Are You Keeping Up?
“The way to keep up is to stay ahead.”
-Anonymous
by Dr. Glenn Gearhart, CEO
ACAP Security Inc.
July 2005
Coupling business and
technology is never easy
To be of maximum benefit to
the company, IT solutions must be assimilated into the company’s day-to-day
operations and long-term strategies.
Every business has problems. But
each business is unique and its problems are equally unique. In order to properly address and solve the
many challenges of communications and data base security will require a fine
balance, or point of equilibrium, between people, processes and
technology. This is ever more important
as companies seek solutions to the mandates of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
(GLBA) directs the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and other
federal banking agencies to review their regulations and guidelines to ensure
that banks and other financial institutions have updated policies, procedures
and controls to prevent unauthorized disclosure of customer financial
information and to deter and detect fraudulent access to confidential financial
and personal data. The GLBA applies to
not only banks, but also securities firms, insurance companies and all other
companies providing or receiving other types of consumer financial products,
services or data.
The GLBA, also known as the
Financial Modernization Act of 1999, has three principal parts to the privacy
requirements: the Financial Privacy
Rule, the Safeguards Rule and pretexting provisions. The Act gives authority to eight federal agencies to administer
and enforce the Financial Privacy and the Safeguards Rules. The Financial Privacy Rule governs the
collection and disclosure of customer personal financial information. The Safeguards Rule requires all financial
institutions to design, implement and maintain safeguards to protect customer
information. The Pretexting provisions
are designed to protect consumers from companies that obtain their personal
financial information under false pretenses.
The Situation Today…and
Tomorrow
Communication, data and
information security continues to operate in an increasingly difficult and
changing environment. Security threats
and techniques continue to increase each year at what many consider to be at an
alarming rate. An analysis by Carnegie
Mellon University indicates the number of security incidents increasing from a
reported 21,000 incidents in 2000 to over 137,500 incidents reported in
2003. The trend is expected to continue
at the same rate of increase. Companies
must find and implement ways to secure their information and data programs or
risk serious competitive disadvantage, possible legal and regulatory censure,
negative public relations publicity and significant dollar losses.
Additionally, according to
a recent SANS Institute study, more than 422 new Internet security
vulnerabilities were discovered during the second quarter of 2005. Companies that do not properly address these
new vulnerabilities will face a heightened threat that remote, unauthorized
hackers can penetrate their computers for identity theft, industrial espionage
and for distributing spam or worms.
A Closer Look at the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
is much more expansive than merely invoking tighter communication and data
security. Officially signed into law on
November 12, 1999, the Act was enacted as ‘financial services modernization’
legislation and goes beyond the well known security and privacy
regulations. The Act expands the
definition and powers of financial holding companies; further defines the roles
of the federal and state regulatory agencies; eliminates several ‘loopholes’ of
existing laws; modifies certain aspects of the Federal Home Loan Bank System;
addresses Automated Teller Machine (ATM) fees; and, finally, establishes broad
privacy and data security regulations.
The Act directs the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and other banking agencies to update their
regulations and audits to ensure that financial institutions have the
procedures and controls to prevent unauthorized disclosure of customer
financial information and to deter and detect fraudulent access to data and
information.
The FDIC Financial
Institution Letters (FIL)
The FDIC has issued two
Financial Institution Letters of interest and relevance to the GLBA. The FIL-39-2001 is ‘guidance on identity
theft and pretext calling’, and summarizes federal laws that pertain to
identity theft and pretext calling. The
FIL-66-2005 was issued by the FDIC on July 22, 2005, to financial institutions
recommending an effective spyware prevention and detection program based on an
institution’s risk profile. The Letter
discusses the risks associated with spyware from both a bank and from a
consumer perspective and provides recommendations to mitigate the risks.
Spyware refers to software
that collects information about a person or organization without their
knowledge or consent and reports the data back to the originator. The guidance of the FIL recommends practices
that banks should employ to prevent and detect spyware.
FIL-66 talks about the
immediate dangers represented by various forms of security vulnerabilities and
points out how identity theft, phishing scams, and other forms of security
breeches present significant confidentiality, integrity, availability, and
liability exposure for both the bank and the consumer. The FDIC issued FIL warns financial
institutions to seriously consider new and enhanced security strategies for
their information security programs and data management services.
“Investigating
the implementation of multi-factor authentication methods, which would limit
the ability of identity thieves to compromise customer accounts, even when a
thief has a customer’s password and account numbers.” -FIL-66-2005
The BSA brings in another
security issue associated with terrorist financing and money laundering. One of the prevailing responses to BSA
regulations and the FFIEC examinations associated with compliance is the concept
of—
Know thy customer:
“Management
should have a thorough understanding of the money laundering or terrorist
financing risks of the bank’s customer base.
Under this approach, the bank will obtain information at account opening
sufficient to develop an understanding of normal and expected activity for the
customer’s occupation or business operations.” - FFIEC, BANK SECRECY ACT/ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING EXAMINATION MANUAL,
Page 38, June 2005
To maintain compliance of
this FFEIC “Know thy Customer” requirement, it is not only a requirement that
the bank initially obtain information on a customer, but it is also necessary
for the bank to “Know with Certainty” that the party making online banking
transactions is “in fact” the true customer and not some fraudulent impostor.
In the payment transaction
environment, both the regulators and the public are beginning to suggest that
it may be necessary for the bank to “Know with Certainty” that the party who is
making an online purchase transaction is not some fraudulent imposter.
One Size Does Not Fit
All
Henry Ford, in referring to
his Ford motor cars, is quoted as saying, “You can have any color you’d like as
long as it’s black.” You can’t argue
with Mr. Ford’s success, but was he a man attuned to a changing market and an
ever expanding online commerce and banking marketplace? No.
The one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter approach will not work as banks
respond to the cyber-crime threats, FFIEC examination guidelines, and the FDIC
mandates.
A recent survey of U.S.
Internet users reported that over 60% of the survey respondents believed it to
be unacceptable for a bank to not respond to phishing schemes that use the
bank’s identity as the means of gaining the victim’s trust. Almost 96% of the respondents claimed that
banks need to use technology to provide protection to their banking customers.
Quick-fix and prepackaged
solutions are not the answer and only serve to compound the problems. While there are many good and talented
companies jockeying for position to offer a standard upon which companies can
build a secure network, most utilize expensive hardware and require dedicated
personnel to maintain and administer the programs. The optimum answer lies in programs that are relatively
inexpensive to implement and simple to administer so that you will be
positioned to react to today’s and tomorrow’s growing cyber-crime threats.
An Action Plan
In business, luck is the
“employee” that can’t be hired. You
can’t depend upon luck to get your company through the turmoil’s of the online
environment. The successful company
must have a strategic and associated action plan to counter the many threats
presented in the online commerce world.
Begin today to seek out and
select the best alternatives for securing your communications and data base
systems. Look for alternatives that
have a low cost and ease of implementation.
Look for alternatives that provide for multi-factor authentication. Look for alternatives that are available
today but can be customized for your particular situation.
Look for alternatives that
use new technology to provide you with an advantage over the threats of loss
from security vulnerabilities. The
attackers are getting more sophisticated and devious. New technology is the only means of “keeping up” and staying
ahead. In today’s IT environment, no
one can defeat a 2005 attacker with 1999 technology, and probably not even 2004
technology.
Compliance Budget Payoff
Technology can be a major
budget item in regulatory compliance.
Some report that up to 40% of their compliance budget is being spent on
technology. Committing those funds
wisely is important to assure an effective compliance payoff.
Access Control and User
Authentication
The Air Force recently
notified 33,000 personal, mostly officers, that a security breach exposed
personal data to an intruder. The Air Force explained a “malicious user” got
into a database by using “a legitimate user’s login information” to access
and/or download individuals’ personal information. This report is not an isolated event. These types of security breaches are occurring almost daily.
Improved online access
control and user authentication is one of the online operational elements which
provide security vulnerabilities. That
is why the FDIC recently issued FIL-66-2005. It is also one of the reasons the FFEIC just
issued the Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering Examination Manual.
One of the fundamental
responses to compliance with the Bank Security Act is to know your
customer. Whether the application is
“Know thy Customer” in an online banking transaction, or a “Know thy Customer”
in an online payment transaction, strong access control and user authentication
is now mandatory. It is also quite
clear that just a user name and password is rapidly becoming a weak link in the
security chain.
Access Control and
Authentication
One recent entry into
addressing the access control and authentication issue is ppn Technology™. This technology is unique in that it
provides the instant ability for any originating source to extend a secure
pipeline to anyone with a computer and Internet access. This secure pipeline
does not use the World Wide Web, the SSL infrastructure, or an Internet browser. By actively bypassing these established infrastructures, ppn
eliminates many potential security vulnerabilities.
Once the pipeline is
established, data can be transferred securely between the originating party and
any party attached to the ppn technology pipeline. To this secure pipeline one can add various types of access
controls and authentication technologies.
These may include user names and passwords, secure PIN pad entries,
finger print entries, many types of biometric sensors, special questions, etc.
This technology, available
commercially as “PIN-SECURE,” is unique because it allows the rapid creation
and termination of a secure network without new computer hardware or devices
and with little capital expenditure or manpower resources. It is easy to maintain and to train personal
in its usage. But maybe a more
important point is that it is rapidly deployable, works with any common
computer and operating system, and, most important, it is compliant with the
GLBA and the FIL-66 and FIL-103 requirements.
Need more be said?
By Glenn
Gearhart, CEO, ACAP Security Inc., a provider of higher level security solutions
to the financial industry. glenn@acapsecurity.com.
White
Paper: 072005 ACAP Security Inc.
Copyright 2005. ACAP Security Inc. all rights reserved.