chief compliance officer
TELECOM/ONLINE BUSINESS (Telecom service providers and large online operations such as Yahoo collect and aggregate huge quantities of data, and the higher up the value chain you go with data aggregation, the more valuable and vulnerable the asset.)	Prepaid code files Pricing data Strategic marketing plans Call detail records (analogous to credit card transaction records, these are extrusions by customer service representatives to private investigators and difficult to detect) Customer credit card records	VP of internal audit, VP of technologies
HEALTH CARE	Privacy regulations/HIPAA Need to protect pricing data of drugs and supplies purchased by the health care organization	CSO, VP of internal audit
TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES	Theft of: Source code Designs, pictures and plans of proprietary equipment Strategic marketing plans	CEO, CTO

Compliance is about enforcing business process – for example, PCI DSS is about getting the transaction authorized without getting the data stolen. SOX is about sufficiency of internal controls for financial reporting and HIPAA is about being able to disclose PHI to patients without leaks to unauthorized parties.

So where and how does DLP fit into the compliance equation?

Let’s start with COSO recommendations for internal controls:

“If the internal control system is implemented only to prevent fraud and comply with laws and regulations, then an important opportunity is missed…The same internal controls can also be used to systematically improve businesses, particularly in regard to effectiveness and efficiency.”