In early January
2017, the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration notified
approximately 30,000 Medicaid recipients their medical records and
personal records had been accessed. This happens all too often as we
have read about frequently. The attack vector varies with each attack
based on the environment, tools applicable to the OS and
configuration, etc. In this specific instance, the attackers used a
phishing campaign, which have grown in use and popularity. The user
fell victim to a simple phishing email on November 15, 2017. This was
rather unknown until the agency was notified on November 20, 2017
from the Inspector General from the state.
The spoils from the
successful attack included a large amount of data and information the
attackers were able to access. This included the partial and full
data with the the enrollee’s full name, Medicaid ID numbers, birth
dates, addresses, diagnoses, medical conditions, and SSN. This has
provided nearly all the data needed to take over the enrollee’s
identity.
There are a number
of issues associated with this, which are disheartening. The Agency
had no idea they had been successfully phished and compromised. Their
logs, internet access, and other areas had not been reviewed to a
sufficient level and/or all of the data from the data exfiltrating
the data and medical records for approximately 30,000 enrollees had
not been noted. This is a fair amount of data that was moved from the
business. Also the employee did not report the phishing email(s) or
they had clicked on the email.
This breach provides
a number of teachable lessons for others. The InfoSec Engineer should
have been monitoring the logs via some form of SIEM or app (e.g.
Splunk) for odd/anomalous activity, e.g. a mass amount of data being
forwarded in a very short amount of time. The vast amount of data
involved would not have lent itself well to a manual review on a
regular basis. The access time of the day should have also been noted
for these. This amount of data involved should have been significant
enough to be noticed on some level. Also there should have been some
form of phishing training for the staff. This may have been
beneficial to the business in that this may have been avoided.
Granted the Agency
may have budgetary constraints. This is a common issue, especially as
tax dollars are decreasing while costs are increasing. There are
however free and low cost alternatives to a full service phishing
vendor’s offering. There are also free or lower cost SIEMs
available for implementation.
As we look forward,
the Agency could have used machine learning techniques and algorithms
to better review the logs and other activities for anomalies and
patterns. This would also function to require less processing time.
No comments:
Post a Comment