Why Franchisees and Particularly Franchisee Associations Need Information Security

If there’s a transaction that involves a card with a magnetic strip and a swipe – there’s a transaction that involves a risk.

Information security was once considered a technical problem but due to the combination of advanced technology and malicious intent, infosec is now everyone's problem. Did you know that the personal or financial data of more than 217 million Americans has been compromised since the beginning of 2005, according to the nonprofit Privacy Rights Clearinghouse?

Did you know that Deborah Platt Majoras, chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission since 2004, was herself a victim of identity theft, and has championed initiatives to protect consumers from shoddy data protection practices?

Does your franchise system maintain its Confidential Operating Manual online? Are you doing enough to keep it confidential and protected from hackers? Is there a concern that competitors will get all your operating information?

If you think your franchise system’s confidential and proprietary data is secure, think again.  Here’s a nightmare scenario that was reported in the New York Times on April 16, 2008:

“Thousands of high-ranking executives across the country have been receiving e-mail messages this week that appear to be official subpoenas from the United States District Court in San Diego. Each message includes the executive’s name, company and phone number and commands the recipient to appear before a grand jury in a civil case.

A link embedded in the message purports to offer a copy of the entire subpoena. But a recipient who tries to view the document unwittingly downloads and installs software that secretly records keystrokes and sends the data to a remote computer over the Internet. This lets the criminals capture passwords and other personal or corporate information.”

When it comes to information security issues, too many executives claim lack of technical expertise and end up with their heads in the sand. But that’s not a safe attitude any longer. Consider just a few of the situations recently reported in the industry coverage of SC Magazine:

  • Hackers used sophisticated methods to evade detection and place malware on nearly 300 Hannaford Bros. store servers to intercept payment information during the transaction transmission process, according to executives of the grocery store chain. As many as 4.2 million credit and debit card numbers may have been exposed in the attack. Ironically, Hannaford was notified of irregular credit card activity on the same day it was recertified as being Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard-compliant. Until being notified of the attack, executives “believed we had the highest standards in the retail industry applying to our data security.” (Details here.)
  • The website of online retailer Geeks.com featured the “hacker safe” notification from McAfeeScanAlert.  Nevertheless a hacker accessed customer credit card numbers and other personal information.
  • The personally identifiable information of several hundred thousand JC Penney customers was at risk after a data tape went missing from the storage vendor Iron Mountain.  Gordon Rapkin, president and chief executive of data security vendor Protegrity, told SCMagazineUS.com that JCPenney is ultimately responsible for making sure their customers' information is secured.
  •  An executive’s laptop containing the personal information of more than 300,000 customers – including Social Security numbers – was stolen. The same week T.Rowe Price disclosed that thieves had acquired two laptops containing sensitive information for thousands of people enrolled in 401(k) retirement plans managed by the global investment firm. The hard drives on the two pilfered machines contained the names and Social Security numbers of 35,000 individuals, the company said.
  • The FTC went after two companies for failing to provide reasonable and appropriate security for sensitive consumer information, leading to identity theft. The FTC forced a settlement containing bookkeeping and record-keeping provisions to allow the agency to monitor compliance with its orders. Under the terms of the settlement, the FTC ordered the two companies to hire third-party security auditors to assess their security programs on a biennial basis for the next 20 years. The FTC required the auditors to certify that the companies' security programs meet or exceed the requirements of the FTC's orders. The audit must also prove that the companies are providing "reasonable assurance that the security of consumers’ personal information is being protected.”
  • A disgruntled employee, fearing she was about to be fired, deleted seven years' worth of her employer's data.

 In light of information security breaches such as these, the FTC is expected to enact an identity theft "red flags" rule that would force organizations to discover system holes that could lead to compromised information.

Whether the FTC forces the issue or not, franchise operators and associations would be well advised to address data security issues before they blow up in their faces. If the JC Penney scenario happened to your franchise system, could you afford to wait for notification by the vendor that handles your retail credit card operations?

If you don’t think you have a problem in this area – you’re delusional. If you think you might have a problem – our experts are security professionals with years of experience at Top 5 Global Banks. Give us a call to talk.

Written by Bruce S. Schaeffer and Henfree Chan, Franchise Technology Risk Management

No votes yet

Tags:

There are no tags.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Is static IP safe

Zors are now requiring the ability to have "real time" access to zee POS ("Point Of Sale") systems.

As I understand, this is normally done with a "static" IP address and that means that if you know the address, you can keep launching attacks against the address till you get in, as opposed to a "dynamic" IP which changes each time the person turns on the POS.

It seems to me that a "static" IP is considerably more risky than a "dynamic" IP, and given that many of today's POS systems keep a lot of sensitive data, including oftentimes employee and customer data--plus a lot of POS systems can also double as a computer and hence have much more info on the hard drive than just business-related info...

My question is:

  • isn't this dangerous?
  • what type of software/hardware can be used to protect?
  • if you have a "hacker friendly" staffer in your zor's IT department, what is to prevent him from sending you something like a key-logger program embedded in a legitimate zor download? (this is not a hypothetical concern, but let's not discuss specific systems or staff names, please) 

Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400

Static v Dynamic IP

Paul;

A device's ip address, xx.xxx.xxx.xxx, is mapped by a DNS server to a domain name, name.com.

If you have a static ip, name.com always points to that ip.

If you have a dynmaic ip, name.com points to different ips.

But name.com can always be attacked or compromised, regardless of whether the mapping is 1-1, static, or 1-many, dynamic.

You might also want to subscribe to bruce schneier's monthly email or his blog.

Here is a thread that you might find interesting , which is partly on pos security as it pertains to the storage of pin. 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Schaeffer's is the most valuable blog post in quite a while

in here. Thanks.

I don't understand all the falderall - probably just a misunderstanding that got out of whack as the "boys" decided it was time to whip ' em out. It's really sad that that crap is getting in the way of an extremely valuable professional discussion of a most critical issue. 

For example, one might discuss the fact that operations manuals are for sale every day - actual company ops manuals, or that at least one company in Pittsburgh is in the business of constructing ops manuals for any new franchisor [now I wonder how that got started -- Hmmm]

I wonder why on earth anyone is allowed to run around with "hot stuff" on a laptop. It can be accessed for particularized use when needed without actually being on the laptop. Is it just stupidity? And if it is stupiidity, can anyone ever prevent institutionalized stupidity?

So much harm can be done with laptops that we might just forget about gun control. That aint shit compared to what can be done by a moron with a laptop.--

Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com,  has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School

Schaeffer and Webster

Let's all take a breather here.  I think no one here is naive enough to believe that computer security is in any way "secure."  You can only hope that your security is enough to make other less secure pursuits more appealing.  The fact that zombie botnets and the like roam the tubes of the internet make internet security, be it for franchises or financial institutions, a very serious thing to consider indeed.

While I am just a humble redneck electrician, allow me to offer the following observations:

I find Bruce's commentary on taxation and finance related topics on the listserve to be enlightening and helpful.  I find that Webster's commentary, be it on the need for franchisee advocacy, or Canadian law quirks is always a worthwhile read - the fact that he secretly wants to don a black eye patch and say "aarrgh" makes me value his thoughts even more. 

While there seems to be a substantial difference in opinion on this particular topic, I don't see that it in any way necessitates the twisting of anyone's panties into knots.  I have always found that such panty twisting has never, ever been helpful in resolving intellectual disputes.  Here is my unsolicited advice:

1 - both of you need to take about 6-8 shots of tequila (Webster should probably do 8 to account for his full head of hair)

2 - immediately climb onto unicycles and commence doing figure eight patterns

3 - have some of Eliot Spitzer's expensive "friends" come by - the more attractive of the "friends" should perform calisthenics in a circle around the both of you - the less attractive of the "friends" should run counterclockwise shooting off Roman Candle fireworks

4 - then and only then, should the two of you continue this dialogue about internet security or whatever else you are actually able to concentrate on

5 - record the entire thing for later posting on youtube.

This is the obvious, and likely only, practical method of resolving this matter.

Breathers

Bubba, up to 5 you were making good sense. LOL! 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

This has to be

the funniest post I ever read. This should be framed so when people get down all they have to do is read this and have a good laugh.

Fear Reporting

I don't want to diminish the severity of this potential problem.

But I would rather see an more balanced view of vendor solutions - in point of fact, many of the facts behind the security breaches stated in this article have been questioned by other security/privacy vendors.

Often what appears to be a high tech scheme is the result of several decidedly low tech schemes.

Just to push buttons on privacy is not a helpful or valuable solution. 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

This is defnitiely the week to have...

gone and got my back fixed.

I can't temember an occasion when so many intelligent folks misunderstood their own selves on here all at the same time. Maybe it really aint so, and it's just these cucui pills I'm on.

Frankly, even being whacked out a tad, my vote would go with Schafer on financial and financial security issues. My vote would go with Webster on any question of Canadian franchise law and practice. I don't know who Mr JD is, so I'll just reserve comment. Modesty keeps me from commenting on my own self.--

Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com,  has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School

Pills

Richard writes: "I can't temember an occasion when so many intelligent folks misunderstood their own selves on here all at the same time."

Very good! 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

What are we talking about?

What facts have been questioned? What specific facts have been questioned and by whom?
Bruce Schaeffer

Privacy

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Rubbish

What sort of make believe reply is that when questioned on your prior disparagement? Could it be that it was baseless?
Bruce Schaeffer, J.D., LL.M. (in Taxation)
Author BNA Tax Management Portfolio on Franchising
CCH Treatise on Franchise Regulation and Damages

Privacy II

Hmm, don't know what happened to the first post.  What I said was that in both Turston's identity theft site and Dickson's phishing site these particular problems have been discussed in great detail.

In particular, the chances of their being a purely technical solution are low.  

You might also want to bring to the attention of your audience the recent FTC rule for receipts for credit and debit cards - since people are getting successfully sued on that issue.

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Still Rubbish

Further deceit. I ask again what has been questioned? Why would you disparage someone else without a basis and then try and weasel away?
Bruce Schaeffer

Questions for Bruce

Bruce wrote: "I ask again what has been questioned?"

Please find below two questions. 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Webster the know it all

I guess I have to continue this immature dialogue. Because Mr. Webster - who offers no expertise of his own in this area - seems to disagree with my co-author Henfree Chan's expertise and our more than sensible warning by seeking to demean and diminish and in some way enhance his own empty book of credentials. And all he cites is someone's iffy opinion that some damage may have been inflicted in another way - with no proof and ignorant of the fact that it makes no difference. It happened! That's what's important. The "facts" are indeed facts.
Henfree was in charge of penetration testing for such no-account firms as Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs and has spent years in the field. What is Mr. Webster's background? Is he a computer afficianado or just a hack?
And I must confess to being very deeply hurt. Why would Mr. Webster attack me after I stood up for him so strongly?
Bruce Schaeffer
J.D. LL.M. (in Taxation)
Author: BNA Tax Management Portfolio
CCH Treatis "Franchise Regulation and Damage

Dialogue

You are free to comment on both Truston and Dickson, who are experts.

I am not an expert in this area nor do I hold myself to be an expert in computer security. To the extent that social persuasion techniques are used to commit the fraud, yes I would hold myself out to be qualified to discuss those techniques.

However, I am more than an expert in spotting bad arguments, even bad arguments for good conclusions.

As for "attacking" you, I have never nor will ever engage in personal attacks as substitute for reasoned argument.  If I say that I believe you are wrong, cite why, this is not a personal attack.  Calling you "two bit freaking moron" would be a personal attack - and I studiously refrain from using such language for obvious reasons.

I gave you two alternative viewpoints to consider - you can reject them with reasons or comment further.  But you aren't helping your own cause here just slagging me.

You are clearly someone with the skill, talent and resources to respond to issues without responding to a person -so go for it. 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Webster the Know it All

By your own admission you are not an expert yet you offer disparaging commentary - downplaying the risk. By reviewing your similar postings on every subject known to man on this site and your own I come away not believing you are simply looking for intellectual dialogue or really trying to inform any readers. No it appears to me that you are disingenuous in your purported justification; that you are in many respects a common cheap shot artist just trying to criticize everyone else to hustle business for yourself; that you are someone who claims extraordinary expertise in every segment of franchising known to man (and others as yet unknown); and, that you are at best a jack of all trades and master of none. I submitted the article as a warning at the request of Don at BMM who thought it might be of benefit to his readers. Your disparagement seems to be just more of the same for you. I've seen you come up with ultimate wisdom on almost every subject posted on this site. Is there no limit to your brilliance?
Are you truly Mr. Know It All?
Bruce Schaeffer

One More Attempt

I apologize for making you feel hurt and attacked - such was not my intent.

Do you have anything to say about either Truston or Dickson? 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Webster the Disingenuous Know It All

Although I don't believe there is any sincerity in your question for comment on the articles you chose to insert in the discussion I have referred it to Mr. Chan who is actually an expert and I will forward you his reply, if any.
And since you persist in following up your questions, I am still awaiting your reply to my questions as to whether there is any subject on the planet on which you are not an expert willing to ponificate? And, isn't it true that you do act as just a cheap shot critic on this site trying to make yourself look smart at the expense of others?
Bruce Schaeffer

Security Expert

Bruce writes: "I have referred it to Mr. Chan who is actually an expert and I will forward you his reply, if any."

Great. 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Webster the Disingenuous Know it All - Finale

And as a final comment on your sincerity, you say you did not mean to be disparaging but your very first post was headed "FEAR REPORTING" as commentary on our article. What inference other than disparaging is someone supposed to draw from that, Mr. Innocent?
Who are you kidding with your mock sincerity? Down here in NYC we refer to contentions like that as "full of it"

Bruce Schaeffer
www.franchisevaluations.com

Sincerity

Bruce writes: "And as a final comment on your sincerity, you say you did not mean to be disparaging but your very first post was headed "FEAR REPORTING" as commentary on our article"

No, I still think your article was wrong and I haven't changed my mind about that.  I think it incorrect to sensationalize this issue.  I have been reading Truston and Dickson for several years, among many thoughtful commentators.  I did not think your post was as thoughtful as it could have been.  It struck me as somewhat hastily thrown together.

What I apologized for was any personal hurt - that is never my object.  I should have started my posts with the two quotes from Truston and Dickson, instead of the quick response because you have no idea who I am.  It is for that I am apologizing - not for the views I have.

What is revolutionary about the internet is the quick access we all have to people on any given topic that are just brighter than we are.  

For any given post,mine, yours, or even God Almighty's, there are hundreds if not thousands of smarter responses out there.  And we can find them, if we try.

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

FEAR REPORTING

You write an article which basically says "the sky is falling" and if you don't believe the sky is falling, "you're delusional". Then you offer your protective services against objects raining down from the sky...

I would classify that as FEAR REPORTING...

As for your arguments with Mr. Webster, I am reminded of an old adage...Don't get into a battle of wits if you are an unarmed man....

Shaeffer and Webster

You wouldn't carry on like this on the ABA Forum listserve so why do it here.  

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

ABA Listserve

TIF writes:  "You wouldn't carry on like this on the ABA Forum listserve so why do it here.  "

Yes, I would have the same conversation.  Which is why I only read the listserve.

TIF, as you know, for example, both Richard and I have on numerous times beat the stuffings out of each other on a specific example.

There is nothing wrong with hard arguing.  Bruce is just wrong to think that anything personal was involved.  But, as a newcomer to the forum, I should have started my post not assuming that Bruce knew that when I have cards, I got 'em.  (Which is not to say that I won't be convinced in the end that Truston and Dickson were wrong.) 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Webster the Disingenuous Know it All

And since you deign to quote me in your continued quest for one-upmanship, in the same posting Mr. Schaeffer also asked:
"And since you persist in following up your questions, I am still awaiting your reply to my questions as to whether there is any subject on the planet on which you are not an expert willing to ponificate? And, isn't it true that you do act as just a cheap shot critic on this site trying to make yourself look smart at the expense of others?"

WHY WILL YOU NOT ANSWER??
Bruce Schaeffer

Answer

Bruces writes: "And since you deign to quote me"

Definition of deign :- do something that one considers to be below one's dignity.

So Bruce believes that I think its below my dignity to quote him.   I reassure him that quoting him is not below my dignity.

What would be undignified would not appear on this site, at least not from me. 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

I cannot stand by and read your comments on Michael

Michael and all the men on here are honorable professionals. Michael for one has put me down and torn me apart. But if he hadn't I would of never learned about the franchise world

All the lawyers are wise and great enough to give everyone their advice for nothing. If they get business from this web site, there is nothing wrong with that. They are good at what they do. Their specialty is the franchise world.

I have gone for advice from other lawyers and they weren't willing to give me the advice I needed. Michael has taught me. By the way Michael is smart on many subjects. He is brilliant. .

Schaeffer Makes a Good Point

We all know and love Mr. Webster here but I'm afraid this up-and-coming player has picked a fight with someone that is at the top of the game in franchise law.

Mr. Schaeffer makes a good point. It is easy to sound wise by bashing posts.

Webster's argument that the examples in the article were not consistent sounds academic, like a lawyer arguing how to best craft an argument. I take it at face value that hacking does happen and that it is important for franchise systems and franchise associations to protect their sites.

In defense of Mr. Webster, he does make many astute observations and arguments.

Reputation and New Challenges

Danielle writes: "We all know and love Mr. Webster here but I'm afraid this up-and-coming player has picked a fight with someone that is at the top of the game in franchise law."

This is a very interesting point. 

Here is what I believe about the upcoming clash between online reptuations and old style award reputations.

First, there never will be a replacement for the networking that has taken place in the past.  We will still have awards and put people in positions of authority.

Second, having said that, the very real possibility of being wrong on virtually everthing you knew, being corrected in public, and having to re-jig your belief matrix is what makes the social networking a fascinating development.

Every claim your or I make online could in principle be either falsified or made better by the commentators in our various social networks - a matter of minutes.

Bruce shouldn't worry about being challenged by an "up and coming player".  He should revel in it.  Do you want silence instead?   You want to be ignored?

Be hard on the message and not the messenger - nobody online is needs to cut you any slack on any idea just because you had a history of good ideas.  Welcome to the NFL of reputation management. 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Dickson on Hannaford Crimeware

Bruce approves of: "Hackers used sophisticated methods to evade detection and place malware on nearly 300 Hannaford Bros. store servers to intercept payment information during the transaction transmission process, according to executives of the grocery store chain."

Dickson writes: "Bill Brenner at SearchSecurity.com wrote about increasing speculation that a dishonest insider planted the malware on Hannaford's network. The insider theory intrigues me because it seems that most security breaches can be traced to a social cause. A dishonest human --who has been given access to a system -- can defeat a lot (most) computer security."

Dickson's  story is here. 

I think Dickson is right and Bruce is wrong to ascribe sophisticated methods to the crime at Hannaford. 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

Truston on Fraud

Bruce wrote: "If the JC Penney scenario happened to your franchise system, could you afford to wait for notification by the vendor that handles your retail credit card operations?"

Truston wrote: "The misconception that fraud alerts by law require that you be contacted continues on unabated. In fact, a fraud alert is just words on your credit report.  The link to Truston is here.

I think that Bruce's assumption is wrong and Truston is right. 

Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News

    Syndicate content