Page 11 - IMDR Journal 2025
P. 11

Research Article
            September 5, 2018. About 380,000 people had their personal   nor  BA  used  multi-factor  authentication  (MFA)  on  the
            and payment info stolen. This included names, addresses,   accounts targeted by hackers. NIST emphasises MFA as a
            emails,  credit  card  numbers,  expiration  dates,  and  CVV   critical enhancement beyond passwords alone. Additional
            codes. No passport or travel details were leaked. Hackers   protections, such as endpoint encryption and secure coding,
            first broke into the system of Swissport, a company that   were also lacking. For instance, BA’s decision to log plain
            worked with British Airways. They used that access to put   text credit card data for convenience (a human error noted by
            harmful code into the BA app and website. This code sent   the ICO) represented a failure of protective design. SFO’s
            customer payment info to a fake website. British Airways   websites had no secure web gateway or anti-malware filters,
            didn’t notice the attack right away. A third party informed   allowing injected scripts to operate undetected.
            them on September 5. They removed the bad code within 90   ● Detect This function pertains to identifying cybersecurity
            minutes of finding out. BA then told the UK data regulator   events  promptly.  Both  organisations  failed  to  detect  the
            (ICO) and warned affected customers. They were criticized   intrusions in real time. At SFO, the malicious code remained
            for the breach, and their stock price dropped. The media also   on the sites long enough to steal credentials before anyone
            heavily criticized the company.                   noticed.  BA  similarly  did  not  realise  its  systems  were
            About the breach, the ICO finally assessed BA with a 20-  compromised until notified by an external party almost two
            million-pound (1/4 of its suggested fine of E183 million   weeks  into  the  attack.  This  delay  meant  attackers  had
            (1.5% of its included revenue in 2017). The incident of BA is   unrestrained  access  for  an  extended  period.  Effective
            argued to be among the biggest ever airline data breaches,   intrusion-detection  systems  or  real-time  monitoring
            which  signifies  a  material  weakness  related  to  its  web   (components  of  the  NIST  CSF  Detect  function)  were
            security and governance for a long time.          insufficient or inactive in both cases.
            These incidents are examples of an increasing trend: airlines   ● Respond Once a breach occurs, the ability to contain and
            and  airports  become  a  desirable  target  of  cybercriminals   mitigate impact is key. Both SFO and BA reacted reactively.
            because of the IT systems they currently have and use, and   Their  incident  response  teams  were  reportedly  under-
            the data they contain that could be valuable. In both the SFO   equipped and undertrained. For example, BA officials were
            and British Airways cases, hackers took advantage of weak   slow to identify all affected customers and did not publicise
            security. They used the time they had after stealing data to do   details promptly. NIST recommends clear communication
            more  damage.  These  attacks  shook  customer  trust  and   plans,  roles,  and  procedures  for  incident  handling.  BA’s
            forced both companies to take urgent action. Looking at   response, which involved late notification to regulators and
            these  events  helps  us  understand  the  need  for  stronger   customers, showed that such plans were either absent or
            cybersecurity.                                    poorly executed. SFO had to scramble to remove malicious
            Analytical Frameworks                             code and reset credentials, indicating they lacked a fully
                                                              developed response plan.
             Understanding Cybersecurity with the NIST Framework
                                                              ●  Recover  After  incidents,  organisations  should  restore
            The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) is a guide to   systems  and  learn  from  failures.  Both  breaches  caused
            help protect important systems.
                                                              entrenched reputational damage. Recovery for BA involved
            It’s not mandatory, but it helps companies manage risks.  regulatory fines and an extensive PR response. The negative
            The framework has five main steps:                 publicity was “widespread and entrenched” (especially for
                                                              BA).  NIST’s  Recover  function  would  suggest  formally
            ● Identify – Know what needs protection.
                                                              updating recovery plans based on lessons learned. BA did
            ● Protect – Put security in place.                revise some practices (e.g., removing stored card data) after
            ● Detect – Spot when something goes wrong.        the  breach,  but  much  of  the  damage  to  customer  trust
                                                              remained. In short, recovery in terms of regaining goodwill
            ● Respond – Act quickly to fix it.
                                                              was costly and only partially addressed.
            ● Recover – Get things back to normal.
                                                              In summary, each NIST function reveals shortcomings. If
            When we look at the SFO and BA breaches using this guide,
                                                              SFO and BA had fully implemented the CSF, they would
            we see problems at every step.                    have conducted rigorous risk identification and protective
            ● In the Identify stage, both companies didn’t fully know   controls (such as MFA and secure coding), enabling faster
            which systems or data were at risk. They also didn’t find the   detection of anomalies. NIST’s emphasis on a “common
            weak spots before the hackers did. Neither SFO nor BA had   language” and regular updates means organisations should
            fully identified all critical assets or potential vulnerabilities   continuously  improve  defences  as  threats  evolve.  he
            before the breaches. For example, BA had not updated an old   security  breaches  at  San  Francisco  Airport  (SFO)  and
            JavaScript library on its website, leaving a known exploit   British Airways (BA) show that the NIST Cybersecurity
            unaddressed.  Both  organisations  lacked  a  thorough   Framework (CSF) was either not used or not used properly.
            inventory of their online assets and did not recognise this   That’s likely why the attacks were not noticed in time.
            weakness, indicating a failure in the Identify function.  ISO/IEC 27001 and the Information Security Management
            ●  Protect  This  covers  safeguards  like  access  control,   There’s  another  system  called  ISO/IEC  27001.  It’s  a
            encryption, and security best practices. In both cases, basic   standard way for companies to protect their important data.
            protective measures were absent or inadequate. Neither SFO   It works from the top down, meaning leaders are involved in




                                                                                                    2
   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16