By Joseph Marks
Department of Homeland Security employees deliver supplies to Santa Ana community residents in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. (Carlos Giusti/AP)
It sets up a test for President Trump: The mishap — which occurred when FEMA improperly shared personal and banking data with a contractor that helped place disaster victims in hotels — marks the first significant data loss by a governemnt agency since a 2017 executive order in which Trump pledged to hold top government officials accountable for securing their data against breaches and improper disclosure. After all, the department's inspector general called the incident a “direct violation” of government data-handling rules. And FEMA itself admitted it was a “major privacy incident.”
And Congress is also seeking more information. The Senate Homeland Security Committee has requested a briefing from FEMA officials on the data loss, which included banking information of about 1.8 million victims, a committee spokesman told me. The House Homeland Security Committee is also considering a letter requesting more details about the incident, a spokesman said.
2.5 million disaster survivors had their addresses revealed.— House Homeland Security Committee (@HomelandDems) March 25, 2019
1.8 million of those survivors also had their banking information revealed.
As Chairman @BennieGThompson said, "This is unacceptable, and @fema must demonstrate it will do better in the future."https://t.co/19jEOyEUCs
“Anytime you have a potential exposure of people’s personal information it causes you to sit up straight and pay attention and certainly in this case, that’s very attention-getting,” Tony Scott, a former U.S. chief information officer, told me.
“I hope this serves as yet another wake-up call and helps agencies think about where they might have an exposure in a slightly different way than they were looking at it in the past,” said Scott, who is now a senior adviser with the Squire Patton Boggs law firm. “In this case it happens to be FEMA, but there are a lot of other cases where agencies are collecting data about people with health-care issues or financial difficulties or legal issues.”
The enormous compromise is a stark reminder that the government holds some of the most sensitive personal information out there -- but after years of effort, and dozens of high-profile incidents, it still isn't managing it securely.
It's true the FEMA incident, which was disclosed in an inspector’s general report Friday, differs from most major government data breaches, in which criminal hackers or nation-states cracked into government systems to steal data.
In this case, no one had to hack the data because FEMA shared it directly with its contractor. Yet that sort of data sharing failure is in line with a litany of recent incidents in which government agencies failed to properly manage where sensitive data was secured or who had access to it. That poor management can be just as damaging as a malicious breach if the data falls into the wrong hands, former officials told me.
In the FEMA case, the agency created a template for sharing information with contractors under its Transitional Sheltering Assistance program, but the agency never updated that template when requirements for the program changed, according to the inspector general’s report.
By the time of the 2017 natural disasters, the agency was passing along 20 unnecessary data fields about disaster victims, including the name of their financial institutions and their bank transit numbers.
Since identifying the data incident, FEMA has “taken aggressive measures to correct this error,” press secretary Lizzie Litzow said in a statement. That includes working with the contractor — which FEMA declined to name — to scrub all the improperly shared data from its systems, Litzow said.
The agency hasn’t found any evidence the data was compromised after it was sent to the contractor, Litzow said.
The White House did not respond to queries about the issue.
One major problem, Scott said, is that the government relies heavily on outdated computer systems that weren’t designed with privacy and security in mind.
“If you had to retrofit all of the safety things on a modern car onto a ’65 Mustang, it would be a bubble wrap and duct tape sort of exercise and it wouldn’t work very well,” he said. “The same is true for a lot of these legacy systems.”
If the government invested more money in updating its IT systems or moving more of them to third-party services in computer clouds, that would fix a lot of cybersecurity vulnerabilities, he said. It would also make it easier to put controls on how and when agencies can share certain sensitive data, he said.
When he was in the Obama administration, Scott led a governmentwide "cybersecurity sprint" after the 2015 Office of Personnel Management breach, which compromised sensitive security clearance information about more than 20 million current and former federal employees, and was widely viewed as an indictment of government's cybersecurity capabilities.
That sprint included mandating that agencies limit who had access to sensitive data and requiring those people to digitally verify their identities. But it didn't fix the inherent vulnerabilities created by outdated technology, he said.
Congress made some additional progress by passing the Modernizing Government Technology Act in 2017, which provided $500 million for IT upgrades, but that was just “a drop in the bucket” of what’s needed, Scott told me.
The government could also take a cue from industry, which is revising many of the ways it handles and processes sensitive data to comply with a strict new California data privacy law and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, Philip Reitinger, a former top Homeland Security Department cybersecurity official, told me.
“This isn’t about technical controls but human mistakes,” Reitinger said. “We need an overall approach that helps you not collect the data you don’t need and, if you do have sensitive data, to only share it when you really intend to.”
|You are reading The Cybersecurity 202, our must-read newsletter on cybersecurity policy news.|
|Not a regular subscriber?|
The inside of a computer with the ASUS logo. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)
The hackers, who aren’t identified in the report, appear to have been targeting only about 600 of those computers, according to reporter Kim Zetter, who broke the story on Motherboard. The attack lasted about five months. Once the backdoor was installed, the hackers — who Kaspersky dubbed ShadowHammer — had nearly unfettered ability to spy on the computers or to use them to infect other targets.
Kaspersky's findings were independently verified by Symantec.
Here’s more from Motherboard: “The issue highlights the growing threat from so-called supply-chain attacks, where malicious software or components get installed on systems as they’re manufactured or assembled, or afterward via trusted vendor channels. Last year the U.S. launched a supply chain task force to examine the issue after a number of supply-chain attacks were uncovered in recent years.”
“Although most attention on supply-chain attacks focuses on the potential for malicious implants to be added to hardware or software during manufacturing, vendor software updates are an ideal way for attackers to deliver malware to systems after they’re sold, because customers trust vendor updates, especially if they’re signed with a vendor’s legitimate digital certificate.”
Ironically, the U.S. government considers Kaspersky a supply chain vulnerability because of the company's links to the Kremlin and has banned it from U.S. government networks.
Here’s Zetter on Twitter with more of the backstory:
ASUS, one of world’s largest computer makers, installed backdoor on thousands of customer computers last yr after hackers compromised its software update tool. The file was signed w/ ASUS digital certificates to make it look like authentic software update. https://t.co/ni17IEN6Tq— Kim Zetter (@KimZetter) March 25, 2019
Exploiting trust in the supply chain led to a large scale compromise and follow-on focused exploitation.— Rob Joyce (@RGB_Lights) March 25, 2019
Understanding who to trust and how to know if that trust is compromised is getting harder.
Absent exploitable flaws, high end adversaries will try to introduce them. https://t.co/Vs7VWXTAoS
It doesn't poison the faith in the integrity of update mechanisms.— Robᵇᵉᵗᵒ Graham (@ErrataRob) March 25, 2019
Instead, it reveals the truth that update mechanisms don't have the integrity that we believed. https://t.co/iIgEdec7GV
Signage at the corporate headquarters of Equifax in Atlanta. (Mike Stewart/AP)
Those consumer reporting agencies “possess troves of highly sensitive personal information about nearly every American” and are prime targets for hacking, but they face no consumer pressure to ensure they’re adequately securing that data, according to a committee statement. The massive breach at the credit ratings agency Equifax is example No. 1, the committee said.
The hearing will also focus on a Government Accountability Office report that outlines actions needed to strengthen governemnt oversight on consumer reporting agencies released this morning.
Watch the hearing here.
A Swiss national flag waves in the wind. (Markus Schreiber/AP)
The discovery is likely to breed even more skepticism about the secure use of online voting systems, which some U.S. states use for military and overseas voters.
From Cyberscoop: “The vulnerability involves a problem with the implementation of a cryptographic protocol used to generate decryption proofs, a weakness that could be leveraged 'to change valid votes into nonsense that could not be counted,' researchers Sarah Jamie Lewis, Olivier Pereira and Vanessa Teague wrote in a paper published Monday.”
And from the researchers: “We are a small team of researchers investigating this code base for the first time, In a few weeks, and while spending a small fraction of our time on this investigation, we have found critical breaks...We only inspected a small fraction of this voting system, and we therefore have no reason to believe that it does not contain other critical issues.”
Cybersecurity news from the public sector:
Cybersecurity news from the private sector:
Source: The Washington Post