Data Breach: the Source May Be External, but the Cause is Mostly Internal
CIOREVIEW >> Security >> NEWS

Data Breach: the Source May Be External, but the Cause is Mostly Internal

CIO Review

In an attempt to assassinate Kim Jong-Un, satirically, Sony Pictures Entertainment did manage to roll out its most successful digital release. Unfortunately, for Sony the celebration was dim. Retaliating to the imaginary assassination, “Guardians of Peace” (hackers allegedly linked to North Korea) hacked into Sony’s computers and purloined sensitive information belonging to the employees, Hollywood secrets as well as copies of unreleased movies. Sony’s woes didn’t end there. Based on a judgment passed last year, Sony was asked to shell out $8 million as settlement demanded by plaintiffs—its own employees. And, Sony is not alone in the list of victims stung by inadvertent use of technology, in fact it ranks 33rd in terms of number of records breached.

Data breaches stemming from external threats are critical and there’s an exhaustive list to pore upon. Fortunately, minds at the receiving end do keep up and have come up with security solutions custom designed with data in mind—data loss prevention (DLP) products. Unfortunately, when we perceive data breach we tend to emphasize more on external factors leaving internal elements unattended; even when focused upon this avenue of data breach doesn’t feature in the priority list of enterprise security of many organizations.

Perhaps, the perfect example to highlight this is through Edward Snowden case. By leaking classified information that solidifies the suspicions around the shenanigans of the U.S. government’s top brass and the country’s not-so-noble foreign policies, apart from tarnishing brand U.S.A., he proved one thing. One able insider can inflict grave damages that a team of tech-laden outsiders can’t.

Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.

Insider Threat

When discussing about insider threats we often tend to miscalculate this threat to be solely of malicious nature. Of course, malicious insiders are in the equation, but it’s not just about the bad apples. The equation should also include negligent and accidental insiders, and day-to-day internal operations that end up unintentionally jeopardizing sensitive company data. Don’t forget, the world cares and talks about data breaches and not about the intentions of the elements involved.

Insider threats are more complex than external ones. It’s very much like trying to locate a black spot in a white canvas, although it’s not as simple as it sounds. A black spot would stand out due to its alien nature within the environment. But, if someone is asked to single out a hue of white that’s a bit different than the rest, the job gets a lot tougher.

As spoken earlier, negligent and accidental insiders, and day-to-day internal operations should also be considered. A negligent insider despite of being aware of organizational policies may adopt unapproved means, say an unapproved Web-based file hosting service to share files with colleagues. And, an accidental insider may be someone who mistakenly keys in a recipient who wasn’t supposed to receive a particular email. This recipient can copy the included information or download any attached file and forward the same to anyone originally not included in the list. This way an organization can lose sight of who’s using a particular piece of information and for what purpose.

Finding the Solution

It’s not unknown, and even realized by external adversaries that it’s very tough to directly break into a company’s servers. On the other hand they know the job is much easier if an insider’s system is leveraged as a point of compromise. Most of the times the job is accomplished by tricking an employee to open an attachment or click a link.

Web browsers and email clients are the most common entry points for malware. One solution to this can be restricting the capabilities of those applications, but that would take toll on the legitimate functionalities as well. One way out can be running vulnerable applications in separate virtual machines (VM). This way, if the application turns out to be malicious, the infection would be restricted to the isolated VM and not spread to the host operating system. This means that the infection will last for a short duration, in a controlled environment. Finally, the adversary’s ability to harm will be significantly impacted.

Limiting executable content is another option. Instead of blocking all files of a certain type, organizations can sandbox a few. Implementing available technology for the purpose, organizations can analyze content by running it in a sandbox; if found malicious the content can be blocked, or if found legitimate the content can be allowed to move forward.

Companies should also emphasize on least privilege that would ensure that a user has access only to the content essential to perform his/her duties. There is a good deal of technology available that companies can leverage in order to gain sufficiently granular control of content access. With more sophisticated solutions one can even restrict access to specific directories in the repository, or to individual documents in a directory, or even to particular sections of a document. But, in order to do that one must be fully aware of the roles of different individuals and the bits of information essential for their duties. Otherwise, some individual might be accidentally blocked from accessing necessary content.

To gain even higher control, organizations can opt for geo-fencing and time-fencing. Geo-fencing is an important tool given the growing mobile nature of our workforce. Geo-fencing uses GPS or RFID, which would deny access to an authorized device once it’s past a particular area, say the company premise. But, if the needs are such that an employee works remotely, Geo-fencing fails, and time-fencing comes into play here. Irrespective of the geographical location of the device, time-fencing can ensure that access is granted only between defined time points.

On top of all, companies should remember a basic idea of medical science—Prevention is better than cure. It’s true that technology can be an important weapon in tackling data breach menace, but what’s truer is that no technology is full proof. It is strongly recommended that organizations run a proper background check before taking any candidate on-board. And, for the existing workforce, regular awareness programs to educate them about the evolving threats would be highly rewarding.

Check out: Top Fraud And Breach Protection Companies

More in News

AI agents are exposing a problem that conventional workflow software has rarely solved. Many enterprises run essential work across SaaS platforms, integration tools, local scripts and shared spreadsheets. Agents are then expected to work across all of them, gather enough context and make safe decisions. The difficulty lies in the gap between what an agent can infer and what the business can actually control. Point-to-point integrations move data but do not preserve the history of a process. iPaaS platforms connect systems, yet long-running work can still end up scattered across queues, callbacks, approvals and exceptions. For buyers, introducing agents is only part of the challenge. They also need a process that can show exactly what happened. Workflow orchestration can provide that structure when it carries context along with the work instead of simply routing it from one system to another. Agents still need room to exercise judgment, but that judgment needs boundaries. A model might classify an email, interpret intent, retrieve missing context and recommend what should happen next. It should not have to work out the refund procedure or customer verification process from scratch every time a request comes in. Repeatable steps are less expensive to execute through deterministic logic and easier to audit. The agent can then handle the parts that require interpretation while established actions remain within versioned process logic. “Agents can make decisions where judgment is required while the workflow handles repeatable actions.” That separation is useful only if the business can see what happened in each workflow. Executives need a way to inspect the process template, runtime history, agent decision and failure path in one place. Once APIs, agents, human reviewers and external events are involved, ordinary system logs do not provide the whole picture. Buyers need to know which action ran, what data moved, what decision was made and what happened when a step timed out or had to be retried. Keeping that information with the process also makes automation easier to improve because performance data remains connected to the work that produced it. The amount of engineering required to get there matters too. An orchestration platform has limited practical value if a company needs to build a large specialist team before it can put a useful process into production. Existing services and SaaS APIs should be composable into business logic that people can understand and change without rebuilding the entire integration map. A code-first approach is useful when software teams get version control, business reviewers can see the workflow as a visual graph, auditors can trace what happened and agents have a stable process map to work within. The larger issue is ownership of the process, not simply how many tasks can be automated. Long-running workflows need to retain state, and agent decisions need to remain visible without requiring a model call at every step. Once the process is running, event-driven feedback can show where it needs improvement. The platform also has to work for organizations with different levels of software maturity. One team may be coordinating a large collection of microservices, while another needs custom workflow logic around ERP, CRM, field-service and workforce systems without having to wait for a vendor to add the functionality to its roadmap. LittleHorse takes this approach with Saddle Command Center and its Business-as-Code model for building workflows across microservices, SaaS platforms, agents and human-in-the-loop steps. Agents can make decisions where judgment is required while the workflow handles repeatable actions. Individual instances remain traceable, and workflow event data can be published to Apache Kafka for analysis. Support for Java, Python, Go and C# also allows engineering teams to maintain the business logic without having to adopt a specialist workflow language. For enterprises working across disconnected SaaS environments or complex microservice estates, LittleHorse provides a practical way to give AI agents room to make decisions while keeping the surrounding process visible and controlled. ...Read more
Sage migration decisions often begin with a contradiction. Finance and IT teams want the subscription feel of SaaS, yet the applications they rely on still carry custom workflows, connected databases, reporting routines and partner-managed changes. A generic cloud host can move the server, but it may leave the business managing every handoff when access breaks or latency appears during a critical task. Month-end close, warehouse workflows, payroll access and reporting cycles leave little room for cloud experiments that behave well only under ideal conditions. The weak point is usually not migration itself. It is the support chain that follows. Servers sit somewhere, a hosting provider manages the platform, the software publisher owns the application, a Sage consultant handles business logic and the internal team is left to coordinate the room. A single interruption then becomes a routing problem. Executives should favor a hosting model that reduces escalation layers without stripping away control over the ERP. Control matters because Sage environments rarely behave like standard SaaS tenants. Updates, integrations, VPN links, reporting tools and adjacent applications may need business-specific treatment. Shared resources can look efficient until they limit troubleshooting or change windows. Dedicated virtual environments, network isolation, clear backup design and documented availability standards give leadership a firmer basis for risk decisions. The point is not more infrastructure for its own sake. It is a service model that keeps customization possible while making ownership clearer. Ransomware risk and phishing exposure have changed the due diligence standard for hosted ERP. Sage access cannot be separated from identity controls, recovery routines, monitoring practices and response authority. A provider that only hosts the application may still leave security teams stitching together evidence after an incident. Before renewal terms are signed, buyers should test how backup frequency, network segmentation, disaster recovery design and incident escalation work in practice. Cloud economics create a second trap. Public cloud flexibility can turn into variable outlay when workloads are poorly matched to the platform. Licensing shifts and Microsoft choices make architecture a finance issue as much as an IT issue. Lowest monthly price can be misleading when internal staff must manage exceptions or pull multiple suppliers into every problem. A stronger decision weighs contract predictability, application performance, recovery posture and the cost of internal coordination. Sage projects also require a provider that can work alongside ERP partners rather than displace them. Against that buying logic, Cloud at Work is a premier choice for Sage cloud hosting. It model is built around Sage end users and fewer support handoffs, then extended that base into Azure and managed technology services where the customer environment demands it. Its portfolio spans Virtual Private Cloud, Infrastructure as a Service, Desktop as a Service, Managed Services and Managed Cybersecurity, giving buyers a path from hosted Sage to broader cloud management without changing accountability every time the environment expands. Dedicated resources, virtual firewalls, backup design and Sage-aware support match the pressures that matter most. For leaders who want Sage to feel closer to a managed service while preserving customization, Cloud at Work warrants serious consideration. ...Read more
Digital transformation remains a priority for organizations across Canada, but for many leaders, the challenge is no longer deciding whether to modernize. It is figuring out how to do it without disrupting the systems the business relies on every day. Many organizations are operating in a mixed environment where old and new technologies must work side by side. Core applications that were implemented years ago still support critical operations. ERP and commercial off-the-shelf platforms have been customized over time to fit unique business processes. Data often lives in multiple systems and cybersecurity concerns continue to grow as organizations expand their use of cloud services, mobile applications and external partners. The result is a level of complexity that can make modernization feel risky, even when change is clearly needed. This is why successful digital transformation rarely starts with technology. It starts with understanding the business. Leaders need a clear picture of which systems continue to deliver value, where inefficiencies exist and which investments will have the greatest impact. Organizations often spend too much money replacing systems that still serve an important purpose or implementing new solutions before fully understanding the long-term costs. The most effective transformation partners help organizations make informed decisions rather than pushing change for its own sake. The same practical approach applies to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. While AI continues to attract attention, its success depends heavily on the quality of the data behind it. Organizations that struggle with fragmented information, inconsistent processes or weak governance often find it difficult to unlock meaningful value from AI investments. Data modernization, cybersecurity and system modernization are closely connected. Progress in one area often depends on getting the others right. Security has become another defining factor in successful transformation initiatives. Whether operating in healthcare, education, municipal government or the private sector, Canadian organizations face increasing expectations around privacy, access management and accountability. Security cannot be treated as a separate project that follows modernization efforts. It needs to be built into planning and decision-making from the beginning. Strong governance, clear documentation and defined responsibilities help organizations reduce risk while giving leadership teams confidence that projects remain on track. Execution is equally important. Many transformation initiatives struggle not because the strategy is wrong but because employees are left behind during the process. New systems, workflows and technologies only create value when people understand how to use them and why the changes matter. Clear communication, realistic timelines and strong change management are often the difference between a successful implementation and an expensive disappointment. For organizations operating across different regions of Canada, bilingual communication and local stakeholder engagement can further influence outcomes. For organizations looking to modernize in a practical and manageable way, IPSG Technology offers an approach grounded in business realities rather than technology trends. The company combines custom application development, website modernization, cloud services, cybersecurity, data optimization and change enablement to help organizations navigate complex transformation initiatives with confidence. Its strength lies in helping clients modernize ERP and COTS environments without unnecessary replacement, align AI initiatives with data readiness and incorporate security from the outset. By focusing on clarity, governance and measurable outcomes, IPSG Technology helps organizations move forward without losing sight of operational continuity, budget control and long-term business value. ...Read more
Mid-sized companies often reach a point where data volume has outgrown the reporting habits built around it. Sales systems, finance platforms, customer records and workforce tools accumulate information, yet decision-makers still wait for manually assembled reports or rely on partial views. The buying problem is rarely a shortage of software. It is the cost and coordination burden of connecting systems, preparing reliable data and turning it into useful action without building a large specialist team. Platform selection should begin with the data foundation. Dashboards and AI models cannot compensate for inconsistent definitions, missing records or poorly governed pipelines. Executives need to know how a platform profiles and cleans data while preserving traceability from source to output. Integration also matters beyond the initial connection. A workable platform must support existing databases and business applications while reducing the amount of custom code required to keep those links current. Migration demands, refresh frequency and access controls deserve scrutiny before implementation begins. The next pressure is time to proof. Many firms cannot justify a large upfront investment in engineers and data scientists before a use case has shown credible returns. A platform should let a business test a narrow problem and measure model accuracy before committing to broader deployment. Low-code workflow design can shorten that cycle, but ease of configuration must not remove oversight. Buyers should examine how knowledge bases and semantic layers are managed when model outputs affect staff decisions or customer-facing processes. Access to insight presents a separate test. Static reports remain useful for recurring review, yet business leaders increasingly need answers that were not anticipated when a dashboard was built. Natural-language querying can reduce dependence on report backlogs, provided the platform grounds responses in governed company data and shows enough context for users to judge the result. Predictive functions should be assessed in the same manner. Forecasts are valuable only when teams can understand the inputs and monitor performance before connecting a prediction to a defined next step. The final buying concern is service depth. Mid-sized firms may adopt a capable platform and still lack the people to design data models or maintain AI workflows. A provider should be able to supply targeted support without turning every change into a consulting project. Subscription or usage-based pricing can lower the entry barrier, though buyers should compare consumption controls and support terms carefully. The strongest fit will combine self-service tools with practical help around implementation and model tuning, backed by ongoing maintenance when internal capacity is limited. Aidas Technologies  is a premier choice for firms that need this combination without assembling separate platforms and specialist teams. Its AI-powered data and analytics platform brings data preparation, reporting, predictive modeling and workflow automation into one environment through low-code tools. The company also offers professional services for setup and custom development, plus model support and continued maintenance, allowing buyers to test focused use cases before scaling. A usage-based subscription model further suits mid-sized organizations that need tighter control over upfront cost. For executives prioritizing faster proof and guided adoption, Aidas Technologies merits serious consideration. ...Read more