Connect with us

Top Stories

Using Packet-based NPMD Tools to Prepare for GDPR Breach Reporting

Published

on

Using Packet-based NPMD Tools to Prepare for GDPR Breach Reporting

The new GDPR regulations present a number of challenges to the IT and security teams of any enterprise doing business in the EU. One challenge that will be particularly difficult to meet is the need to quickly notify regulatory authorities of a data breach. The language of Article 33 states that companies must inform the authorities “without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after becoming aware of it.” This is made even more challenging since the accompanying report must provide very specific information about who and what was affected, specifying:

  • the nature of the personal data breach;
  • the likely consequences of the personal data breach;
  • the measures taken or proposed to be taken by the controller to address the personal data breach.

The GDPR regulations recognize that not all breaches cause the same amount of damage, so they only require notification of authorities “when the personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons.” This turns out not to significantly limit the reporting requirement, however, because of its very broad definition of personal data. Other landmark personal data protection laws—suchas California’s Data Protection Act of 2003—specified the kinds of data that would lead to identity theft, i.e. a driver license, social security number, mother’s maiden name, etc. However, GDPR includes any information that results in risks to “rights and freedoms” which includes risk of embarrassment, harassment, and physical threats, so breaches of data types such as email, images, geo-location, social media or chat apps must be included.

Breach Detection and Remediation

 The 72-hour breach reporting requirement mentioned above is at odds with the current reality of cyber-forensic investigations. A SANS report (Cleaning Up After a Breach) revealed that 75 percent of breaches take anywhere from several weeks to over a year to remediate, far longer than the 72 hours required under GDPR.

The good news is that the reason most breach remediations take so long is that organizations focus almost exclusively on preventing intrusions and are almost wholly unprepared to investigate a breach should one occur. Some view breach preparation as admission that their prevention strategy is inadequate, a nonsensical argument at best. Compounding the issue is the belief by many organizations that they retain sufficient data for effective investigations, and by the time they learn differently, it is too late.

So why is this lack of preparation good news? Because effective preparation for rapid breach investigations is entirely possible and can be addressed with current technology and practices. It is worth noting that some of this preparation is most effectively undertaken with tools designed for Network Performance Management and Diagnostics (NPMD). These products are designed to capture network traffic in a manner that makes possible rapid forensic investigations into elusive network performance issues. The data the NPMD tools capture and the analytics they apply can be a vital component of forensic investigations into breaches. 

Forensic Investigations into Breaches

 In a large percentage of breaches, the attacker is still active in the breached systems. Once breached, a high priority is determining whether there is unwanted activity right now. Although tools that can assist in making this determination are outside the scope of this paper, it is another area where NPMD monitoring tools have a vital role to play.

Simultaneous with the determination of current activity and often extended long after it has been completed, a forensic investigation is undertaken to determine what was affected and how it happened. This forensic investigation, which not incidentally also produces the information required by a GDPR breach report, will likely require information from four different domains: the network traffic information, the activity logs of each computer, server, and router on the network, the behaviors of users in the organization, and lastly some information about what is stored in the memory (RAM, Flash, etc.) of each computer.

If any of these four types of information is missing, it must be recreated, if it can be; a lengthy and expensive process. Even if it is available in a general way, it must be specifically available for the period under investigation. This “investigation window” varies by type of information.

One of the most important, and certainly the most definitive source of information, is packet-level network traffic data. While much of the compromised personal data itself might be found in backups of the relevant databases, packet-level network traffic data contains the transaction information revealing how data was entered or deleted, which programs or individuals could access it, which other hosts on the network or in the broader internet could view or copy the information, and how the intrusion was conveyed and disguised.

There really is no substitute. Many breached organizations have found out only too late, to their chagrin, that the first thing malware authors do is cover their tracks by changing log data, eliminating transaction records, and generally making metadata less or not at all useful to forensic investigations. Packet-level network traffic is generally stored in a write-once-then-overwrite manner not susceptible to this kind of manipulation.

It is in this packet-level network traffic that malware is conveyed, and breached data exfiltrated. This traffic contains the fingerprints of source and origin in a manner that is difficult to disguise or manipulate. It provides the cloak under which the cybercriminal hides their malicious software.Having ready access to stored packet-level network traffic, together with the appropriate tools, processes, and personnel provides an opportunity for rapid and effective network investigations.

Retaining Packet-level Network Traffic Data

Retaining packet-level network traffic data negates the need to start recording network traffic as soon as awareness of a breach occurs. The purpose of capturing network traffic is to have original information: exact duplicates of the packets that conveyed the original intrusion, the installation, migration, and management of the malware, and the exfiltration of the company data. If these activities occur during the retention window for network traffic, then all that is required is forensic analysis software. If not, the insights that would have resulted from the missing data must be inferred, if they even can be, from other data sources.

There are many NPMD tools on the market for capturing and storing packet-level network traffic data. The challenge is that files of these transactions can become very large and are often only retained for a fairly short period, sometimes just hours or days. There are ways to reduce the amount of packet-level traffic to be stored for any given time period, but there is always a danger that the cybercriminal, in a bid to disguise their malware, will make it appear innocuous, just the kind of traffic most likely to be filtered out.

Determining the desired retention window is an important first step. NPMD vendors are, of course, happy to help you determine how to meet your requirements. Then you must determine how you will use the network traffic you’ve started to store.

Other Preparations for Breach Investigations

GDPR’s rapid breach reporting requirement implies more than just storing more data and better forensic analysis tools. In order to use these tools and information, the organization must have the trained personnel and operational procedures in place to provide these rapid answers. Today, many organizations rely upon external, skilled contract investigators to perform forensic investigations when required, often on an ad-hoc basis. While this is currently the most cost-effective way to deal with what are, hopefully, rare occurrences, the data required for the breach investigations must already be available for the investigation to be effective and definitive.

After the Breach

In the event of a breach, information from each of the four domains—if available—will need to be assembled and cross-correlated to build up a complete picture of the attack. Once all the pieces of the cyber puzzle are assembled, it will become easier to assess the damage in terms of compromised personal information as well as the steps necessary to correct the deficiencies that enabled the attack.

As the dust settles and the full extent of each breach is determined, the final actions and next steps need to be assessed without ambiguity. “Does the extent of the breach require that we notify our customers?” “Where was the vulnerability in our network and what are we doing to correct it?” “What expenses are we going to incur through possible litigation or other remediation going forward?” While GDPR provides a framework of requirements intended to protect the private information of consumers, simply adhering to its prescriptions is not enough. Once a breach occurs, an organization’s most important goal is to protect its relationship with the customer. While the penalties outlined in GDPR are intended to be punitive, they will pale beside the damage to a company abandoned by its customers.

Conclusion

Every organization must have an already-established response plan to meet the stringent time requirements of GDPR. The significant financial penalties levied on organizations that do not comply with these reporting requirements make this a C-suite issue.

Effective breach preparation requires storing the information required for forensic investigations, and this means packet-level network traffic, not just log data. Without information about what packets were flowing through the network, what applications were manipulating and storing information, and what users had been doing with that information, it will be impossible for investigators to answer even the most basic questions about the extent or impact of the breach at all, much less within a 72-hour window.

Meeting the requirements of GDPR can reduce corporate risk in the event of a data breach, and NPMD products can help meet those requirements. Every organization should include preparation for breach remediation in their cybersecurity strategy.

Top Stories

Sunak to use budget to expand apprenticeships in England

Published

on

Sunak to use budget to expand apprenticeships in England 1

LONDON (Reuters) – British finance minister Rishi Sunak will announce more funding for apprenticeships in England when he unveils his budget next week, the government said on Friday.

Employers taking part in the Apprenticeship Initiative Scheme will from April 1 receive 3,000 pounds ($4,179) for each apprentice hired, regardless of age – an increase on current grants of between 1,500 and 2,000 pounds depending on age.

The scheme will extended by six months until the end of September, the finance ministry said.

Sunak will also announce an extra 126 million pounds for traineeships for up to 43,000 placements.

Sunak’s March 3 budget will likely include a new round of spending to prop up the economy during what he hopes will be the last phase of lockdown, but he will also probably signal tax rises ahead to plug the huge hole in the public finances.

Sunak is also expected to announce a “flexi-job” apprenticeship scheme, whereby apprentices can join an agency and work for multiple employers in one sector, the finance ministry said.

“We know there’s more to do and it’s vital this continues throughout the next stage of our recovery, which is why I’m boosting support for these programmes, helping jobseekers and employers alike,” Sunak said in a statement.

(Reporting by Andy Bruce, editing by David Milliken)

Continue Reading

Top Stories

UK seeks G7 consensus on digital competition after Facebook blackout

Published

on

UK seeks G7 consensus on digital competition after Facebook blackout 2

LONDON (Reuters) – Britain is seeking to build a consensus among G7 nations on how to stop large technology companies exploiting their dominance, warning that there can be no repeat of Facebook’s one-week media blackout in Australia.

Facebook’s row with the Australian government over payment for local news, although now resolved, has increased international focus on the power wielded by tech corporations.

“We will hold these companies to account and bridge the gap between what they say they do and what happens in practice,” Britain’s digital minister Oliver Dowden said on Friday.

“We will prevent these firms from exploiting their dominance to the detriment of people and the businesses that rely on them.”

Dowden said recent events had strengthened his view that digital markets did not currently function properly.

He spoke after a meeting with Facebook’s Vice-President for Global Affairs, Nick Clegg, a former British deputy prime minister.

“I put these concerns to Facebook and set out our interest in levelling the playing field to enable proper commercial relationships to be formed. We must avoid such nuclear options being taken again,” Dowden said in a statement.

Facebook said in a statement that the call had been constructive, and that it had already struck commercial deals with most major publishers in Britain.

“Nick strongly agreed with the Secretary of State’s (Dowden’s) assertion that the government’s general preference is for companies to enter freely into proper commercial relationships with each other,” a Facebook spokesman said.

Britain will host a meeting of G7 leaders in June.

It is seeking to build consensus there for coordinated action toward “promoting competitive, innovative digital markets while protecting the free speech and journalism that underpin our democracy and precious liberties,” Dowden said.

The G7 comprises the United States, Japan, Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Canada, but Australia has also been invited.

Britain is working on a new competition regime aimed at giving consumers more control over their data, and introducing legislation that could regulate social media platforms to prevent the spread of illegal or extremist content and bullying.

(Reporting by William James; Editing by Gareth Jones and John Stonestreet)

 

Continue Reading

Top Stories

Britain to offer fast-track visas to bolster fintechs after Brexit

Published

on

Britain to offer fast-track visas to bolster fintechs after Brexit 3

By Huw Jones

LONDON (Reuters) – Britain said on Friday it would offer a fast-track visa scheme for jobs at high-growth companies after a government-backed review warned that financial technology firms will struggle with Brexit and tougher competition for global talent.

Finance minister Rishi Sunak said that now Britain has left the European Union, it wants to make sure its immigration system helps businesses attract the best hires.

“This new fast-track scale-up stream will make it easier for fintech firms to recruit innovators and job creators, who will help them grow,” Sunak said in a statement.

Over 40% of fintech staff in Britain come from overseas, and the new visa scheme, open to migrants with job offers at high-growth firms that are scaling up, will start in March 2022.

Brexit cut fintechs’ access to the EU single market and made it far harder to employ staff from the bloc, leaving Britain less attractive for the industry.

The review published on Friday and headed by Ron Kalifa, former CEO of payments fintech Worldpay, set out a “strategy and delivery model” that also includes a new 1 billion pound ($1.39 billion) start-up fund.

“It’s about underpinning financial services and our place in the world, and bringing innovation into mainstream banking,” Kalifa told Reuters.

Britain has a 10% share of the global fintech market, generating 11 billion pounds ($15.6 billion) in revenue.

The review said Brexit, heavy investment in fintech by Australia, Canada and Singapore, and the need to be nimbler as COVID-19 accelerates digitalisation of finance, all mean the sector’s future in Britain is not assured.

It also recommends more flexible listing rules for fintechs to catch up with New York.

“We recognise the need to make the UK attractive a more attractive location for IPOs,” said Britain’s financial services minister John Glen, adding that a separate review on listings rules would be published shortly.

“Those findings, along with Ron’s report today, should provide an excellent evidence base for further reform.”

SCALING UP

Britain pioneered “sandboxes” to allow fintechs to test products on real consumers under supervision, and the review says regulators should move to the next stage and set up “scale-boxes” to help fintechs navigate red tape to grow.

“It’s a question of knowing who to call when there’s a problem,” said Kay Swinburne, vice chair of financial services at consultants KPMG and a contributor to the review.

A UK fintech wanting to serve EU clients would have to open a hub in the bloc, an expensive undertaking for a start-up.

“Leaving the EU and access to the single market going away is a big deal, so the UK has to do something significant to make fintechs stay here,” Swinburne said.

The review seeks to join the dots on fintech policy across government departments and regulators, and marshal private sector efforts under a new Centre for Finance, Innovation and Technology (CFIT).

“There is no framework but bits of individual policies, and nowhere does it come together,” said Rachel Kent, a lawyer at Hogan Lovells and contributor to the review.

($1 = 0.7064 pounds)

(Reporting by Huw Jones; editing by Jane Merriman and John Stonestreet)

 

Continue Reading
Editorial & Advertiser disclosureOur website provides you with information, news, press releases, Opinion and advertorials on various financial products and services. This is not to be considered as financial advice and should be considered only for information purposes. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any information provided with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek Professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. We link to various third party websites, affiliate sales networks, and may link to our advertising partners websites. Though we are tied up with various advertising and affiliate networks, this does not affect our analysis or opinion. When you view or click on certain links available on our articles, our partners may compensate us for displaying the content to you, or make a purchase or fill a form. This will not incur any additional charges to you. To make things simpler for you to identity or distinguish sponsored articles or links, you may consider all articles or links hosted on our site as a partner endorsed link.

Call For Entries

Global Banking and Finance Review Awards Nominations 2021
2021 Awards now open. Click Here to Nominate

Latest Articles

Newsletters with Secrets & Analysis. Subscribe Now