IT professionals are continuously warned about being on guard regarding insider threats. Almost daily, companies are being told that they need next-generation document security software, structured threat intelligence, and the power to connect colossal amounts of event logs and context to prepare themselves against these dangers.
Organisations are constantly reminded that advanced tools are essential in thwarting attacks as well as effective in recovering from attacks, in the event that hackers are successful. In the unfortunate case, when businesses ultimately realize that they’ve been exposed, they also find out that they had actually been in the dark about how long their systems had actually been exposed for.
Security consultants worldwide admit that while employee errors and malicious intents are great dangers to data security, bigger threats that even overshadow hacking are concerns about confidential company information leaked outside. They opine that while the highest numbers of data breach incidents are due to insiders, the amount of data involved or exposed by hackers is much higher.
Without a doubt, hackers pose a larger threat now, than ever before but defending and discovering insider infringements can be more problematic than decreasing the threats of hacker crimes. For instance, a massive cyber-attack on Anthem Inc. that affected more than 75 million individuals was thought to have commenced with a phishing attack on workers of the health plan.
Employee threats and cyber-terrorists generally include different forms of dangers, but they also often merge. Insider threats are far broader and more complicated than hackers are. Insider data breaches could be due to human activities, physical threats, weaknesses, and technology. While hackers are mostly technology-based, insider threats are wider, more complicated and highly demanding to pre-empt in so many ways.
Insiders often make intentional or unintentional errors or take spiteful actions that open the doors for hackers to accomplish their task. For instance, insiders make use of their login details to remotely access classified systems and thus pave the way for hackers to infiltrate and expose the data. On the other hand, insiders’ malicious intent can create a weak security environment decimating security practices and thus leading to huge data breaches.
In most publicised well-known cases, large breaches have taken place due to the errors perpetrated by insiders. For example, more than 180,000 clients of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration were informed that a business affiliate’s subcontractor accidentally revealed their personal data, without their knowledge or prior permission, in mailings to other clients, seemingly due to a computer-programming mistake.
Most companies tend to focus on hacking and ransomware, as can be seen by breach headlines year after year. However, in the rigmarole of what needs to be addressed first, the threat posed by insiders has been largely overlooked.
For instance, in the case of the health industry, health records continue to command a huge premium on the black market and hence some insiders may be incited by the monetary gain to steal and resell data. Healthcare businesses can prevent and detect insider breaches by determining roles and permissions more stringently, deploying internal supervision, carrying out Data Loss Prevention(DLP) solutions, screening employee conduct, and not just abiding by compliance.
Businesses continue to ignore or fail to understand the impact of insider threats, according to security analysts. It is important that they realize the dangers that insiders pose and allot relevant resources to adequately deal with those dangers.
In many other cases, data breaches due to unintentional errors eventually come out in the open, but those induced by malicious aim may not be revealed, due to the steps taken by the perpetrator to cover his/her tracks. However, both these subjects need to be tackled by organizations.
Security experts opine that to intercept risks presented by insiders, organizations must work on guidelines and processes to alleviate the likelihood of data theft and sabotage of data systems or devices and data fraud. These processes and guidelines must impose the division of responsibilities, create exclusions and limit privileges, while also employing regulations that restrain and influence admission, as well as configuration modifications and authentication to data systems and applications that produce, receive, store or communicate data, internally or outside the organization.
Efficient data security procedures such as shielding processes must be enforced by management to afford a wide array of executions, from borderline to more demanding processes based on the risk analysis carried out by the organization and the function of the potential worker. Such processes could encompass evaluation checks for fraudulence and connected concerns, in addition to criminal history scrutiny.