Data Security: A Review of Major Security Breaches Between 2014 and 2018

This research reviews the reasons behind some of the major data security breaches from 2014-2018 and analyzes the types of breaches and companies impacted. The impacts of data breaches are far reaching and include financial repercussions, as well as the potential for identity theft of unsuspecting customers. Challenges to data security and the human factor are discussed. Recommendations for businesses and educators are provided.

Federation of Business Disciplines Journal
Volume 6, 2018 50 - 63
DATA SECURITY: A REVIEW OF MAJOR
SECURITY BREACHES BETWEEN
2014 AND 2018
Ashley A. Hall
Stephen F. Austin State University
Nacogdoches, Texas 75962
USA
Carol S. Wright
Stephen F. Austin State University
Nacogdoches, Texas 75962
USA
ABSTRACT
Security breaches have been a frequent news topic in recent years. Many
companies have issued statements about data security breaches that have impacted
the company itself, along with customers and vendors. This research reviews the
reasons behind some of these breaches and analyzes the largest breaches from 2014
– 2018. The data shows trends in the types of breaches and types of companies
impacted. In addition, recommendations for businesses and educators are provided.
Key Words: cyber security, data breaches, cyber attacks
INTRODUCTION
Compromised credit card accounts. Creation of new accounts using the social security
number of an unsuspecting individual. Lost healthcare data. Voter fraud. These are just a few
examples of possible repercussions due to data security breaches. With the demand for services
provided by companies such as LifeLock, which exists to alert customers to potential identity
threats (“LifeLock,” n.d.), it raises the question “what can be done to keep people’s data safe?”
Recent examples of data security breaches fill today’s headlines. In mid-December 2013,
Target Corporation discovered that the debit and credit card information of approximately 70
million customers was compromised, as well as customer details including addresses, email
addresses, and phone numbers (“Data breach FAQ,” n.d.). Denning and Denning (2016)
highlighted several other recent examples, including a data breach of the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management which affected 22 million federal employees, the compromise of Anthem health

51
insurance which impacted the personal data of 79 million individuals, and the data breach on Sony
Pictures Entertainment which affected more than 3,000 computers by destroying data and startup
software. The Sony hack also shared films not yet released and went public with embarrassing
emails from executives. According to the FBI, there are two types of companies – “those that have
been hacked, and those that will be” (Mueller, 2012). The hackers can range from an individual
acting alone to nation states. For example, the cyberattack against Sony Pictures Entertainment
was launched by North Korea (Frizell, 2015). Jenkins, Anandarajan, and D’Ovidio (2014) stated
that “in our technology- and data-driven time, a data breach for an organization is not a matter of
if, but rather of when” (p. 353).
These security breaches cause serious concerns for both consumers and businesses, as data
security breaches entail serious threats with large-reaching financial implications. For example,
the estimated costs of the December 2013 Target data breach totaled $300 million, according to
Lavasoft (2015). This figure includes payments to banks and credit card companies to settle class-
action lawsuits, shareholder lawsuits, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) probes, and related
network security costs (Lavasoft, 2015). When hackers breached Sony’s PlayStation Network in
2011, this affected an estimated 100 million customer accounts and the company faced remediation
costs of at least $171 million (Goodin, 2011). This figure does not include lawsuit related expenses.
According to Goodin (2011), “the estimate includes expenses of an identity theft prevention
program and promotional packages to win back customers, among other things.”
Statement of the Problem
Data security is proving to be increasingly difficult to manage, as there has been an increase
in both internal and external threats (Richardson, 2011; vanKessel, 2011). According to the U.S.
intelligence’s 2013 global threat assessment, cyber threats surpassed terrorism as the top global
threat to America. With the prevalence of security breaches being a frequent news topic in recent
years, this leaves one to question whether information is ever completely safe. The impacts of data
breaches are far reaching and include financial repercussions, as well as the potential for identity
theft of unsuspecting customers. This research reviews the reasons behind some of these breaches
and provides data on a selection of the largest breaches from 2014 – 2016. In addition, suggestions
concerning how instructors can teach students to become diligent protectors of their own and their
company’s data are provided.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Sen and Borle (2015) defined a data breach as “unauthorized access to sensitive, protected,
or confidential data resulting in the compromise or potential compromise of confidentiality,
integrity, and availability of the affected data. Sensitive, protected, or confidential data may
include personal health information, personal identifiable information, trade secrets or intellectual
property, and/or personal financial data” (p. 315). Given the increase in the amount of consumer
personally identifiable information (PII) that organizations collect, there is also an increase in the
risks associated with securing the data and maintaining customer privacy (Moncada, 2015). The
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (PRC) began tracking data breaches in 2005. As of October 2012,
leaks occurred in 563 million records. This number may actually be higher because not all breaches
may have been discovered and not all breaches are reported publicly (Wikina, 2014). According
to the PRC, between 2009 and 2012 there was a 230% increase in the number of records breached,
which impacted approximately 27 million people (Wikina, 2014).

52
Challenges to Data Security
According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (2012), cyber security
attacks are increasing in number, diversity, level of damage, and disruptiveness. The
interconnectedness and pervasiveness of cyber systems pose multiple challenges in the effort to
maintain data security. Key challenges to data security include the complexity of the systems, the
prevalence of new technologies, and human actions (or inactions).
One challenge to maintaining data security is the complexity of cyber systems and the
many lines of code, or instructions, written into a program. For example, Windows 10 uses 50
million lines of code, while Mac OS 10.4 uses 86 million lines of code, and each line of code is
susceptible to a security breach (Denning & Denning, 2016). Another challenge is the dynamic
state of cyber systems. According to Denning and Denning (2016), companies regularly upgrade
software systems, and each modification often results in the potential for new vulnerabilities to
exploit.
Software companies, in an effort to quickly bring their products to market, often limit the
time spent searching for and correcting vulnerabilities. A survey of over 200 developers conducted
by Prevoty (2015), a security software company, found that companies release applications when
there are known bugs (79% of respondents), apps with vulnerabilities are released at least 80% of
the time (nearly half of respondents), and there exists a sentiment that business pressures override
security issues (more than 70% of respondents).
The prevalence of new technologies also poses new security challenges for organizations.
Examples include cloud computing, Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies, social media, and
mobile devices. In cloud computing, “company and personal data are intermingled across
networks, applications, devices and storage media” (Snell, 2016, p. 22). BYOD policies that allow
employees to use their own devices for work purposes also pose data security challenges. If the
device is hacked, stolen, or inadvertently lost, company data is lost or at risk as well (Snell, 2016).
A 2008 study conducted by the Ponemon Institute and sponsored by Absolute Software found that
over 9 out of 10 (92%) IT security practitioners reported someone in their organization losing a
laptop or having it stolen. In addition, 71% reported that the loss or theft of the laptop resulted in
breached data.
The Human Factor
IBM (2013) found that approximately 80% of the vulnerabilities that cyber attackers
exploit are human vulnerabilities. Even so, the focus of cybersecurity efforts has largely been on
technology and systems tools (Hershberger, 2014). In a recent study, Unisys (2014) found that
over half (54%) of the breaches in 2013 were a result of employee negligence. According to Adams
and Makramalla (2015), “human vulnerabilities include, but are not limited to, employee
negligence, leadership misinformation and limited cybersecurity skills training, malicious insiders,
and third parties who have access to an organization’s network” (p. 5).
Examples of user behaviors that make data security more challenging include utilizing
weak passwords, opening attachments or clicking links haphazardly, and people who lose their
portable devices or fall for a phishing scam. System administrators can also leave the network
vulnerable to cyberattacks by not setting up appropriate security systems, or by failing to install
patches, respond quickly to security alerts, or remove accounts that are obsolete (Denning &
Denning, 2016). Responding timely is essential, yet a study of 50,000 organizations conducted by
Kenna Securities found that the average length of time it takes a company to install patches is 100

53
– 120 days. This fact is alarming considering that the probability of exploitation of a security
vulnerability is 90% in a 60-day window (Kenna Security, 2015).
Wikina (2014) discussed various types of breaches including “hacking or IT incidents,
theft, loss, unauthorized access or disclosure, [and] improper disposal” (p. 3). It was acknowledged
that a variety of infrastructure was impacted, including desktop and laptop computers, email
systems, electronic health records, paper records, and servers (Wikina, 2014). Interestingly,
Wikina (2014) found that “even with the increasing use of IT in healthcare, the vast majority of
data breaches affecting individuals appear to be the result of theft and loss, not hacking or IT
incidents” (p. 4).
Although employee negligence or carelessness can result in data breaches, people also play
an important role in data security efforts. Hershberger (2014) noted that when the Target
Corporation experienced a data breach in 2013, the security systems in place effectively detected
the breach; however, the people responsible for correcting the breach did not have the requisite
skills and knowledge on what to do in response. It is unfortunate that employees often lack
sufficient training on what to do in such a situation. Unisys (2014) found that only 6% of
companies surveyed identified offering training on cybersecurity to all employees as a top security
objective.
Impacts of Data Breaches
Data breaches affect both consumers and companies. Identity theft and fraud are major
concerns in the aftermath of a data security breach. While the two terms are often used
interchangeably, nuanced differences do exist, and identity fraud often occurs as a result of identity
theft (Consumer Info, 2015). Identity theft is the greatest impact of data breaches on individuals,
and 12.7 million victims of identity fraud suffered an estimated $16 billion loss in 2014 (Pascual
& Miller, 2015). One of the fastest growing white-collar crimes in the United States is identity
fraud (Javelin Strategy & Research, 2015).
In June 2014, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Luis Aguilar
cautioned that organizational boards should “prepare the company for the inevitable cyber attack
and the resulting fallout from such an event.” The Center for Strategic and International Studies
2014 report, funded by McAfee, estimated the costs of cyber crime globally to be more than $400
billion a year (Nakashima & Peterson, 2014). According to that same report, the United States lost
an estimated $100 billion in 2013 when considering both direct and indirect costs of cyber attacks.
In addition, companies must also pay to defend themselves in lawsuits that often occur as
a result of data breaches. For example, Sony is incurring legal costs related to defending itself
against 58 class action lawsuits filed in response to the breach, as well as any damages if the
company is found liable (Perlroth, 2011). This makes data breaches very expensive for
organizations.
Targeted Attacks
Sherstobitoff (2008) commented that there has been an increase in malware that is targeting
specific platforms. Such tailored malware targets an organization’s intellectual property and can
“remain under the radar for extended periods of time, thus going undetected by resident security
software until it is too late” (Sherstobitoff, 2008, p. 248). Such attacks utilize a variety of all-too-
believable tactics in an effort to encourage the victims to execute the Trojan attached to the
message. Fake subpoenas or tax documents are two such examples. The author noted that “Spear
phishing tactics have begun to replace generic forms of phishing as users began to recognize they

54
were not legitimate. When targeting a company to obtain specific information, hackers will
develop a phishing campaign designed for that company alone, researching and obtaining
information concerning their targets to ensure the message sent is believable” (Sherstobitoff, 2008,
p. 248).
Electronic health records are also prime targets for data security breaches. Data breaches
impacted over 500 individuals and affected more than 29 million records between 2010 and 2013
(Liu, Musen, & Chou, 2015). The Ponemon Institute’s second annual benchmark study, published
in 2011, found that employee negligence was the primary reason for data breaches within
healthcare organizations. However, the sixth annual study, published in 2016, found that “for the
second year in a row, criminal attacks are the leading cause of data breaches in healthcare” (p. 1).
Interestingly, when asked to select the three types of security threats that worry them the most,
more respondents answered negligent or careless employees (69%) than cyber attacks (45%)
(Ponemon, 2016).
According to the California Dental Association (2016, p. 49), “The U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services’ (HHS) online listing of protected health information breaches, known
as the ‘wall of shame,’ includes nearly 1,400 incidents of major data breaches (affecting 500 or
more people) since 2009 when the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule began.” Eastwood (2012)
posited that healthcare organizations need to be cognizant of hacking, “even though hacking
accounts for just 8 percent of data breaches, because personal health information is worth 50 times
more to hackers and data thieves than credit card or Social Security numbers” (Wikina, 2014, p.
3). According to Yao (2017), social security numbers sell for 10 cents and credit card numbers sell
for 25 cents on the black market, but electronic health records sell for hundreds or, at times,
thousands of dollars. The reason for this is that EHRs (electronic medical health record) have an
abundance of personal information to exploit (Yao, 2017). Examples of information available
include “names, birth dates, policy numbers, diagnosis codes and billing information” (Humer &
Finkle, 2014). This information is then used to generate fake IDs to purchase medical equipment
or prescription drugs which can be resold. Another example of how the purchased information
could be inappropriately used is by combining a patient number with a generated provider number
to file imaginary claims (Humer & Finkle, 2014). In an interview, Marc Probst, CIO of
Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, commented that “The only reason to buy that data
[from EHRs] is so they can fraudulently bill” (Humer & Finkle, 2014).
Data Breach Legislation and Reporting
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the U.S.’s primary enforcement agency policing
threats against consumer safety and data privacy (Moncada, 2015). The FTC encourages the self-
regulation of businesses by suggesting the creation of company-specific security programs based
on their business model (Moncada, 2015). State-specific legislation dictates required notification
of security breaches. There are 48 states that require notification on the part of private or
government entities when there are breaches of personally identifiable information. Alabama and
South Dakota do not have security breach laws at this time (“Security Breach Notification Laws,”
2017). Schneider (2009) noted that state statutes typically require businesses to acknowledge
breaches publicly and to alert those affected to take precautions. While federal legislation
regulating data security and notification is not in place at this time, industry-specific statutes do
exist (e.g., HIPAA for healthcare, GLBA for financial services) (Fisher, 2013; Zelle & Whitehead,
2014).

55
THE STUDY
To study the most recent data breaches and bring the academic literature current, the
authors compared lists of the most severe data breaches as reported by Forbes magazine and
Identity Force, an organization that provides identity, privacy, and credit protection (Hardekopf,
2015; Identity Force, 2015; Identity Force, 2016; Ramanan, 2015; Identity Force, 2017; Identity
Force, 2018). After comparing the lists and eliminating duplicates, the findings present the results
from the two groups. The two lists presented information about the breaches, including companies
effected, the reasons for the breach, and who was ultimately affected. The findings do not present
any other data breaches from other companies in the analysis.
Table 1 below provides the list of top data breaches for 2014 - 2016. The analysis uses the
following occurrences as part of this study:
Table 1
List of Companies Used for Study, Identified by Source
Forbes 2014
(Hardekopf, 2015)
Forbes 2015
(Ramanan, 2015)
Identity Force 2015
(Identity Force, 2015)
Identity Force 2016
(Identity Force, 2016)
Neiman Marcus Slack *Anthem FACC
White Lodging Hacking Team *Premera BCBS University of Central Florida
Sally Beauty Kaspersky **International Banks U.S. Dept. of Justice
Michaels *CareFirst BCBS Equifax Internal Revenue Service
Affinity Gaming LastPass *CareFirst BCBS U.C. Berkeley
**New York Attorney
General
*Premera BCBS Internal Revenue Service Snapchat
PF Changs *Experian/T-
Mobile
*AdultFriendFinder.com 21 Century Oncology
Albertsons/SuperValu *Office of
Personnel
Management
*Office of Personnel
Management
Premier Healthcare
Community Health
Systems
*Ashley Madison Houston Astros Verizon Enterprise Solutions
UPS *Anthem *Ashley Madison Systema Software
Dairy Queen CVS Photo Tidewater Community
College
Goodwill UCLA Health Systems MedStar Health
Home Depot United Airlines Phillipine Commission of
Elections
Jimmy Johns **iPhones **Multiple email providers
*JP Morgan Chase *Experian/T-Mobile Wendy’s
Sourcebooks Law Enforcement Enterprise
Portal
LinkedIn
Kmart Comcast NewKirk Products
Staples *JP Morgan Chase and others Oracle
Bebe Hilton Worldwide Dropbox
Sony Vtech Holdings Yahoo
Weebly
National Payment
Corporation of India
Cisco
*AdultFriendFinder.com
San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency

56
Using the above table as part of the study data, items designated with a single asterisk (*)
are duplicates and are only counted once in data analysis. Another duplication includes JP Morgan
Chase. The Forbes list identified it by itself, but the Identify Force list groups it with other
financial. Because JP Morgan was the bank mentioned to have the most number of customers
effected, it is counted as one company for data analysis. Items designated with a double asterisk
(**) are not used in this study because they do not identify a specific organization that was targeted.
These data breaches include the New York Attorney General’s Office who identified multiple
breaches, the international bank hacks which effected more than 100 banks, iPhone breaches that
were targeting a product, and breaches that effected multiple email providers without one specific
provider being the target.
Table 2 below provides the list of top data breaches for 2017 through October of 2018. The
analysis uses the following occurrences as part of this study:
Table 2
List of Companies Used for Study for 2017 and 2018, Identified by Source
Identity Force 2017
(Identity Force, 2018)
Identity Force 2018
(Identity Force, 2018)
TalentPen & TigerSwan Dun & Bradstreet Bithumb Coinrail
Uber Maine Foster Care GovPayNow SunTrust Banks
University of Oklahoma Online Spambot Chicago Public Schools Nashville Metro Public
Health
eBay Deep Root Analytics Rail Europe SSM Health St. Mary’s
TIO Networks River City Media FedEx Med Associates
InterContinental Hotels Brooks Brothers Central Maine Power CarePlus
California Assoc. of Realtors Kmart Dignity Health Reddit
DocuSign Arby’s LifeLock Google
E-Sports Entertainment Xbox 360 & PSP Exactis MongoDB Server
UNC Health Care America’s JobLink Sitter Panera Bread
FAFSA – IRS Bronx Lebanon
Hospital
Independence Blue Cross TCM Bank
Equifax Sonic BJC Healthcare Various U.S. universities
Disqus Imgur Partners HealthCare Jason’s Deli
OneLogin SVR Tracking Chili’s St. Peter’s Surgery &
Endoscopy
Verifone Whole Foods Market Orbitz Under Armour
Hyatt Hotels Forever 21 City of Goodyear LifeBridge Health
Sabre Hospitality Solutions Gmail Ticketfly TaskRabbit
Chipotle Washington State
University
Adidas Timehop
Saks Fifth Avenue Deloitte Polar Fitness Trackers Macy’s
U.S. Securities & Exchange
Commission
Verizon ComplyRight Adams Country
Fortnite Animoto
T-Mobile Air Canada
mSpy British Airways
Chegg Apollo
Department of Defense U.S. Center for Medicare &
Medicaid
Cathay Pacific Legacy Health
Instagram SHEIN
Nuance Communications Eastern Maine Community
College

57
Orrstown Bank ATI Physical Therapy
Inogen Unity Point Health
Aultman Health
Foundation
MedSpring Urgent Care
Augusta University Foosackly’s
Ticketmaster Newegg
UMC Physicians Boys Town National
Research Hospital
Toyota Click2Gov
Saks First Ave. and Lord
& Taylor
Cheddar’s Scratch Kitchen
U.S. Air Force Facebook
University of Buffalo LabCorp Diagnostics
MyHeritage Jones Eye Clinic
FINDINGS
This study includes 182 different organizations including private and public businesses,
government agencies, and educational institutions. Of these reported breaches, 48 out of 182
(80.8%) effected the organizations’ customers (including users of the systems and students for
educational institutions). Of the remaining breaches, 7.7% effected current, future, and/or former
employees, 3.8% effected the organization itself, 2.7% effected voters and/or taxpayers. Based on
our data source, 8.8% of the organizations did not have a reported target of the attack at the time
of the disclosure. The percentages exceed 100% because some data breaches effected multiple
parties.
Data breaches appear to run in cycles as to how they occur. Whereas in 2014 data breaches
seemed to mostly target in-store point-of-sale systems (POS) (79% of the time), 2015 saw an
increase in hackers finding ways to penetrate secure systems to gain information (90% of the time).
2016 had online hacking as the most common occurrence (72% of the time). Although online hacks
were still common, 2017 and 2018 saw a rise in the number of company errors that caused the
breach. Table 3 below categorizes the types of data breaches analyzed.
Table 3
Types of Data Breaches by Year
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
In-store P.O.S. systems 79% 5% 4% 27% 6%
Hack of online system including
malware
21% 90% 79% 32% 56%
Phishing scams – employee error - 5% 8% 5% 9%
Other – internal error of system or
employee error
- - 4% 29% 24%
Other – physical stolen property - - 4% 2% 1%
Unknown/Not disclosed 5% 3%
Data breaches also appear to target certain types of businesses. In 2014, 75% of targeted
institutions were retail businesses, but in 2015 only 10% of affected organizations were in retailing.
Instead, 2015 saw 24% of breaches in technology companies, 19% in medical organizations, and
14% in entertainment. Similarly, 2016 brought breaches from technology (21%), medical (17%),
social (8%), and government (8%) organizations. Similar trends were seen in 2017 and 2018. One

58
interesting change in 2018 included two major hacks at cryptocurrency companies totaling a loss
of over $69 million in online currency being stolen.
Regardless of year, industry, or data breach, a tremendous number of people and
organizations have been affected by the abundance of data breaches in the last few years. Reports
of data breaches do not always report the number of people effected by the breaches, which makes
studying the topic more challenging. Yahoo! has, by far, had the largest data breach with one
billion customer accounts compromised from an online hack. Yahoo! divulged two large breaches
during 2016, which makes the company have the largest data breach in history. Yahoo! disclosed
that every one of its user accounts were affected by the breach (Identity Force, 2017). The next
five largest data breaches by the number of people effected amounts to 474 million individuals and
includes data breaches of AdultFriendFinder.com (412 million), LinkedIn (117,000,000), Home
Depot (109,000,000), and JP Morgan Chase and other banks (100,000,000), and Anthem
(80,000,000).
DISCUSSION
Although Unisys (2014) reported 54% of the breaches in 2013 were a result of employee
negligence, the largest security breaches the following three years showed that various types of
security hacks were to blame. This number increased again, however, in 2017. Data breaches at
retail business were predominant in 2014. They also affected the largest number of people, as
shown in the breach at Home Depot, which impacted 109 million customers. Online hacks of
company P.O.S. systems are still prevalent, but they seem to not be the most common occurrence
now.
Following the reporting of Sherstobitoff (2008), the latest data breaches did show an
increase in malware that targeted specific platforms. This was evident in the targeting of point-of-
sale systems that were prevalent in 2014 and the various hacks in 2015 and 2016. What is more
concerning are the types of companies targeted in 2015. As reported in the Forbes 2015 list
(Ramanan, 2015), The Hacking Team, which develops spying tools for various governments, had
its customer list revealed. In addition, Kaspersky, who develops anti-virus software, also had its
system breached, but the hackers were reportedly trying to learn about the company’s technology
“to try to stay under the radar” (Kaspersky, 2015, para. 6). LastPass, a password management
company that stores a master password for its customers, was also hacked.
The data does show an increase in public breaches of electronic health records, which
aligns with the research presented by Liu et al. (2015). Medical organizations had the second
highest number of large breaches in 2015, and at least 3.5 million people were affected by a breach
of medical records in 2016 alone (Identity Force, 2016). The large data breaches at Yahoo! show
a shift to the hacking of personal information at technology companies as the most common type
of breach in 2016.
Implications
It is evident from the research that no company is immune from the possibility of a data
breach. It seems startling that the recent data breaches appear to be more sophisticated in that the
targets are often technology-based companies that one would assume would have strict security
measures in place. However, it seems hackers are also becoming just as sophisticated as they are
hacking the companies whose purpose is to avoid hacking (e.g., Kaspersky, LastPass, and
LifeLock). Companies and consumers need to be diligent in protecting their data and prepare to
take steps to minimize the effects of a breach that is likely to occur.

59
For a company, fast disclosure to the effected parties is important through clear
communication. Vinton (2014) stressed “that transparency and communication is key, as clients
are often more concerned with how an organization responds to a breach than the fact that it
occurred” (para. 5). Timely, quality communication is an important business implication of this
study.
Action Steps
It may be beneficial for everyone (customers, companies, and employees alike) to take the
position that no system is secure. Ramanan (2015) warns that attacks will continue and will become
more intense. He predicts these hacks will affect more security organizations, that there will be an
increase in black market hacks, and more attacks led by nation states.
With the goal of mitigating data breaches, there are numerous action steps to teach both
students and employees. While many of them may seem elementary when compared to the
sophistication of today’s cyber-attacks, a few simple steps can help reduce the risk of employee
negligence being the culprit behind lost data. Although there has been much discussion about steps
to take to avoid data breaches, the increase in company errors in the last two years shows that
training is still needed in basic data protection. Lord (2018) details steps that institute best
practices when protecting data. These steps include:
• Use strong passwords – Create unique passwords using a variety of capitalization,
punctuation, and numbers (Deep Root Analytical failed to put passwords on certain
files).
• Keep passwords confidential – Do not share passwords with others or allow them to
log in under an account that is not theirs. Do not respond to email requests to enter
login credentials.
• Follow data security measures in place within the organization – Do not turn off
security features on company computers, and allow software to automatically update
(Deloitte did not follow two-factor authentication methods)
• Be suspicious of links and attachments – Click with caution. Avoid opening unexpected
email attachments which may contain viruses (Multiple companies including Orrstown
Bank, Unity Point Bank, and Augusta University experienced breaches because
employees were targeted by phishing emails).
• Exercise due diligence – Do not leave portable electronic devices unattended. When
leaving the physical workspace, lock the computer to prevent unauthorized access and
ensure no confidential information is visible. Turn off the computer and disable
wireless connections and file sharing when not in use (Nashville Metro Public Health
had information stolen by an employee).
As the data shows, data breaches are becoming increasingly complex. The number of
breaches because of employee negligence has decreased, and malicious attacks are increasing. The
company must consistently practice due diligence to constantly monitor their systems because it
seems that the criminals are becoming more sophisticated. Unfortunately, this due diligence is
falling on the advanced information technology personnel in the company. Constant training is
needed to stay abreast of new technologies, but little research has been available to address how
often trainings are conducted or how they are instituted.
CONCLUSION

60
In response to the increasing amount of information stored and transmitted electronically,
data security has become a pressing concern for businesses. The fallout that occurs in response to
a data breach significantly impacts the business as well as the lives of the customers whose
information was compromised. This study analyzed the top data breaches of 2014 through 2018,
and found that a variety of attacks occurred employing different strategies, which makes data
security more complex. Companies that reported these breaches are beginning to suffer additional
consequences after the initial breach. For example, Blue Cross Blue Shield/Anthem, who reported
a breach in 2015, settled with the FBI to offer customers additional credit monitoring services and
pay a $115 million fine (Identity Force, 2017) and VTech Technologies was fined $650,000 by
the FTC for its failure to require parental consent before collecting personal information from
children.
Given the likelihood that organizations will fall victim to data breaches, educators and
businesses have a responsibility to equip students and employees with an understanding of basic
data security principles. Doing so can help protect both the individual’s data, as well as the
business’, which will have major fiscal implications given the exorbitant costs of data breaches.
Instructors should emphasize that there are a variety of ways for data to be compromised. By
providing examples of recent data breaches, educators can showcase various methods being used
and discuss appropriate data security strategies with students.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Future research of data breaches should continue to follow trends of data breach sources,
as it seems these breaches run in cycles. Future research could also study individual companies
and their training programs to understand how employees are trained to protect data and whether
this training is effective.
REFERENCES
Adams, M., & Makramalla, M. (2015). Cybersecurity skills training: An attacker-centric gamified
approach. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(1), 5-14.
Aguilar, L. A. (2014, June 10). Boards of directors, corporate governance and cyber-risks:
Sharpening the focus. Retrieved from https://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/
1370542057946
California Dental Association (2016, January). Top seven data breach considerations. CDA
Journal, 44(1), 49-52.
Consumer Info, Inc. (2015, January 12). Identity theft and identity fraud. Retrieved from
https://www.freecreditscore.com/blog/identity-theft-identity-fraud/
Data breach FAQ (n.d.). Retrieved from https://corporate.target.com/about/shopping-
experience/payment-card-issue-FAQ
Denning, P. J., & Denning, D. E. (2016). Cybersecurity is harder than building bridges. American
Scientist, 104(3), 154-157. doi: 10.1511/2016.120.1
Eastwood, B. (2012). How to prevent healthcare data breaches (and what to do if you’re a victim).
CIO. Retrieved from http://www.cio.com/article/2389573/healthcare/how-to-prevent-
healthcare-data-breaches--and-what-to-do-if-you-re-a-victim-.html
Fisher, J. A. (2013). Secure my data or pay the price: Consumer remedy for the negligent
enablement of data breach. William & Mary Business Law Review, 4(1), 215-239.
Frizell, S. (2015, January 8). NSA director on Sony hack: ‘The entire world is watching’ Time.
Retrieved from http://time.com/3660757/nsa-michael-rogers-sony-hack/

61
Goodin, D. (2011, May 24). PlayStation Network breach will cost Sony $171m and counting. The
Register. Retrieved from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/24/
sony_playstation_breach_costs/
Hardekopf, B. (2015, January 13,). The big data breaches of 2014. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/01/13/the-big-data-breaches-of-
2014/#64a3ca343a48
Hershberger, P. (2014). Security skills assessment and training: The “make or break” critical
security control. SANS Institute InfoSec Reading Room. Retrieved from
https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/leadership/security-skills-assessment-
training-critical-security-control-break-o-35637
Humer, C., & Finkle, J. (2014, September 24). Your medical record is worth more to hackers than
your credit card. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cybersecurity-
hospitals-idUSKCN0HJ21I20140924
IBM (2013). The 2013 IBM cyber security intelligence index. Retrieved from http://www-
935.ibm.com/services/us/en/security/infographic/cybersecurityindex.html
Identity Force. (2015, March 27). The biggest data breaches of 2015, so far. Retrieved from
https://www.identityforce.com/blog/2015-data-breaches
Identity Force. (2016, December 16). The biggest data breaches in 2016. Retrieved from
https://www.identityforce.com/blog/2016-data-breaches
Identity Force. (2017, December 14). 2017 Data breaches – The worst so far. Retrieved from
https://www.identityforce.com/blog/2017-data-breaches
Identity Force (2018, October 25). 2018 Data breaches – The worst so far. Retrieved from
https://www.identityforce.com/blog/2018-data-breaches
Javelin Strategy & Research (2015, March). 2015 identity fraud study. Retrieved from
https://www.javelinstrategy.com/press-release/16-billion-stolen-127-million-identity-
fraud-victims-2014-according-javelin-strategy
Jenkins, A., Anandarajan, M., & D’Ovidio, R. (2014). “All that glitters is not gold”: The role of
impression management in data breach notification. Western Journal of Communication,
78(3), 337-357. doi: 10.1080/10570314.2013.866686
Kaspersky, E. (2015, June 10). Kaspersky Lab investigates hacker attach on its own network.
Retrieved from https://blog.kaspersky.com/kaspersky-statement-duqu-attack/8997/
Kenna Security (2015, September). How the rise in non-targeted attacks has widened the
remediation gap. Retrieved from https://www.kennasecurity.com/resources/non-targeted-
attacks-report/
Lavasoft (2015, December 7). Cost of Target’s holiday season data breach: $300 million.
Retrieved from http://www.lavasoft.com/mylavasoft/company/blog/cost-of-
target%E2%80%99s-holiday-season-data-breach-300-million
LifeLock (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.lifelock.com/
Lord, N. (2018, January 29). 101 Data protection tips: How to keep your passwords, financial &
personal information safe. Digital Guardian. Retrieved from
https://digitalguardian.com/blog/101-data-protection-tips-how-keep-your-passwords-
financial-personal-information-safe#DevicesNetworks
Liu, V., Musen, M. A., & Chou, T. (2015). Data breaches of protected health information in the
United States. JAMA, 313(14), 1471-1473.

62
Moncada, A. R. (2015). When a data breach comes a-knockin’, the FTC comes a-blockin’:
Extending the FTC’s authority to cover data-security breaches. DePaul Law Review, 64(3),
911-944.
Mueller III, R. S. (2012, March 1). RSA cyber security conference. Retrieved from
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/speeches/combating-threats-in-the-cyber-world-
outsmarting-terrorists-hackers-and-spies
Nakashima, E., & Peterson, A. (2014, June 9). Report: Cybercrime and espionage costs $445
billion annually. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/report-cybercrime-and-
espionage-costs-445-billion-annually/2014/06/08/8995291c-ecce-11e3-9f5c-
9075d5508f0a_story.html
National Institute of Standards and Technology (2012). Computer security incident handling
guide. Retrieved from http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-
61r2.pdf
Pascual, A., & Miller, S. (2015, March). Identity fraud report protecting vulnerable populations.
Javelin Strategy and Research. Retrieved from http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/34449/
cyber-crime/javelin-study-2015-identity-fraud.html
Perlroth, N. (2011, December 29). Insurance against cyber attacks expected to boom. NY Times
Bits. Retrieved from http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/insurance-against-cyber-
attacks-expected-to-boom/?_r=0
Prevoty, Inc. (2015). The impact of security on application development: 2015 survey report.
Retrieved from http://info.prevoty.com/impact-of-security-on-agile-development-report
Ponemon Institute, LLC (2008, December). The human factor in laptop encryption: US study.
Retrieved from http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/Absolute%20Software%20
Final%20%20United%20States.pdf
Ponemon Institute, LLC. (2016, May). Sixth annual benchmark study on privacy & security of
healthcare data. Retrieved from http://media.scmagazine.com/documents/232/
sixth_annual_benchmark_study_o_57783.pdf
Ponemon Institute, LLC (2011, December). Second annual benchmark study on patient privacy &
data security. Retrieved from https://clearwatercompliance.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011_Ponemon_ID_Experts_Study.pdf
Ramanan, S. (2015, December 31). The top 10 security breaches of 2015. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2015/12/31/the-top-10-security-breaches-of-
2015/#16b18cc4694f
Richardson, R. (2011). 2010/2011 computer crime and security survey. Computer Security
Institute. Retrieved from http://reports.informationweek.com/abstract/21/7377/
Security/research-2010-2011-csi-survey.html
Schneider, J. W. (2009). Preventing data breaches: Alternative approaches to deter negligent
handling of consumer data. Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law,
15(2), 279-304.
Security breach notification laws (2016). Retrieved from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/security-
breach-notification-laws.aspx
Sen, R., & Borle, S. (2015). Estimating the contextual risk of data breach: An empirical approach.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(2), 314-341.doi:
10.1080/07421222.2015.1063315

63
Sherstobitoff, R. (2008). Anatomy of a data breach. Information Security Journal: A Global
Perspective, 17, 247-252. doi: 10.1080/19393550802529734
Snell, E. (2016, May). HR and IT joining forces against cyberattacks. Benefits Magazine, 53(5),
20-25.
U.S. Intelligence Community (2013, March 12). Worldwide threat assessment. Retrieved from
https://www.odni.gov/files/documents/Intelligence%20Reports/2013%20ATA%20SFR%
20for%20SSCI%2012%20Mar%202013.pdf
Unisys (2014). Critical infrastructure: Security preparedness and maturity. Retrieved from
https://www.hunton.com/files/upload/Unisys_Report_Critical_Infrastructure_Cybersecuri
ty.pdf
vanKessel, P. (2011). Into the cloud, out of the fog: Ernst & Young’s 2011 global information
security survey. Retrieved from http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/
%c5%9awiatowe_badanie_bezpieczenstwa_informacji_2011/$FILE/ey_swiatowe_badan
ie_bezpieczenstwa_informacji_2011_07112011.pdf
Vinton, K. (2014, July 1). How companies can rebuild trust after a security breach. Forbes.
Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2014/07/01/how-companies-can-
rebuild-trust-after-a-security-breach/print/
Wikina, S. B. (2014). What caused the breach? An examination of use of information technology
and health data breaches. Perspectives in Health Information Management, 1-16.
Yao, M. (2017, April 14). Your electronic medical records could be worth $1000 to hackers.
Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/mariyayao/2017/04/14/your-
electronic-medical-records-can-be-worth-1000-to-hackers/
Zelle, A. R., & Whitehead, S. M. (2014). Cyber liability: It’s just a click away. Journal of
Insurance Regulation, 33, 145-168.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Ashley A. Hall is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Business Communication & Legal
Studies in the Nelson Rusche College of Business at Stephen F. Austin State University, where
she teaches business communication, employee development, and records management courses.
Dr. Hall received her PhD in Human Resource Development from the University of Texas at Tyler.
Her scholarly publications include topics such as managerial competencies, social media and
hiring practices, and pedagogical research.
Carol S. Wright is an Associate Professor in the Department of Business Communication & Legal
Studies at Stephen F. Austin State University, where she teaches business communication and
general business courses. Dr. Wright received her EdD in Educational Leadership from Stephen
F. Austin State University. Her scholarly publications include topics in business communication,
social media, and pedagogical research.