On day 4 after the attack on Nine the media is still churning out bromides of advice together with dark warnings of things to come. Because all of this was unknown until now! Yeah right. That involves running around looking for a talking head to give a standard form warning. And the Australan does just that with Cyber attacks: banks, super ‘only a matter of time’, warns APRA. It is a better than average Henny Penny piece with the end is nigh being a strong theme. Good dramatic reading but not all that rewarding journalism. What is not done, and journalists should be doing, is looking at the state of regulation, inadequate, the effectiveness of the regulator, lacking and what needs to be done, a long list that has been repeated with montonous regularity in Law Reform Commission reports, an ACCC report and by commentators such as myself for years. Meanwhile at the Age, a Nine publication, there is a “Feel our Pain” piece titled How the Nine cyber attack is affecting The Age and a quasi investigative piece as to the source of the attack with Is a nation state or disruptive criminals behind the Nine cyber attack? And the Age editorial Cyber attack on Nine sends a broader warning is a waffly piece about cyber attacks and then proceeds to do an analysis of “..the deeper threats they pose.” As if this hasn’t been a significant problem for years. And typical of many Australian organisations refers to the Government response, in the form of the Cyber Security Strategy and cash for security agencies. Yes that is important but ultimately the key is that organisations must have adequate protections, strategies in place. The most relevant sentence is the last, “All businesses …should assume that their systems may someday be targeted for attack and make sure they have the proper protective measures and training in place.” And that is where Nine is coy. It is unlikely that the hackers would have successful placed malware into Nine’s systems without there being a failure in Nine’s cybersecurity; a failure to patch, a successful phishing or spear fishing attack or access via a trusted secondary supplier which had access privileges. Put simply, Nine was successfully attacked because of its negligence in one way or another. It should be candid and explain what happened in detail so others can learn. That is common practice overseas. It is also a fair bet that Nine did not have a comprehensible Date Breach Response Plan. Not uncommon but still unforgiveable. So the response, no doubt heroic, was a cobbled together hot mess of on the fly responses. Nine has probably been poorly served by its Board of Directors in not putting enough effort and money into its cyber security defences and strategies, its managers in not having a Data Breach Response Plan (which has been wargamed on a regular basis to see how well it operates) and its lawyers in not having a review of its compliance with APP 11 of the Privacy Act 1988, which requires organisations to maintain proper data security (not just of the cyber variety). My sympathy for Nine is very limited. Outside of a few industries, too many organisations regard privacy as an afterthought and the legal obligations in protecting personal information as a secondary matter.
The editorial provides:
For the employees of The Age and the wider Nine Entertainment group, the cyber attack that began in the early hours of Sunday morning has been disruptive and challenging. The attack targeted Nine’s corporate network, but has affected Channel Nine in Sydney and mastheads including The Age. We have managed to improvise solutions using back-up technology at every turn but, as such attacks on companies and online platforms become more frequent, it is important to look beyond the drama they cause to grasp the deeper threats they pose.
In June last year Prime Minister Scott Morrison held an impromptu press conference in Parliament House’s Blue Room to warn that “Australian organisations across a range of sectors” were being targeted by “a sophisticated state-based cyber actor”. The vagueness of that warning is understandable given it is often difficult to definitively prove who is behind such attacks. But while his words resonated in the corporate world, the careful language diluted the strength of his intended message for the wider community.
Part of the problem is that these attacks come from a world of shadows – of encryption, false identities and espionage trade craft. At this stage neither the identity nor the motive of Nine’s attacker can be known for certain, though there has been unconfirmed speculation that a foreign regime is indicating its displeasure with Nine’s coverage of its actions. It’s welcome that the Australian Federal Police is now engaged in trying to answer these questions.
To some it might seem fanciful that an Australian media company would be singled out in this way by a major world power such as Russia or China, or a pariah dictatorship such as North Korea. It is not known whether these countries were involved, and no demands for a ransom have been made. But it is precisely on such powers’ peripheries, where their control of information is weakest, that they may resort to outlandish and visible measures. Countries such as Ukraine and Estonia have long known what it is like for every part of their online infrastructure to come under sustained attack. Estonia’s response was to set up a digital vault in Luxembourg so the country could “reboot” if its systems failed.
After sounding the alarm in June, the Morrison government updated its Cyber Security Strategy in August, having pledged $1.35 billion to security agencies to tackle cyber threats and $35 million for a platform allowing government and industry to share intelligence and block emerging threats. But despite reports that there might soon be a cabinet minister for cyber security, a December reshuffle left then home affairs minister Peter Dutton with the portfolio in his sprawling department. Presumably that arrangement will continue under the new minister, Karen Andrews.
There are lessons for the government and the private sector in Nine’s experiences this week. For the government, it is perhaps time to sharpen its narrative around cyber security and appoint a dedicated official. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg is right when he says the threat is “more pervasive than people think” and it is “not going away”.
These attacks are not new. But for companies, universities and other organisations around Australia, Nine’s experience is another warning about the power that state and non-state actors increasingly have to interfere in all our affairs. All businesses from winemakers to film festivals should assume that their systems may someday be targeted for attack and make sure they have the proper protective measures and training in place.
Rather than having garment rentng jeremiads about the state of the world and why people are being mean to the media publications like the Age should engage in more serious coverage. Stories along those lines would go to the state of the nation’ cybersecurity and discover that organisations do little to protect themselves because the perceived risk is small and the consequences of not complying with inadequate legislation are minimal. Perhaps a start would be to review an article such as the US article In wake of giant software hacks, application security tactics due for an overhaul. This piece descends into some detail at least.
Part of any proper investigation would look at the ineffectiveness of the Australian Information Commissioner’s office, a governmental backwater if there ever was one. Businesses and agencies don’t comply with the law because they know the cop on the beat is in the station house asleep at his desk. When ASIC falls down in its regulatory duties it is called to account. The Australian Information Commission doesn’t even engage with its obligations and receives no scrutiny. It has polished its image to a fine sheen and that has gulled the media. No one every said the Privacy Commissioners and then Information Commissioners weren’t nice. They were and are. Its just that they have been not much good.
Unfortunately in terms of data protection and enforcement Australia is the land of the lotus eaters. Nothing much has Read the rest of this entry »