Data Privacy & Security

CISA Discourages Use of App-Based, SMS and Voice MFAs and Encourages Phishing-Resistant MFAs

Kathie McDonald-McClure Cyber Security and Cyber Crime, Data Privacy & Security , , , , , , ,

Cyber Threat Actors Are Breaking the Security of Commonly Used MFAs

By: Kathie McDonald-McClure

A best practice in securing sensitive data is to deploy Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) to prevent access by unauthorized users to internet-connected sources for such data. MFA requires authorized users to present a combination of two or more different authenticators (something you know, you have, or you are) to verify identity prior to access. MFA makes it more difficult for unauthorized users to gain access to servers and applications. For example, if one factor, such as a PIN, becomes compromised, the unauthorized user cannot gain access if they do not have the second factor, such as a mobile token or fingerprint.

Cyber security experts recommend MFA for all internet-facing applications with access to sensitive information. Such applications include remote desktop, Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), email accounts, financial and accounting software, file sharing and document management platforms, CRM, just to name a few.

Demonstrated compromises in commonly used MFAs prompts CISA to issue guidance. On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released Guidance on Phishing-Resistant and Numbers Matching Multifactor Authentication. The CISA Guidance includes two Fact Sheets. One Fact Sheet, Implementing Phishing-Resistant MFA, describes the methods cyber threat actors are using to gain access to MFA credentials. These methods include phishing emails and malicious websites, MFA fatigue, exploitation of SS7 protocol vulnerabilities, and SIM swapping. This CISA Fact Sheet identifies App-Based MFA and SMS or Voice MFA as being particularly vulnerable to these methods of stealing MFA credentials.

CISA strongly encourages organizations currently using App-Based, SMS or Voice MFA to migrate to a Phishing-Resistant MFA for as many applications as is feasible. CISA indicates that the currently available Phishing-Resistant MFA options are limited to FIDO/WebAuthn (included in most major browsers) and the PKI-based MFA (smart cards used with SSO technologies). App-Based MFAs verify the identity of users either by generating a one-time password (OTP) or sending a “push” pop-up notification to the mobile application. SMS and Voice MFAs send a code to the user’s phone or email. The user then retrieves this second factor code from their text or email to use for login authentication. CISA says that SMS and Voice MFA should only be used as a last resort.

CISA acknowledges there are several stumbling blocks to the deployment of Phishing-Resistant MFAs. These include the lack of support for it in the organization’s existing systems and products, difficulty in deploying it to all staff members at once, and upper management concerns that users will resist the migration. Nevertheless, CISA recommends that the organization’s IT leadership prioritize the migration to Phishing-Resistant MFA in logical phases focusing on the technologies at highest risk, such as email systems, file servers, and remote access systems, and the users who are high-value targets, such as system administrators, attorneys, HR staff, and others with access to sensitive data.

What if your organization uses mobile push-notification based MFA and migration to Phishing-Resistant MFA is not feasible? CISA recommends using “number matching” in the MFA application to mitigate MFA fatigue. CISA says, “MFA fatigue, also known as ‘push bombing,’ occurs when a cyber threat actor bombards a user with mobile application push notifications until the user either approves the request by accident or out of annoyance with the nonstop notifications.” Refer to the CISA Fact Sheet titled, Implementing Number Matching in MFA Applications, for guidance on how to enable “number matching” on MFA configurations to prevent MFA fatigue.

So why is a lawyer writing this technical piece? We assist clients proactively to prevent security breaches and reactively after a security incident in the preparation or revision of IT data security policies and procedures necessary to meet regulatory, contractual, cyber insurance underwriting, and other third-party expectations. If you are looking for assistance in this area, and to learn more about Wyatt’s data privacy and security practice, visit Data Privacy and Cyber Security.

If you need additional information, please contact:

Kathie McDonald-McClure

Phone: 502.562.7526

Email: kmcclure@wyattfirm.com

Apache Log4j Vulnerability in Java Applications May Pose Risk to Confidential Company and Personal Information

Kathie McDonald-McClure Cyber Security and Cyber Crime, data breach; notification, Data Privacy & Security , , , , ,

By: Kathie McDonald-McClure

On December 11, 2021, the United States Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), issued a Statement regarding what it called a “critical vulnerability affecting products containing the log4j software library”.  This Statement emphasizes that end users are reliant on their vendors to inform them about the vulnerabilities and to develop patches to protect against the vulnerabilities.   Separately, CISA established a webpage for Apache Log4j Vulnerability Guidance that CISA is continually updating to impart further guidance and vendor information as they become available.  End users should be on the lookout for critical patches from their vendors.

According to the CISA Guidance, the Log4j vulnerability is being widely exploited by a growing set of malicious actors to steal information, launch ransomware attacks, or conduct other malicious activity such as taking over a company server to mine cryptocurrency.  At least 10 major technology vendors have issued statements that one or more of their products have been affected by the Log4j vulnerability: Cisco, IBM, VMware, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Fortinet, Broadcom, ConnectWise, HCL Connections, N-Able, and Okta.[1] On December 15, 2021, the Microsoft 365 Defender Threat Intelligence Team reported that a new family of ransomware, called Khonsari, is being deployed via the Log4j vulnerability on non-Microsoft hosted servers.

Continue reading →

KRONOS Payroll Ransomware Attack Implicates Potential Data Breach Notification Obligations

Kathie McDonald-McClure Cyber Security and Cyber Crime, data breach; notification, Data Privacy & Security , , , , , ,

By: Kathie McDonald-McClure

UKG, Inc., a company that provides payroll support services known as KRONOS for many U.S. companies, began notifying its customers on December 12, 2021, that the KRONOS Private Cloud (KPC) had been attacked by ransomware.  (See UKG Kronos Private Cloud Status Updates.) The KPC products include Workforce Central, TeleStaff, Healthcare Extensions and Banking Scheduling Solutions. UKG reports that the KPC solutions may be unavailable for “several weeks.”  Affected companies are diligently working to find alternative solutions to process their payrolls in the interim. UKG has created a KPC Incident Resource Hub to assist customers impacted by the KPC disruption in services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) reported that the ransomware attack has impacted many hospitals and health systems that rely on KRONOS for timekeeping, scheduling and payroll.  John Riggi, AHA’s Senior Advisor for Cybersecurity and Risk, said, “A lack of the availability of those services could be quite disruptive for health care providers, many of whom are experiencing surges of COVID-19 and flu patients. … This attack once again highlights the need for robust third-party risk management programs that identify mission-critical dependencies and downtime preparedness. … [W]e urge all third-party providers that serve the health care community to examine their cyber readiness, response and resiliency capabilities.” 

In addition to the immediate payroll issues, if the ransomware attack compromises employee personal information, then it may trigger a data breach notification for these employers under state breach notification laws. 

Continue reading →

FTC Warns That Health Apps Must Notify Consumers of Data Breaches

Margaret Young Levi Data Privacy & Security , ,

By: Margaret Young Levi

On September 15, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Policy Statement cautioning that health apps and connected devices that collect or use consumers’ health information must comply with the Health Breach Notification Rule and notify consumers when their health data is breached.

The Health Breach Notification Rule (codified at 16 C.F.R. § 318) protects individually identifiable health information created or received by vendors of personal health records. The Rule requires vendors of personal health records to notify U.S. consumers, the FTC, and sometimes the media when there has been a breach of security of unsecured identifiable health information. Persons that fail to comply with the Rule may be subject to monetary penalties of up to $43,792 per violation, per day.

The Health Breach Notification Rule became effective in 2009, but the FTC has not enforced it to date. However, because health care applications continue to proliferate and to collect increasingly personal and sensitive health information, the FTC issued this Policy Statement to place health apps on notice that the Rule will be enforced going forward and to clarify that they are considered to be “vendors of personal health records” covered under the Rule. 

The FTC explains that the developer of a health app or connected device is considered a “vendor of personal health records” under the Rule if it is capable of drawing information from multiple sources, such as a combination of direct inputting by a consumer, syncing with a consumer’s fitness tracker, or even interfacing with the phone calendar. The Rule does not apply to vendors of personal health records who are already covered by HIPAA. 

In addition, the FTC reminds vendors of personal health records that a “breach of security” is not limited to cyberattacks by third parties, but includes any acquisition of identifiable health information of an individual in a personal health record without the individual’s authorization.  The FTC states that “[i]ncidents of unauthorized access, including sharing of covered information without an individual’s authorization, triggers notification obligations under the Rule.” 

If a breach occurs, then health apps should examine state data breach notification laws to determine if they apply as well. 

A Supreme Development in Employer Computer Protection

WyattLLP Data Privacy & Security, Health Information Technology, HITECH Law ,

By: Courtney Samford, contributing author Blake Sims, Wyatt Summer Associate

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is pexels-mikhail-nilov-6930431-1024x617.jpg

Employers commonly supply computer and work devices to employees and state that the electronics may only be used for business related purposes, and employers have always had the ability to discipline employees who violate computer use policies through improper use. In some Federal Court of Appeals Circuits, employers may have been able to rely on threats of criminal and civil liabilities under 18 U.S.C. § 1030 to further deter improper use. On June 3, 2021, however, an evenly split conservative-liberal majority of the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Van Buren v. United States, holding that an individual only violates the Section 1030 of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act “when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—that are off limits to him.” Van Buren v. United States, No. 19-783 (Sup. Ct. June 3, 2021).

Continue reading →