Jan 30 2012
We spend a lot of time talking about what to do to prevent a breach of networks or computer systems. This discussion has been, and continues to be, very valuable. It is discussions like this that have allowed the payments industry to develop solutions like ProtectPay, ProPay’s secure payment solution. ProtectPay, for instance, allows merchants to accept payment card transactions without storing, processing, or transmitting payment card data. The benefit of such a system is tremendous. Not only does it allow companies to significantly reduce the costs and resources necessary to achieve PCI DSS compliance, but it also reduces the risk associated with a breach. If a merchant using a properly configured tokenization solution is breached, there is no data there to be stolen. The merchant has only value-less tokens, not valuable cardholder data. Unfortunately, tokenization isn’t yet universally employed. That means that there are quite a few merchants operating today that still have cardholder data in their systems. And while the conversation about preventing a data compromise is important, an important question still remains: What happens after the breach?
Experian and the Ponemon Institute teamed to answer that question. The results can be found in “The Aftermath of a Data Breach.” (Registration is required to download the study.) Of the companies studied, 45% indicated that the company lost bank or credit card information, and 60% of respondents indicated that the data that was stolen was unencrypted. Additionally, the study found that 34% of breaches studies were the result of a “negligent insider.” This seems to support the notion of using a tokenization solution. It should be noted that 19% of responding companies suggested that “outsourcing data” was the cause of their breach. Most tokenization solutions do require the outsourcing of data, so how can these two findings be reconciled? There are two important concepts that readers should keep in mind. The first are the statistics and the second is due diligence.
The statistics are interesting. The findings tell us that 60% of respondents lost unencrypted data. That likely means that at least some of the outsourced providers that were cited as a cause of the breach were not securely storing the data. Another interesting finding is that a full 50% of breaches were caused by insiders (negligent insiders 34% and malicious insiders 16%). The other concept that one should keep in mind when reading the study is the concept of due diligence. Outsourcing data is a big decision for any company. It is advisable to do a significant amount of research into the potential vendor. For example in the payments industry, companies that store, process or transmit cardholder data on behalf of a merchant is called a service provider or a data storage entity. Regardless of the terminology, the company must be compliant with the PCI DSS and be registered with the card brands. Ensuring that potential partners meet these requirements can substantially mitigate potential risk on behalf of the merchant.
The study is a very interesting read and has important lessons for those companies that store sensitive data. Perhaps the most important lesson is this: If you don’t need the data, don’t store it!
Dr. Heather Mark, PhD; Sr. Vice President Market Strategy
No Responses to “ After the Breach? ”
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.