Category Archives: Access Control

Regulating the Financial Data Breach

During several years of my early career, I was employed as a Manager of Operations Research by a mid-sized bank holding company. My small staff and I would endlessly discuss issues related to fraud prevention and develop techniques to keep our customer’s checking and savings accounts safe, secure and private. A never ending battle!

It was a simpler time back then technically but since a large proportion of fraud committed against banks and financial institutions today still involves the illegal use of stolen customer or bank data, some of the newest and most important laws and regulations that management assurance professionals, like CFEs, must be aware of in our practice, and with which our client banks must comply, relate to the safeguarding of confidential data both from internal theft and from breaches of the bank’s information security defenses by outside criminals.

As the ACFE tells us, there is no silver bullet for fully protecting any organization from the ever growing threat of information theft. Yet full implementation of the measures specified by required provisions of now in place federal banking regulators can at least lower the risk of a costly breach occurring. This is particularly true since the size of recent data breaches across all industries have forced Federal enforcement agencies to become increasingly active in monitoring compliance with the critical rules governing the safeguarding of customer credit card data, bank account information, Social Security numbers, and other personal identifying information. Among these key rules are the Federal Reserve Board’s Interagency Guidelines Establishing Information Security Standards, which define customer information as any record containing nonpublic personal information about an individual who has obtained a financial product or service from an institution that is to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and who has an ongoing relationship with the institution.

Its important to realize that, under the Interagency Guidelines, customer information refers not only to information pertaining to people who do business with the bank (i.e., consumers); it also encompasses, for example, information about (1) an individual who applies for but does not obtain a loan; (2) an individual who guarantees a loan; (3) an employee; or (4) a prospective employee. A financial institution must also require, by contract, its own service providers who have access to consumer information to develop appropriate measures for the proper disposal of the information.

The FRB’s Guidelines are to a large extent drawn from the information protection provisions of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act (GLBA) of 1999, which repealed the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that substantially restricted banking activities. However, GLBA is best known for its formalization of legal standards for the protection of private customer information and for rules and requirements for organizations to safeguard such information. Since its enactment, numerous additional rules and standards have been put into place to fine-tune the measures that banks and other organizations must take to protect consumers from the identity-related crimes to which information theft inevitably leads.

Among GLBA’s most important information security provisions affecting financial institutions is the so-called Financial Privacy Rule. It requires banks to provide consumers with a privacy notice at the time the consumer relationship is established and every year thereafter.

The notice must provide details collected about the consumer, where that information is shared, how that information is used, and how it is protected. Each time the privacy notice is renewed, the consumer must be given the choice to opt out of the organization’s right to share the information with third-party entities. That means that if bank customers do not want their information sold to another company, which will in all likelihood use it for marketing purposes, they must indicate that preference to the financial institution.

CFEs should note , that most pro-privacy advocacy groups strongly object to this and other privacy related elements of GLBA because, in their view, these provisions do not provide substantive protection of consumer privacy. One major advocacy group has stated that GLBA does not protect consumers because it unfairly places the burden on the individual to protect privacy with an opt-out standard. By placing the burden on the customer to protect his or her data, GLBA weakens customer power to control their financial information. The agreement’s opt-out provisions do not require institutions to provide a standard of protection for their customers regardless of whether they opt-out of the agreement. This provision is based on the assumption that financial companies will share information unless expressly told not to do so by their customers and, if customers neglect to respond, it gives institutions the freedom to disclose customer nonpublic personal information.

CFEs need to be aware, however, that for bank clients, regardless of how effective, or not, GLBA may be in protecting customer information, noncompliance with the Act itself is not an option. Because of the current explosion in breaches of bank information security systems, the privacy issue has to some degree been overshadowed by the urgency to physically protect customer data; for that reason, compliance with the Interagency Guidelines concerning information security is more critical than ever. The basic elements partially overlap with the preventive measures against internal bank employee abuse of the bank’s computer systems. However, they go quite a bit further by requiring banks to:

—Design an information security program to control the risks identified through a security risk assessment, commensurate with the sensitivity of the information and the complexity and scope of its activities.
—Evaluate a variety of policies, procedures, and technical controls and adopt those measures that are found to most effectively minimize the identified risks.
—Application and enforcement of access controls on customer information systems, including controls to authenticate and permit access only to authorized individuals and to prevent employees from providing customer information to unauthorized individuals who may seek to obtain this information through fraudulent means.
—Access restrictions at physical locations containing customer information, such as buildings, computer facilities, and records storage facilities to permit access only to authorized individuals.
—Encryption of electronic customer information, including while in transit or in storage on networks or systems to which unauthorized individuals may gain access.
—Procedures designed to ensure that customer information system modifications are consistent with the institution’s information security program.
—Dual control procedures, segregation of duties, and employee background checks for employees with responsibilities for or access to customer information.
—Monitoring systems and procedures to detect actual and attempted attacks on or intrusions into customer information systems.
—Response programs that specify actions to be taken when the institution suspects or detects that unauthorized individuals have gained access to customer information systems, including appropriate reports to regulatory and law enforcement agencies.
—Measures to protect against destruction, loss, or damage of customer information due to potential environmental hazards, such as fire and water damage or technological failures.

The Interagency Guidelines require a financial institution to determine whether to adopt controls to authenticate and permit only authorized individuals access to certain forms of customer information. Under this control, a financial institution also should consider the need for a firewall to safeguard confidential electronic records. If the institution maintains Internet or other external connectivity, its systems may require multiple firewalls with adequate capacity, proper placement, and appropriate configurations.

Similarly, the institution must consider whether its risk assessment warrants encryption of electronic customer information. If it does, the institution must adopt necessary encryption measures that protect information in transit, in storage, or both. The Interagency Guidelines do not impose specific authentication or encryption standards, so it is advisable for CFEs to consult outside experts on the technical details applicable to your client institution’s security requirements especially when conducting after the fact fraud examinations.

The financial institution also must consider the use of an intrusion detection system to alert it to attacks on computer systems that store customer information. In assessing the need for such a system, the institution should evaluate the ability, or lack thereof, of its staff to rapidly and accurately identify an intrusion. It also should assess the damage that could occur between the time an intrusion occurs and the time the intrusion is recognized and action is taken.

The regulatory agencies have also provided our clients with requirements for responding to information breaches. These are contained in a related document entitled Interagency Guidance on Response Programs for Unauthorized Access to Customer Information and Customer Notice (Incident Response Guidance). According to the Incident Response Guidance, a financial institution should develop and implement a response program as part of its information security program. The response program should address unauthorized access to or use of customer information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to a customer.

Finally, the Interagency Guidelines require financial institutions to train staff to prepare and implement their information security programs. The institution should consider providing specialized training to ensure that personnel sufficiently protect customer information in accordance with its information security program.

For example, an institution should:

—Train staff to recognize and respond to schemes to commit fraud or identity theft, such as guarding against pretext spam calling.
—Provide staff members responsible for building or maintaining computer systems and local and wide area networks with adequate training, including instruction about computer security.
—Train staff to properly dispose of customer information.

From Inside the Building

By Rumbi Petrozzello, CFE, CPA/CFF
2017 Vice-President – Central Virginia Chapter ACFE

Several months ago, I attended an ACFE session where one of the speakers had worked on the investigation of Edward Snowden. He shared that one of the ways Snowden had gained access to some of the National Security Agency (NSA) data that he downloaded was through the inadvertent assistance of his supervisor. According to this investigator, Snowden’s supervisor shared his password with Snowden, giving Snowden access to information that was beyond his subordinate’s level of authorization. In addition to this, when those security personnel reviewing downloads made by employees noticed that Snowden was downloading copious amounts of data, they approached Snowden’s supervisor to question why this might be the case. The supervisor, while acknowledging this to be true, stated that Snowden wasn’t really doing anything untoward.

At another ACFE session, a speaker shared information with us about how Chelsea Manning was able to download and remove data from a secure government facility. Manning would come to work, wearing headphones, listening to music on a Discman. Security would hear the music blasting and scan the CDs. Day after day, it was the same scenario. Manning showed up to work, music blaring.  Security staff grew so accustomed to Manning, the Discman and her CDs that when she came to work though security with a blank CD boldly labelled “LADY GAGA”, security didn’t blink. They should have because it was that CD and ones like it that she later carried home from work that contained the data she eventually shared with WikiLeaks.

Both these high-profile disasters are notable examples of the bad outcome arising from a realized internal threat. Both Snowden and Manning worked for organizations that had, and have, more rigorous security procedures and policies in place than most entities. Yet, both Snowden and Manning did not need to perform any magic tricks to sneak data out of the secure sites where the target data was held; it seems that it all it took was audacity on the one side and trust and complacency on the other.

When organizations deal with outside parties, such as vendors and customers, they tend to spend a lot of time setting up the structures and systems that will guide how the organization will interact with those vendors and customers. Generally, companies will take these systems of control seriously, if only because of the problems they will have to deal with during annual external audits if they don’t. The typical new employee will spend a lot of time learning what the steps are from the point when a customer places an order through to the point the customer’s payment is received. There will be countless training manuals to which to refer and many a reminder from co-workers who may be negatively impacted if the rooky screws up.

However, this scenario tends not to hold up when it comes to how employees typically share information and interact with each other. This is true despite the elevated risk that a rogue insider represents. Often, when we think about an insider causing harm to a company through fraudulent acts, we tend to imagine a villain, someone we could identify easily because s/he is obviously a terrible person. After all, only a terrible person could defraud their employer. In fact, as the ACFE tells us, the most successful fraudsters are the ones who gain our trust and who, therefore, don’t really have to do too much for us to hand over the keys to the kingdom. As CFEs and Forensic Accountants, we need to help those we work with understand the risks that an insider threat can represent and how to mitigate that risk. It’s important, in advising our clients, to guide them toward the creation of preventative systems of policy and procedure that they sometimes tend to view as too onerous for their employees. Excuses I often hear run along the lines of:

• “Our employees are like family here, we don’t need to have all these rules and regulations”

• “I keep a close eye on things, so I don’t have to worry about all that”

• “My staff knows what they are supposed to do; don’t worry about it.”

Now, if people can easily walk sensitive information out of locations that have documented systems and are known to be high security operations, can you imagine what they can do at your client organizations? Especially if the employer is assuming that their employees magically know what they are supposed to do? This is the point that we should be driving home with our clients. We should look to address the fact that both trust and complacency in organizations can be problems as well as assets. It’s great to be able to trust employees, but we should also talk to our clients about the fraud triangle and how one aspect of it, pressure, can happen to any staff member, even the most trusted. With that in mind, it’s important to institute controls so that, should pressure arise with an employee, there will be little opportunity open to that employee to act. Both Manning and Snowden have publicly spoken about the pressures they felt that led them to act in the way they did. The reason we even know about them today is that they had the opportunity to act on those pressures. I’ve spent time consulting with large organizations, often for months at a time. During those times, I got to chat with many members of staff, including security. On a couple of occasions, I forgot and left my building pass at home. Even though I was on a first name basis with the security staff and had spent time chatting with them about our personal lives, they still asked me for identification and looked me up in the system. I’m sure they thought I was a nice and trustworthy enough person, but they knew to follow procedures and always checked on whether I was still authorized to access the building. The important point is that they, despite knowing me, knew to check and followed through.

Examples of controls employees should be reminded to follow are:

• Don’t share your password with a fellow employee. If that employee cannot access certain information with their own password, either they are not authorized to access that information or they should speak with an administrator to gain the desired access. Sharing a password seems like a quick and easy solution when under time pressures at work, but remind employees that when they share their login information, anything that goes awry will be attributed to them.

• Always follow procedures. Someone looking for an opportunity only needs one.

• When something looks amiss, thoroughly investigate it. Even if someone tells you that all is well, verify that this is indeed the case.

• Explain to staff and management why a specific control is in place and why it’s important. If they understand why they are doing something, they are more likely to see the control as useful and to apply it.

• Schedule training on a regular basis to remind staff of the controls in place and the systems they are to follow. You may believe that staff knows what they are supposed to do, but reminding them reduces the risk of them relying on hearsay and secondhand information. Management is often surprised by what they think staff knows and what they find out the staff really knows.

It should be clear to your clients that they have control over who has access to sensitive information and when and how it leaves their control. It doesn’t take much for an insider to gain access to this information. A face you see smiling at you daily is the face of a person you can grow comfortable with and with whom you can drop your guard. However, if you already have an adequate system and effective controls in place, you take the personal out of the equation and everyone understands that we are all just doing our job.