Analyzing IT Security: Equifax Breach, QKD, and Firewall Technologies

This essay delves into critical aspects of IT security, beginning with a detailed analysis of the 2017 Equifax data breach, examining its causes, impact, and potential preventative measures. It then explores the concept of Quantum Key Distribution (QKD), outlining its mechanisms, classifications, and future trends in secure cryptographic key transmission. Finally, the essay provides a comparative analysis of different types of firewalls, evaluating their architecture, functionality, computational cost, speed, applications, and market share, offering a comprehensive overview of essential network security fundamentals. This document is available on Desklib, a platform offering a wealth of study resources for students.

Running head: IT SECURITY
IT SECURITY
Name of Student:
Name of University:
Author note

1IT SECURITY
Question 1: 2017 Equifax data breach
What was the problem behind the incident?
Equifax is known to be one of the massive cyber security incidents till date. The massive
attack took place in the mid of 2017. The breach came to light on 29th of July in the year 2017
(Mikhed & Vogan, 2015). The personal credentials of number of people were at stake. Names,
social security numbers, date of birth, personal addresses and driving license number were
unethically hacked by some unauthorized source (Mikhed & Vogan, 2015). The website
application of the company was exploited by the cyber criminals to access the confidential
resources of the US Company. Equifax is well-known among the credit reporting companies in
the US. The company provided their clients with information regarding their financial records.
Who were impacted?
As per the reports, nearly 209,000 consumers confidential were at stake and around
182,000 US customers personal information were exposed to the criminals (Gressin, 2017).
Reports also suggested that the clients from Canada as well as the UK were also equally affected
from the data breach. The number of affected people reached to a 148 million by the end of the
attack (Gressin, 2017). The hacked information of the consumers can be utilized by the criminals
for illegal purposes. The 148 million populations of US were suffering from theft of identity
because of this data breach and the incident to haunt the commoners for the coming years as
well.
How the data breach took place?
The data security breach of the Equifax was due to the vulnerability in their software
which was used to run their website application known as the Apache Struts. Although the

2IT SECURITY
vulnerability is resolved by Apache in the March, 2017 but there still remained minor faults in
the software (Mikhed & Vogan, 2015). In a shorter span of time the attackers took this software
vulnerability to their advantage and hacked their web servers. Equifax was reported number of
times regarding this vulnerability and by US CERT, Apache and the Homeland Security
department (Berghel, 2017). They were even provided with suggestion to fix these bugs but even
after repeated efforts Equifax could not fix the issue with the software. During this period, the
attackers hacked the company’s website and stole all the relevant information regarding their
clients as well as accessed the databases of the company. Equifax’s response towards the data
breach was also not appropriate. The clients were informed about the incident post six weeks
after the data stealing took place.
Steps that should be taken to prevent the data breach
 Equifax was reported beforehand about its software vulnerabilities. The company serves
millions of people thus instant response to such risks was essential. Considering the
safeguarding of the personal information of these millions of people spontaneous
response of the company regarding this matter was desirable. In context of this data
breach it can be said that Equifax was slow and negligent in resolving these issues before
hand.
 Automated monitoring of the website application as well as the website environment can
be made more innovative and improved. For example, incorporation of artificial
intelligence (AI) based tools might have been instrumental in detecting the suspicious
behavior of the online application (Anandarajan, D'Ovidio & Jenkins, 2013). In case the
theft is detected in the initial months of the year 2017, the company could have resisted
this massive cyber attack.

3IT SECURITY
 Stringent application testing could have reduced the risks of such massive attacks.
Integration of much secured practices for the purpose of developing the Apache software
could have significantly reduced the risks of such cyber attacks. Improvised application
testing would have sufficiently helped in reviewing the encryption text (Mikhed &
Vogan, 2018). In the process the Apache vulnerability could have been identified at the
time of developing the software and the bug could have been fixed by the programmer at
that instant of time.
 The Equifax could have well prepared itself to resolve the matter post attack. The layered
approach of security handling could have been helpful considering the impact of the
attack.
Question 2: Quantum key distribution
Concept of Quantum key distribution (QKD)
QKD can be defined as the utilization of the beams of laser in order to transmit
cryptographic keys in a much secured manner. QKD well implements the concept of quantum
properties that the photons under laser beams can showcase. QKD can be immensely beneficial
in encrypting messages which are to be transmitted through an insecure communication channel
(Liu et al., 2013). The security feature of QKD mainly depends on the basic laws of the
environment and nature, which are very less prone to attacks or thefts. This improves the
computational power, enhances the algorithm for the new attack. QKD can efficiently solve the
challenges posed by the classical approaches of key distribution. QKD can ensure stringent
security for the purpose of transferring the keys of as it enables constant generation as well as
sharing of one-time keys (Tang et al., 2014).

4IT SECURITY
Mechanism of QKD
QKD utilizes the basic characteristics involved in quantum mechanics. Measuring of the
quantum system can hamper the desired system performance. Therefore, if an eavesdropper tries
to divert or stop a quantum transmission it will possibly leave traces that could be detected easily
by the system. It will be dependent on the communicating parties weather they wish to discard
the attacked information or reduce the amount of information in that corrupted message.
Implementation of QKD mainly involves a fiber quantum channel that would be used for
transmitting the quantum states between the sender and the receiver. It is not necessary for this
channel to be secured. An authenticated link for communication between the sender and the
receiver will be used for performing the post-processing stages before proceeding with the
transmission (Tang et al., 2014). This link is also used for distilling a secret as well a correct key.
A protocol for the purpose of key exchange is incorporated in QKD. This protocol with the help
of quantum properties detects the unnecessary errors as well suspicious attacks on the keys
(Vallone et al., 2014). The protocol can also calculate the amount of information that has been
lost due to the attack. The potential scope for the leakage of information and the possible errors
are resolved during the process of privacy amplification and error correction thus ensuring
security to the shared key.
Classification of QKD
The following are some of the approaches for securing the shared keys with respect to the
QKD:
 The approach of discrete value is sometimes incorporated in QKD. In discrete value
QKD all the quantum information are encoded in the form of discrete variables. This

5IT SECURITY
technique utilizes only one photon detector for the purpose of measuring the quantum
states in the receiver end (Lo, Curty & Tamaki, 2014).
 The next approach is the continuous variable QKD also known as CV-QVD. In CV-
QVD, all types of quantum information is encoded with respect to the amplitude as well
as phase quadratures of the subsequent coherent laser. In this technique, homodyne
detectors are incorporated for measuring the quantum states in the receiver end (Jouguet
et al., 2013).
Future trend of QKD
The emergence of QKD has potentially increased the security of the personal keys. This
concept has a huge potential considering the present scenario of uncertainty. A number of QKD
networks have been already implemented across the globe and major experiments are still in
progress. The future research of QKD involves extending the range as well as increasing then
data transmission rate of QKD (Vazirani & Vidick, 2014). The limitation in the range of QKD
has been posed because of the unavailability of the quantum repeaters. Quantum repeater scan
potentially increase the SNR ratio thus enhancing the quality of signal (Vazirani, & Vidick,
2014). The future scope of QKD also involves integration of satellite technology in the QKD
infrastructure in order to expand the range of the QKD networks. Present researches suggest that
the present range of the QKD is 400 km. Further research in this field can possibly enhance the
usability of QKD.

6IT SECURITY
Question 3: Network security fundamentals and firewalls
Comparison between different types of Firewalls
Types of
Firewall
Architecture Functionality Comput
ational
cost
Speed Applications Market
share
Packet
filtering
firewall
Packet filtering is
achieved by
configuration of the
access control on the
switches or the
routers
ACL is specified with
the filter rules. This
type firewall applies
ACL as soon as the
traffic enters the
interface
Strictly checks all
the packets as per
the rules of the
Network
administrator. The
corrupted packets
are dropped or
updated for
information. The
information that are
required for the
purpose of filtering
are source and
destination IP
address, address of
the transport level,
interface and the IP
protocol
Lower in
cost
This firewall
is
recommenda
ble for high
speed
networks.
This type of
Firewall can
filter the packets
in different
ways. This
means that
different rules
can be applied
for different
incoming as well
as outgoing
packets. Other
than this, packet
filtering firewall
is considered to
be more
efficient.
Simpler to
deploy.
In 2017, the
market
share of this
type of
Firewall
was 15.9%.(
Modi, et al.,
2017)

7IT SECURITY
Application
proxy
firewall
This Firewall mainly
works on the
application layer
found in the OSI
model providing
protection to the
defined layers of the
application protocol.
It works on the
conjured protocol.
Sometimes it is also
configured as that of
the caching servers.
In this type of
Firewall application
all the entering
packets are
processed until it
reaches the
application layer.
The firewall
verifies only those
packets which are
legitimate. In the
process, the firewall
also ensures
weather the data
within the packet is
secured (Hayajneh
et al., 2013).
Cost-
effective
This Firewall
is relatively
slower
compared to
the other
Firewalls.
The
processing of
the incoming
packets up to
the
application
layer
consumes
more amount
of tine with
respect to the
other
Firewalls in
the market.
This Firewall
gives a vivid
description of all
the relevant
connections and
the as well as the
application data.
The firewall can
filter the data on
the application
layer as well as
packets on the
transport layer
simultaneously
(Fernandez,
Yoshioka, &
Washizaki,
(2014).
As per the
reports, the
market
share of this
firewall was
14%( Modi,
et al., 2017).
Stateful
packet
filter
firewall
The architecture of
the stateful filter
Firewall involves the
utilization of 3, 4 and
5 layer of the OSI
model. Each time
after establishing the
TCP as well as the
UDP connection this
type of Firewall logs
data in the in the
respective session
flow table (Rathod &
Deshmukh, 2013).
This Firewall
mainly functions in
the transport layer
as it regulates all
the relevant
information
regarding the
connections (Hu et
al., 2014). Stateful
packet filter
firewall monitors
the TCP
connections as well
as the UDP
connections.
This
Firewall
is bit
costlier
compared
to the
three
other
Firewalls.
This type of
Firewall is
relatively
slower
compared to
that of packet
filter
Firewall as it
requires
more time
for the
purpose of
processing.
This firewall is
similar to that of
the packet filter.
It comprises of
all the major
features of the
packet filter
(Rhodes-Ousley,
2013). The
added advantage
of this Firewall
is that it
monitors and
keeps on
checking all the
ongoing
connection.
The market
share of this
Firewall is
12.6%.
( Modi, et
al., 2017).
Circuit
level
gateway
firewall
Mainly deployed in
the session layer of
the OSI model. Its
architecture is similar
to that of the three
way handshake
model of the TCP.
Similar to the TCP it
constantly checks
Extensive screening
is done before
establishing the
connection. In this
type of Firewall any
information which
are required to send
to a computer
which are outside
Inexpensi
ve
This type of
Firewall is
considered to be
more secured
considering the
gateway it
provides for
external
communication.
The market
share of this
Firewall
was found
to 10.6% as
per the
reports of
2017( Modi,
et al., 2017).

8IT SECURITY
weather the
connection is relevant
or not (Kim &
Feamster, 2013).
the network
coverage have to
pass through a
gateway.

9IT SECURITY
References
Anandarajan, M., D'Ovidio, R., & Jenkins, A. (2013). Safeguarding consumers against identity-
related fraud: examining data breach notification legislation through the lens of routine
activities theory. International Data Privacy Law, 3(1), 51.
Berghel, H. (2017). Equifax and the Latest Round of Identity Theft Roulette. Computer, 50(12),
72-76.
Fernandez, E. B., Yoshioka, N., & Washizaki, H. (2014). Patterns for cloud
firewalls. AsianPLoP (pattern languages of programs), Tokyo.
Gressin, S. (2017). The Equifax Data Breach: What to Do. Federal Trade Commission,
September, 8.
Hayajneh, T., Mohd, B. J., Itradat, A., & Quttoum, A. N. (2013). Performance and information
security evaluation with firewalls. International Journal of Security and Its
Applications, 7(6), 355-372.
Hu, H., Han, W., Ahn, G. J., & Zhao, Z. (2014, August). FLOWGUARD: building robust
firewalls for software-defined networks. In Proceedings of the third workshop on Hot
topics in software defined networking (pp. 97-102). ACM.
Jouguet, P., Kunz-Jacques, S., Leverrier, A., Grangier, P., & Diamanti, E. (2013). Experimental
demonstration of long-distance continuous-variable quantum key distribution. Nature
photonics, 7(5), 378-381.

10IT SECURITY
Kim, H., & Feamster, N. (2013). Improving network management with software defined
networking. IEEE Communications Magazine, 51(2), 114-119.
Liu, Y., Chen, T. Y., Wang, L. J., Liang, H., Shentu, G. L., Wang, J., ... & Ma, X. (2013).
Experimental measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution. Physical
review letters, 111(13), 130502.
Lo, H. K., Curty, M., & Tamaki, K. (2014). Secure quantum key distribution. Nature
Photonics, 8(8), 595.
Mikhed, V., & Vogan, M. (2015). Out of sight, out of mind: consumer reaction to news on data
breaches and identity theft.
Mikhed, V., & Vogan, M. (2018). How data breaches affect consumer credit. Journal of Banking
& Finance, 88, 192-207.
Modi, C., Patel, D., Borisaniya, B., Patel, A., & Rajarajan, M. (2013). A survey on security
issues and solutions at different layers of Cloud computing. The journal of
supercomputing, 63(2), 561-592.
Rathod, R. H., & Deshmukh, V. M. (2013). Roll of distributed firewalls in local network for data
Security. International Journal Of Computer Science And Applications, 6(2).
Rhodes-Ousley, M. (2013). Information security: the complete reference. McGraw Hill
Education.
Tang, Y. L., Yin, H. L., Chen, S. J., Liu, Y., Zhang, W. J., Jiang, X., ... & Yang, D. X. (2014).
Measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution over 200 km. Physical
review letters, 113(19), 190501.

11IT SECURITY
Vallone, G., D’Ambrosio, V., Sponselli, A., Slussarenko, S., Marrucci, L., Sciarrino, F., &
Villoresi, P. (2014). Free-space quantum key distribution by rotation-invariant twisted
photons. Physical review letters, 113(6), 060503.
Vazirani, U., & Vidick, T. (2014). Fully device-independent quantum key distribution. Physical
review letters, 113(14), 140501.