Table of Contents Abstract 3 General overview 4 Basic Cybersecurity Concepts and Vulnerabilities 5 Penetration testing 6 Common Cybersecurity Attacks 7 Network Forensics Analysis Tools 7 Enterprise Cybersecurity 8 Security Weakness Analysis 10 Technology 10 Appendix B: Security Models Summary 19 Goals 19 Risk classification 21 Threat prioritization 21 Business Case for Montefiore Medical System 22 Implementation Plan 23 Security models and Attribute 24 Bell-LaPadula Model 25 Security Assessment and Potential improvement 26 Abstract Companies and agencies are implementing security models to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and data. The writer will analyze various enterprise security models, cybersecurity policies, and risk assessment using Montefiore Medical systems as a case study. The writer will evaluate the current security posture of Montefiore and suggest areas that need to be improved. The pros and cons of implementing a particular model over the other. When health care organizations implement adequate security strategies, unauthorized users and cybercriminals cannot access their internet networks, devices, and data. Multiple data breaches in Montefiore Medical center evidence indicates inadequate cybersecurity concepts and computer security. Therefore, a custom security plan will be developed based on a recommended security model and a planned improvement blueprint that will assist Montefiore in strengthening the enterprise security that aligns with Montefiore’s business objectives. Keywords: Cybersecurity, confidentiality, integrity & availability. HIPPA, PHI General overview Montefiore is a Medical Center and University Hospital for Albert Einstein College of medicine. Montefiore, founded in 1884, is nationally recognized for Clinical Excellence breaking ground research training the next generation of health care leaders, and providing science-driven patients care for more than 100 years (Montefiore Medical Center [MMC], 2021). Montefiore has about 50 locations in the New York Metropolitan area, focusing on internal medicine, Pediatrics obstetrics, and gynecology (MMC, 2021). Even though Montefiore undertakes cybersecurity programs to protect and secure the organizations and patient information, multiple security breaches occur between January 2018 and July 2020. These breaches were made public in February 2020 (DataBreaches, 2021). Montefiore reported that a staff member accessed patients’ medical records without authorization for five months. Another employee stole the protected health information (PHI) of about 4 000 patients between January 2018 and July 2020 (DataBreaches, 2021). The recent discovery involved Montefiore’s fire warning software that monitors records for improper access and discovered a member of staff accessed the patient’s records without authorization for more than 12 months. The unauthorized record access violates the patients’ health insurance portability and accountability act (HIPPA) and the clinic staff code of conduct. Montefiore dismissed the employee and reported the incident to law enforcement agencies for possible criminal prosecution (DataBreaches, 2021). Therefore, cybersecurity is vital in preventing attacks and minimizing the cost incurred due to cybercriminal infiltration. Cybersecurity and computer security Cybersecurity, also referred to as information security, is the mechanism and strategies for preventing cyber attacks on personal records, operating devices, networks, and software applications (Jang-Jaccard & Nepal, 2014). Cybersecurity is often used interchangeably with computer security, even though they are two separate concepts. Cybersecurity deals with information safety and the resources of all the different systems communicating in the network (Jang-Jaccard & Nepal, 2014). In contrast, computer security focuses on securing a single computer. Cybersecurity involves a set of tools, risk management approaches, technologies, training, and best practices to protect networks, devices, programs, and data from attacks or unauthorized access (Jang-Jaccard & Nepal, 2014). For example, if Montefiore implements a forensic network analysis tool (NFAT), it can detect software communications vulnerabilities in its system. Basic Cybersecurity Concepts and Vulnerabilities Cybersecurity focuses primarily on the protection of information transmitted and received by competing networks. However, a few security vulnerabilities and security breaches exist, including flaws in software: Malware, unpatched security vulnerabilities, hidden backdoor programs, superuser, or administrative accounts privileges. Phishing ( social engineering ) attacks unknown security bugs in software or programming interfaces—automated running of scripts without malware or virus checks (Sharma & Misra, 2017). The method in which machine vulnerability is abused is determined by the fundamental nature of the exposure and the attacker’s motivations. These flaws may arise from unexpected encounters between software systems, system components, or simple weaknesses in a single program. Automated running of scripts without malware/ virus checks -the use of some web browsers (such as safari) to automatically execute trusted or secure script is a typical network security flaw that attackers have learned to exploit. Therefore, there is a need to implement security at every significant phase of the software development life cycle SDLC (Sharma & Misra, 2017). Penetration testing In the penetration testing technique, the authorized tester uses manual or automated technologies to systematically test web applications’ wireless network devices to find out the possible exploit of the system. A penetration tester can exploit the system vulnerabilities and use the compromised system to launch subsequent exploits and other internal resources. The tester performs this process step by step to achieve a higher security breach in the victim’s system. During the result analysis phase, the tester needs to analyze all results and formulate a recommendation to resolve the vulnerability from the system (Goel & Mehtre, 2015). The organization I.T personnel can utilize data flow network analysis as part of the penetration testing tool. Understanding how data flows across the network can provide helpful information to assist system managers in determining the strategy to implement in security software, network, and hardware at their organization (Conrad & Feldman, 2016). The vulnerability testing result can enable I.T. department and network system managers to make strategic conclusions and prioritize related remediation efforts. For example, MontefioreMedical Center can use penetration testing to improve and protect its computer system against common attacks. Thus, penetration testing results can prepare any organization against future cyberattacks by identifying vulnerabilities. Common Cybersecurity Attacks There are several common Cybersecurity attacks such as the Man in the middle attack, Bruce force, Distributed denial of Service (DDoS), Malware, Phishing, Spoofing, and Social engineering attacks (Bendovschi, 2015). Man-in-the-middle attacks occur when the attacker interferes between the two communication ends. Thus, every message sent from source A to source B gets to the attacker before reaching its destination. A brute force attack consists of an attacker using trial and error inputs to guess login information, encryption keys with the hope of eventually guessing a combination correctly. It is a predefined goal to obtain credentials for unauthorized access (e.g., passwords, encryption). Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS ) is series of actions that prevents a system or its resources from functioning according to its intended purpose. (Bendovschi, 2015). Network Forensics Analysis Tools Network forensics analysis tools (NFAT) allow network traffic capture, sophisticated analysis, and forensics capabilities to make network forensic analysis tools useful in many security assumptions and allocating resources. This type of product monitors network traffic flow and enables tracking any machines that attempt to log in or access the software systems. An NFAT user can replay, isolate, and analyzed a suspicious attack behavior then bolster network defenses accordingly. The playback feature in NFAT chooses how and what has happened in the network and in times of the successful attack. The products reveal which host system was compromised and what happened next. The analysis results enable the Pentester to put in extra measures to prevent future attacks against the communication software. An example of a network forensics analysis tool is Wireshark. Enterprise Cybersecurity The confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA) model is an organization guideline on cybersecurity that include the following:Confidentiality: The rules guiding access to information are outlined to restrict the leakage of sensitive information to unauthorized individuals like hackers. Staff in an organization must receive training on information sharing and secure accounts using a strong password. Integrity: Organizations should improve their user access control and file permission systems to control data breaches to promote organizations’ data integrity. Availability: Organizations should regularly maintain and upgrade essential components of cybersecurity to ensure smooth running and access of data without disruptions. Organizations should also have extra security equipment like disaster recovery plans and backup solutions readily available in a cyber-attack. Some of the principles that underlie the development of enterprise cybersecurity policy framework and implementation plans are; common language for standardizing the approach for addressing any cybersecurity issues. Providing due care would help implement the framework and prevent negligent and inattentive cybersecurity breaches. The framework core would contain three primary components: the core implementation tiers and framework profiles. The framework is the set of cybersecurity activities and applicable references established via five concurrent and continuous functions: identity, protect, detect, respond, and recover. That provides the strategic view of organizations’ lifecycle of the cybersecurity risk. Different framework implementation tiers describe the level of sophistication and rigor the organization employs by applying the cybersecurity practices and providing the context for using the core functions. The framework profile is defined as a tool that offers the organization the method for storing the information regarding the cybersecurity program. This profile also allows the organization to clearly articulate the goals of the cybersecurity program where the framework is risk-based and controls the implementation process. Some of the significant concepts in enterprise cybersecurity are; least privilege access, access control, encryption, micro-segmentation multi-factor authenticator, and patching. The least privilege is safeguarding local admin’s rights to user devices. It is the practice of limiting access rights for users to the bare minimum permissions they need to perform their work since users are one of the weakest things in cybersecurity; this protects against that threat. Effective access control ensures appropriate access to information and applications. Encryption is a security method where information is encoded and can only be accessed or decrypted by a user with the correct encryption key. A micro-section is a security technique that enables fine-grained security policies to be assigned to data center applications, down to the workload level. By dividing the enterprise into smaller parts, security monitoring systems can be managed, protected, and contained better from an attack on a single compromised device. Multi-factor authentication is an electronic authentication method in which a device user is granted access to a website or application after successfully presenting two or more pieces of evidence to an authentication mechanism. A Patch is a small piece of software issued by an enterprise whenever a security flaw is detected. Patches are updates that address specific vulnerabilities. It minimizes attack surfaces and protects systems against attackers (Labrie, 2018) Security Weakness Analysis Montefiore Medical Center has notified patients about a security breach involving information unauthorisedly accessed by a former employee (Montefiore 2021). They claimed categories of personal data accessed varied and may include first and last names, medical record numbers, addresses, emails, dates of birth, and the last 4-digits of Social Security numbers. They also claim there is no evidence that financial information, including credit card numbers or clinical data, was accessed. The inappropriate access occurred between January 2020 and February 2021. (databreaches.net) This appears to be the fourth breach notification Montefiore has made involving insider wrongdoing since September 2020. The September incident impacted 4,004 patients, the December one impacted 670 patients, and January 2021 affected 1787 patients. The current notice does not indicate the number of patients affected, and this incident is not on HHS’s public breach tool at the time of this publication. However, the four insider-wrongdoing incidents noted above are not the only insider-wrongdoing incidents experienced by Montefiore Medical Center. As reported on (databreach.net), there have been others in the past. It can be concluded that Montefiore’s weaknesses include lack of user knowledge, lack of security functionality, untested technology. (databreach.net) Technology After the breach in 2015, Montefiore proposed expanding its technology monitoring capabilities and employee training to safeguard patient records and privacy. Due to numerous data breaches of the Montefiore Medical system, it is reasonable to conclude that the security technology strategies implemented are not effective in mitigating frequent breaches. People One of the issues observed in most of the breaches is the aspect of people. On May 15, 2015, Montefiore Health System notified certain patients about a security incident involving information that a former employee stole. The employee compromised the data of 12,517 patients, which included names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, next of kin information, and health insurance details. (databreaches.net) Montefiore can overcome employee’s varied technical abilities (or lack thereof) through security awareness training and periodically testing our end-users. Montefiore should always work to mitigate threats with technical controls where applicable. Ultimately, the best technical security solutions provided are useless if our employees and clients are not learned of the risks and act without appropriate education and healthy skepticism. (Richmond, 2016) On the Contrary, our I.T. security measures remain better when the workforce stays appropriately educated. Training employees to keep security top-of-mind and notify the organization when they see or discover something unusual will help act as another layer of defense against cyber-attacks. (Richmond, 2016) Policy Montefiore medical center must adopt a comprehensive security strategy that incorporates administrative; there are now technical safeguards to defend against future cybersecurity breaches. Equipment and policy gaps pose an enormous risk for exploitation. Therefore, planning and evaluation, and audits to review the effectiveness and efficiency of the countermeasures need to be implemented regularly. To check to ensure that the measures are actually in place, being implemented, and working. Problems found require replanning and reevaluation to see that they are remediated. Montefiore Medical System must adopt a comprehensive security strategy that includes Managerial, administrative, personnel, technical, and physical controls. (Burke, 2017). Risks And vulnerabilities Risk management involves assessing the risks, determining loss potential estimates, and selecting countermeasures appropriate to prevent, detect, minimize, and recover from successful attacks and adverse events. Management must decide the countermeasures and ensure that the measure’s cost is less than the cost of the risk—Montefiore has potential weakness in physical access control. Physical access control should be extended to computer rooms, ensuring that there are door locks. Management has authorized a key. Also present is a potential failure of vulnerability scanning tools, FireWarning. The log-on I.D.s and passwords enable only authorized users access to the computer system: accounting routines, encryption coding, and audit trails. Repeated breaches where data or systems are compromised are a sign of systemic issues, operational failures, and, potentially, a culture that does not value security. Compliance lapses, audit issues, and a lack of metrics and transparency can all be precursors of potential security problems as well. Another function that seems to be lacking is administrative controls involving people and procedures. Therefore, Montefiore cannot track who enters a sensitive area and sensitive report real-time. (Aguas et al., 2016) There also appears to be an inadequate potential alignment with the business. Business units may also view security as a policeman rather than a partner. CISOs and their teams that do not make an effort to understand and partner with the business leaders often become roadblocks to the business achieving its objectives, which leads to employees circumventing the security team and security measures (Aguas et al., 2016) The security organizational structure may not be well defined or buried several layers down in I.T. Montefiore may have also had a false sense of security. However, complying with guidelines does not address all cyber risks or make an organization secure. That approach can create an organizational culture with a very narrow and inadequate understanding of cyber risk. (Aguas et al., 2016) Another potential weakness is the identification of system vulnerabilities. For a vulnerability assessment to be successful, both system users and developers must participate in the exercise. The evaluation aims to review the critical components of the system’s proper and reliable operation. After that, the evaluator will review what has failed in the past? Why did it fail? What has been the effect of these failures, and what corrective actions were they? These questions should be carefully reviewed, and vulnerabilities be remediated accordingly. The improved system should be tested under actual or simulated threat conditions to determine how effective the mitigation has been. (Aguas et al., 2016) RISKSOURCEPROBABILITYIMPACTRISK SOURCELack of visibilityInternalHighHighHighLack of physical security functionalityHighHighHighHighPotential lack of leadership resources shortcomingsHighHighHighHighPotential lack of restrictions to critical assetsHighHighHighHighFalse sense of securityHighHighHighHigh A Probability is the likelihood of a threat to occur. An Impact analysis estimates the degree of loss that could occur due to the exploitation of a security vulnerability (SANS, 2015). Leadership and Resource Shortcomings The management of the business suite is the responsibility of the Executives Branch, security developments, strategic decision making, and, ultimately, organizational success depends on the commitment from management. Unfortunately, securing an organization against insider threats requires the involvement of the entire leadership team, not just the Chief Security Officer (CSO). The function may have a small budget compared to the industry, with limited resources and skillsets, or the security program may not be well-defined. It may lack established processes and controls (Richmond, 2021). Therefore, CSOs need to work with the rest of the executive members to convince them of the business case for tackling negligent and compromised insider threats. Only then will secure decision-making filter down through the ranks. (Burke, 2017). Through these ongoing advisory services, Montefiore can address the common issue of ineffective patching due to lack of prioritization, cultural and resource challenges, inconsistent results, and lack of actionable information. A lack of visibility Montefiore Medical System has little to no visibility regarding network activity. But lacking the ability to monitor user behavior and file movement makes it difficult to detect insider threats. When developing a proactive insider threat plan, CSOs need to know Montefiore’s network visibility level. Technology can establish baseline activity for user behavior, monitor for anomalies, and even automate appropriate actions by, for example, sandboxing the user in question. (Burke, 2017). Lack of physical security functionality Montefiore’s physical access control to critical assets is deficient or not monitored, making it adequately observed; hence, employees easily steal mobile handheld devices and storage cards without being noticed immediately. Montefiore needs to design a physical security plan that includes access control, door contact, motion sensors, surveillance, and security testing to improve physical security (Burke,2017) Bell-Lapadula Bell-LaPadula is a security model used by military security and government in control applications (Harris & Maymí, 2018). This model is used to enforce single computer-based applications. This security model was developed by David Elliott Bell and Leonard J. LaPadula, after strong guidance from Roger R. Schell in the U.S. department of defense (Harris & Maymí, 2018). Because this security model is employed by top government and military agents, it was developed for confidentiality because the military and government control is all about keeping secrets, which explains why this security model was developed to manage multi-level security application systems. In this context, Bell-LaPadula addresses different types of secrets, such as the simple security rule, the start property rule, and the strict star property rule. This suggests that lower classification levels and higher classification levels cannot read, write, or view any communication (Harris & Maymí, 2018). Biba Integrity model Kenneth J. Biba invented this security model in 1975 as a formal state transition of data security policies meant to offer sets of security control rules to maintain data integrity (Harris & Maymí, 2018). Data integrity lies among the three security keys in computer security, which means that data is made available to authorized and authenticated users only. Any unauthenticated user cannot access or modify the data, and therefore the data remains consistent in the database. (Harris & Maymí, 2018). Single integrity property is the basis of this security system, which means that an object of concern remains dealt with on the condition that the integrity of the subject is less than integrity. This explains why Biba’s Strict Integrity policy security model existed to counter and deny any malicious request of an object from a subject of data security system, lowering the ability of security systems cohesion and compatibility with external programs and software. (Harris & Maymí, 2018) Clark-Wilson Clark-Wilson is an integrity model which ensures data integrity on commercial software systems and provides a mechanism for evaluating security aspects of commercial software systems(Harris & Maymí, 2018). This model was invented in 1987 by Clark-Wilson and updated after two years by David R.Wilson.This security model defines several constraints and allows modifications only on a set of authorized and authenticated software (Harris & Maymí, 2018). Unlike other security models, Clark -Wilson model maintains both external and internal data consistency. The major disadvantage of this model is that it does not have multiple authentication layers (Harris & Maymí, 2018). Chinese Wall Model The Chinese wall security model, also known as Brewer and Nash model, was created by Dr. David F.C Brewer and Dr. Michael J Nash in 1989 (Harris & Maymí, 2018) The primary objective of this model is to maintain data privacy and data integrity and, the model aimed at preventing communication of interest that could lead to conflicts of interest (Harris & Maymí, 2018). The access, read and write of data is owned and managed by the membership of data and data sets in conflict classes. The United Kingdom stock exchange used this model due to its advantage and effectiveness in preventing conflicts of interest (DeMillo, 1983). Clinical Information System Dr. Ross J Anderson developed this security in 1996. It was designed to protect patient information security and access and access information among the doctors (Anderson, 1996). Encryption management is the method used to secure this data. A careful system administrator should maintain the best security for his system with the most negligible incidence on user operation (Dacier,1996)). To access patients’ data, the party responsible for the data must notify the respective patient in the event of sharing their data (Anderson, 1996). Among the critical aspects of this model are confidentiality, aggregation, accountability, and informed consent (Anderson, 1996). Write security prevents high-level Trojan Horses from copying the contents of high-level levels to which low-level users can gain read access. (McLean, 1994)). Non-Interference Security This security measure was first described by Goguen and Meseguer in 1982 and amplified after two years (Harris & Maymí, 2018). It was created by researchers in SRI’S Computer science laboratory. This theory forms the foundation of policymaking and implementation mechanisms (Harris & Maymí, 2018). This method deals with non-interference domains in which the output of one domain is the input of the following domain, which means that any change that appears in one domain should be available on other domains. Logging in a key feature can track all actions taken on a patient’s data, showing the party responsible for the data. This is a stringent policy that accounts for accountability (Spafford & Garfinkel 1991). The definition domain (i.e., the sequence of characters) of the password determines the probability of cracking the password in each period (Riddle et al., 1989) Deducibility David Sutherland wrote the deductibility security model in 1986, and it is focused on sharing data relating to the flow of information (Harris & Maymí, 2018). In this method, the generalization of security state machine input and output remains dynamic. This method supports login and classifications, but it does not state or explain how the login and type are created. This method work on a set of well-set constraints and policies that highly values the privacy and secrecy of patient’s data. Cryptographic equations will ensure patient information to be secured and cannot be decrypted by an external party (Harris & Maymí, 2018). With this model, the security of social security disability is maintained. Graham-Denning The technique of Grayham – Denning was created by GS Scott Graham and Peter J Denning in the 1970s (Harris & Maymí, 2018). This method describes how information objects and subjects need to be created and deleted. This method of control is utilized in most distributed systems. This method is separated into three sections: objects, subjects, and rules. This method controls the access mechanisms of distributed systems, and it also shows how access rights are granted to different parties. The most fundamental limitation of this method is that it entailed many conditions and commands to execute a simple task (Harris & Maymí, 2018). Appendix B: Security Models Summary Montefiore’s information technology (I.T.) goal is to provide secure and available services for employees and clients to support business growth and development. The 2021 security breach that affected 1787 patients indicates a lack of confidentiality and data integrity, making it impossible to claim the existing enterprise security is meeting the organization’s goals and objectives (DataBreaches, 2021). Evidence suggests that organizational abilities to develop high‐quality situational awareness of the current and future threat environment are possible by possessing appropriate means. The ability to respond to information security threats is associated with the effective implementation of information security strategies, influencing organizational performance (Hall et al., 2011). This security plan’s main features will define information security procedures, provide systemic techniques, approaches, and standards to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability within the Montefiore information system. Goals The standards and procedures in the Montefiore security plan will apply to all assets and information systems of Montefiore. The action plan comprises comprehensive security procedures and policies that makeup Montefiore’s I.T. security program. The action plan is divided into three categories as follows: The first step is to identify and categorize the information systems. Identify systems, subsystems, software, and hardware. Also, know how the systems fit into Montefiore’s business process, how sensitive is the data, and who owns it. Identify how systems are interrelated to other systems. It is advisable to form a security team to establish security missions, objectives and goals, and funding for security projects. (Harris & Maymí, 2018). Develop a security policy: Assessment indicates a weakness in Montefiore’s security system that enables unauthorized data access and theft by an employee. There is a need to develop a security policy that set the expectation and guide employees behaviors on the use of organization data.The next step is to work with the security team to perform an inventory of existing most valuable data and determine those properties that are vulnerable to data security risks. (Harris & Maymí, 2018).Data classification: Continuous data breaches in Montefiore security systems will affect the company’s brand and lead to business losses due to frequent compensations. Data classification will help explain to employees from different teams what data they have access to, the sensitivity of the data, and what to do to ensure security.Employee awareness training: Expand monitoring and employee training programs to reinforce privacy protections and standards. January 2021 breach is evidence of outdated monitoring equipment, and policy gaps remain a severe issue for Montefiore. It is also evident that leadership may not be aware of the security posture or may not have the required resources to implement an effective risk management plan to close these gaps.Monitor activities: Utilize log monitoring tools and a security event management system to provide real-time analysis of security alerts generated by the network hardware and application.Institute a post-employment process: Implement employee’s account deactivation, including notification and removal process for physical, network and application access within the 36 hr. Risk classification Montefiore’s information security system is classified as low- moderate or high- risk. Low–risk data system is for public use, and the loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability will have no financial and material impact on the organization. A moderate-risk data system is not for public use. The loss of confidentiality, integrity could have a mild effect on Montefiore. High-risk data and systems are confidential or restricted information. These are the system that provides Montefiore with critical services. (Harris & Maymí, 2018) Threat prioritization Montefiore’s I.T. team must prioritize cyber risk to handle threats appropriately. Prioritizing the threats based on the presently exploited vulnerabilities or will potentially be used will guide the I.T. teams to prioritize data security decisions. Security attributes for Montefiore are: Confidentiality: Montefiore needs to design its business processes and systems to prevent unauthorized access.Integrity: Montefiore needs to design its business processes and systems to prevent unauthorized changes to assets, system states, procedures, or the system.Authenticity: Montefiore needs to design its business processes and systems to verify the authenticity of inputs to outputs from the system.Availability: Montefiore needs to design its business processes system to be available on time.Ownership: Montefiore needs to design its business processes and systems to prevent unauthorized manipulation, control, or interference.Value: Montefiore needs to design its business processes and systems to maintain its assets throughout its system lifecycle.Security: Montefiore needs to design its business processes and systems in a safe environment for its employees and associated assets. Business Case for Montefiore Medical System There is a constant innovative technological advancement in software and hardware in the information technology industry. As a result, organizations are motivated to acquire these Information technologies (I.T.) products to secure their I.T. ecosystem. The introduction of new technologies also creates new vulnerabilities in I.T. products. Since data security focuses on confidentiality, integrity, availability (CIA), organizations must ensure adequate security measures to avoid comprising the CIA security goals. The purchase of new technology equipment is challenging for organizations because cybercriminals are advance in finding new vulnerabilities in every new I.T. product. Information confidentiality is implemented in organizations to ensure sensitive data as Personal Identifiable Information (PHI) is not accessed by an unauthorized user. Montefiore medical system must consider some security models to safeguard the confidentiality of the data and systems. Montefiore reported that a staff member accessed patients’ medical records without authorization for five months. Another employee stole the protected health information (PHI) of about 4 000 patients between January 2018 and July 2020 (DataBreaches, 2021). The recent discovery involved Montefiore’s fire warning software that monitors records for improper access and discovered a member of staff accessed the patient’s records without authorization for more than 12 months. The unauthorized record access violates the Patients’ Health Insurance Portability and accountability act (HIPPA) and the clinic staff code of conduct (DataBreaches, 2021). Montefiore Medical Center has experienced two computer thefts. On May 22, 2010, two employees stole two desktop computers from Montefiore’s Finance Department. Montefiore discovered the robbery on Monday, May 24, 2010. According to a hospital spokesperson, the Finance Department theft affected 16,000 patients’ records and 23,000 students’ information in the school health program (DataBreaches, 2010). The theft exposes the weakness of the physical safeguards in Montefiore enterprise security. Therefore, Montefiore must remediate the security gap. Implementation Plan The implementation plan requires the technology team to identify assets and critical systems to understand the impact of a potential cyberattack. The breaches that occurred multiple times involving data and equipment theft in Montefiore went undetected for days indicate ineffective security measures. To mitigate vulnerabilities in the company’s cyber enterprise infrastructure, Montefiore senior managers need to create strong cybersecurity foundations by providing security intelligence to stay ahead of internal and external threats. The company also needs to engage the services of penetration testers to review the enterprise systems and search for vulnerabilities and potential weaknesses and remediate gaps as soon as they are detected. The company needs to invest in innovations such as artificial intelligence and analytics. Regular cybersecurity audits must also be part of the company’s cybersecurity culture to identify and prioritize threats. Security models and Attribute After a thorough review of several security models, Montefiore medical system needs to implement Clinical Information System Security and Bell- Lapadula security models to ensure system security. Montefiore’s primary goal is to protect the system’s confidentiality while maintaining the integrity of the stored data by separation of duties, audits, authentication, and well-instituted transactions to support the company’s database management systems. Bell-Lapadula and Clinical information security model attributes will help Montefiore meet these security objectives. Clinical Information Systems security Physicians designed clinical information system security to protect patient’s health records; the model gives and accounts are policies and rules on how to access clinical information in how systems are designed to meet the goals of this model (Anderson, n. d). The model outlines best practices for protecting health information and defines risks to privacy if these practices are implemented. This security model also gives rights to users who have the right to build specific details on clinical information systems. Due to patients’ data sensitivity, some users need to have access to the clinical information security as outlined by the policies and procedures regarding health information. This security model provides guidelines on how data should be handled, processed, and maintained by users’ authorized users. To ensure accountability and confidentiality of what the user might view or edit, the Clinical Information System Security model grants access to users based on their role in the organization. This security model ensures that users will have access to information needed only to perform their job functions. Some users may have full access in other situations as their job functions permit them to edit data in the system. At the same time, some may need only read-only access because they only need to view information for knowledge; the encryption management of this model allows users who have the key to decrypt data. Bell-LaPadula Model The Bell-LaPadula security model requires a user to have a security clearance to access the data. There are three core principles: no read-up, no write-down, and discretionary security property. This model thoroughly utilizes mandatory and discretionary access control and the no-read-up property in Leonard La Padula’s. David Bell’s model states that an associate cannot read any documents made by an official (Harris & Maymí, 2018).Therefore, a user with low-level security clearance cannot view any highly- classified documents. The no write-down property will allow Montefiore to allocate a specific user whose security level will be higher than his or her level of clearance to prevent that user from disclosing information to a lower level of his or her current status(Harris & Maymí, 2018). The third property, which is the discretionary security property, allows the subject to have a “certain type of access on the object, he/she can transfer rights to other associates (subject) of their choice.” The mandatory access control aspect of the model will allow individuals only to access what they are permitted to view. Implementing the Bell-LaPadula model will enable Montefiore to decide that it will be coming from a centralized authority than individuals owning the subject. The implementation of this model by Montefiore shows that anyone having access to Stolen computers would need to have some level of clearance even to read the data. This will ensure confidentiality of data on Montefiore equipment. Security Assessment and Potential improvement The security assessment of controls and all of Montefiore’s Information Technology (I.T.) infrastructure will identify areas that need improvement. Implementing the recommendations can also significantly improve the security posture of Montefiore’s enterprise systems. A robust cybersecurity culture through security awareness training will help reduce the possibility of an attack through social engineering investing in security intelligence, analytics, Artificial intelligence, and security software tools to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of stored data or data transit. Regular cybersecurity audits and penetration testing help detect vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the system. For business continuity to be maintained, stakeholders need to implement these security recommendations to ensure alignment with Montefiore’s business objectives through effective communication and cooperation. The application of Network Forensic Tools (NFAT) will help protect intellectual property, will detect employees exploiting the organization’s network. It will adequately assess risk, security investigations, detects hacking attempts, assist in incident recovery, anomaly detection, network performance, and determine network and hardware protocols in use. Montefiore needs to seriously consider the security of its operating systems, employees’ training, policies, and procedures that govern the entire organization. Policies and procedures: All current security policies and procedures should be reviewed and updated to reflect the planned security measures. Implement HIPAA standards regarding backups, transfer sensitive information, and ensure all HIPAA requirements applying to Montefiore systems are observed. Ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all e-PHI they create, receive, maintain or transmit. Perform continuous monitoring of strategies to ensure all controls are in complaints after authorization to operate. This can be attained by implementing the HIPAA Security Rules. Conclusion Montefiore’s main objective is to ensure enterprise security guarantees confidentiality, integrity, and availability. After evaluating the current security posture of Montefiore” s medical systems, implementing the security assessment and areas of improvement in this memorandum will improve the overall enterprise security posture. The new recommended security models will ensure Montefiore the medical system enterprise security will comply with HIPPA rules. For this project to be implemented, senior management needs to finance this project despite the huge capital involved in its execution. The benefits outweigh the cost of this project. References Anderson, R. J. (n.d). A security policy model for clinical information University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory systems. https://www.cs.colostate.edu/~cs656/reading/anderson.pdfReferences Antón, S.P, Anderson, R.H., Mesic, R. & Scheiern, M.(2013). Finding and Fixing Vulnerabilities in Information Systems: The vulnerability and assessment and mitigation methodology. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1601.pdf Baker, J., & Henderson, S. (2017). The Cyber Data Science Process. The Cyber Defense Review, 2(2), 47-68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26267343 Bendovschi, A. (2015). Cyber-Attacks – Trends, Patterns, and Security Countermeasures. Procedia Economics and Finance, 28, 24-31.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01077-1 Bhatt, N., Anand, A., Yadavalli, V. S., & Kumar, V. (2017). Modeling and characterizing software vulnerabilities. International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, 2(4), 288–299 Blog, G. B. (2019, November 12). Physical security threats (that are often overlooked). https://www.genieall.com/physical-security-threats/#:~:text=Lack%20of%20physical%20controls%20may,to%20manage%20its%20security%20holistically. Bourgeois, D.T. (2014). Information Systems for Business and Beyond. Burke, P.(2017)Getting Inside the Threat. Insider threats: the 4 vulnerabilities you’re missing. CSO Online. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3234696/insider-threats-the-4-vulnerabilities-you-re-missing.html. Che, J., Duan, Y., Zhang, T., & Fan, J. (2011). Study on the Security Models and Strategies of Cloud Computing. Procedia Engineering, 23, 586–593. Conrad, E. & Feldman, F. (2016). Domain 6: Security Assessment and Testing (Designing, Performing, and Analyzing Security Testing). https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/penetration-testing Dacier, M., Deswarte, Y., & Kaâniche, M. (1996). Quantitative assessment of operational security: Models and tools. Information Systems Security, Ed. by SK Katsikas and D. Gritzalis, London, Chapman & Hall, 179–186. DataBreaches. (2021, April 14). NY: Montefiore Medical Center discloses fourth insider-wrongdoing breach in seven months. https://www.databreaches.net/?s=Montefiore+Medical+Center+ DeMillo, R. A., & American Mathematical Society. (1983). Applied Cryptology, Cryptographic Protocols, and Computer Security Models. American Mathematical Soc. Dissent, & Dissent, A. the author: (2021, April 14). NY: Montefiore Medical Center discloses fourth insider-wrongdoing breach in seven months. https://www.databreaches.net/ny- Ellingwood, J. (2014). An introduction to networking terminology, interfaces, and protocols. https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/an-introduction-to-networking-terminology-interfaces-and-protocols. Fernandez, E. B., & Pan, R. (2001). A pattern language for security models. In Proc. of PLoP Goel, J. N., & Mehtre, B. M. (2015). Vulnerability assessment & penetration testing as a cyber defense technology. Procedia Computer Science, 57, 710-715. Goguen, J. A., & Meseguer, J. (1982). Security Policies and Security Models. 1982 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 11–11. Gray, J. W. (n.d.). On information flow security models. In Proceedings Computer Security Foundations Workshop IV. https://doi.org/10.1109/csfw.1991.151569 Harris, S., & Maymí Fernando. (2018). Cissp exam guide (8th ed., Ser. All-in-one). McGraw-Hill Education. Jang-Jaccard, J., & Nepal, S. (2014). A survey of emerging threats in cybersecurity. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 80(5), 973-993. Johnson, E. (2016). 5 Reasons enterprises still worry about cloud security. http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities—threats/5-reasons-enterprises-still- worry-about-cloud-security/d/d-id/1325591 Joshi, J. B. D., Aref, W. G., Ghafoor, A., & Spafford, E. H. (2001). Security models for web-based applications. Communications of the ACM, 44(2), 38–44. Keary, T. (2020, August 16). How to use the Wireshark network protocol analyzer [Tutorial] https://www.comparitech.com/net-admin/how-to-use-wireshark/ Labrie, G. (2018). The Five Core Principles It Modern Enterprise Cybersecurity. blog.wei.com/the-five-core-principles-of-modern-enterprise-cybersecurity-part-1 Liu, B. (2019). Cryptographic Access Control: Security Models, Relations and Construction. The University of Bristol Montefiore Medical Center. (2021). About Montefiore Medical Center. https://www.montefiore.org/about Mualfah, D. & Riadi, I. (2017). Network forensics for detecting flooding attacks on a web server. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, 15(2), 326–331. Nostro, N., Brancati, F., Bondavalli, A., & Ceccarelli, A. (n.d.). (PDF) Insider Threat Assessment: A Model-Based Methodology. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269398668_Insider_Threat_Assessment_A_Model-Based_Methodology. Onarcan, M. O. & Yongjian, F. (2018). Case Study on Design Patterns and Software Defects in Open-Source Software. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 11(05). https://m.scirp.org/papers/85007 McLean, J. (1990, January 1). Security models and information flow. Proceedings. 1990 IEEE Computer Society Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/risp.1990.63849 McLean, J. (1994). Security models. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.34.8561&rep=rep1&type=pdf Mclean, J. (1987). Reasoning About Security Models. 1987 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 123–123. Nichols, R. K., Nichols, R., Lekkas, P., & Lekkas, P. C. (2002). Wireless Security: Models, Threats, and Solutions. McGraw-Hill Companies, Incorporated. Patil, R.Y. & Devane, S. R . (2020). Network forensic investigation protocol to identify the true origin of cybercrime. Journal of King Saud University -Computer and information sciences, 32(10), 1214. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2019.11.016 Montefiore-medical-center-discloses-fourth-insider-wrongdoing-breach-in-seven-months/. Richmond, M. (2021) The Human Element of Data Breaches. https://www.pncpa.com/insights/human-element-data-breaches. Sharma, A. & Misra, P.K (2017) Aspects of enhancing Security in Software Development Life Cycle. Advances in Computational Sciences and Technology, 10(2), 203-210. http://www.ripublication.com Trivedi, K. S., Kim, D. S., Roy, A., & Medhi, D. (2009). Dependability and security models. 2009 7th International Workshop on Design of Reliable Communication Networks, 11–20.
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS