MSD releases terms of reference for Deloitte investigation

SUBSCRIBE
Newsletter & Subscriptions Computerworld is New Zealand's only specialised information systems fortnightly.
Subscribe now for $100 (23 issues) and save more than 37% off the cover price!
SIGN UP
Newsletter & Subscriptions
Get the latest news from Computerworld delivered via email.
Sign up now
The Ministry of Social Development has released the terms of reference for Deloitte's investigation into MSD's kiosk security and its computing security in general

The Ministry of Social Development has released the terms of reference for Deloitte's investigation into MSD's kiosk security, and the ministry's computing security in general.

The review will be lead by Deloitte chairman Murray Jack, backed by a steering committee with members from State Services Commission, the Privacy Commissioner's Office, and the Department of Internal Affairs.

It will be conducted in two phases. The first phase will include an investigation into the establishment of the kiosk system in WINZ branches, and the actions taken following a security report produced by Dimension Data in April 2011 which exposed flaws in the system.

In the second phase, Deloitte will review MSD's wider IT security and privacy set up, including its systems and policies.

The ministry has given a timeframe of two weeks for the completion of phase one, with the timeframe for phase two to be determined once the first is completed.

Recommendations will be included in a publicly available report once the investigation is completed.

Computerworld has asked for clarification on the expected cost of Deloitte's investigation to tax payers.

Daniel Ayers, computer forensics expert and former Deloitte senior manager, says the cost is likely to be significant for minimal return.

Full terms of reference:

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Independent Review of the Ministry of Social Development’s Information Systems Security


17 October 2012


The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development (the Chief Executive) has commissioned an independent investigation into the security breach that occurred through the Ministry’s self-service kiosks at two Work and Income service centres, which compromised privacy.


The review will be carried out by Deloitte and will be led by Murray Jack, Chairman, Deloitte (the Independent Reviewer).


A Steering Group, with external stakeholders, including the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, has been set up to provide independent oversight of the review.


This review will take into account the recently announced review of publicly accessible systems by the Government Chief Information Officer.


Objectives of the review

The objectives of the independent review are to address the questions raised about the security of the Work and Income self-service kiosks focusing on what happened, why it happened, the lessons learned, and the actions the Ministry needs to take to address any security issues raised.


The review will also assess the Ministry’s wider information systems security including the policies, governance and culture, and will make recommendations about the actions needed to be taken to restore and increase public confidence in the Ministry’s information systems security.
The review will happen in two phases.


Phase One – Matters in scope

The first part of the review will investigate the circumstances and causes of the kiosk security breach which compromised privacy, focusing on
:

• The establishment and operation of the self-service kiosks in Work and Income service centres, including:

the work done to ensure appropriate information security was put in place at the time that the kiosk infrastructure and services were designed and built;
the independent testing done to ensure the security was operating as designed; and
the Ministry’s response to any security issues identified during the testing.
• Information provided to the Ministry by third parties raising security concerns about the kiosks and the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Ministry’s response to these concerns.
• The appropriateness and effectiveness of the Ministry’s response to the security breach.


Phase Two – Matters in scope

The second part of the review will assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Ministry’s wider information systems security, particularly publicly accessible systems, and including the policies, governance, capability and culture.
The review will identify any lessons learned and make recommendations to the Chief Executive about any changes and improvements needed to the Ministry’s information systems security.


Timeframes and reporting

Phase One - The objective is that Phase One of the review will be completed within two weeks.
Phase Two - The timeframe for the completion of Phase Two of the review will be determined following completion of Phase One.
The reports on both phases of the review will be made publicly available.


Governance

The role of the Steering Group is to provide independent oversight of the review and advice to the Chief Executive.
The Steering Group will consist of external stakeholders. The members are:
• James Ogden – Independent Chair
• Erik Koed – Assistant Commissioner, State Services Commission
• Stuart Wakefield – Director, Office of the Government Chief Information Officer
• Katrine Evans, Assistant Privacy Commissioner (Observer)


In addition, the following people will attend and participate in the Steering Group.
• Murray Jack – Independent Reviewer
• Brendan Boyle – Chief Executive
Comments
Subcontractors to MSD's Information Security Missing from the Terms of Reference. The way private information is exchanged with service providers, eg VEDA, needs a total review and this is a big one. All this private information held by untold numbers of external organisation not accountable to anyone except their shareholders. What Information Security requirements are enumerated in agreements between MSD and providers? How are these audited and reviewed?
Posted by Geoff Fellows at 10:29:30 on October 19, 2012

Flag abuse

Yet another whitewash What a waste of time, taxpayers money & trees.Gotta love the governance structure for the 2 stage inquiry - can just see the glowing $$$ signs in the Deloitte's chairman's eyes.

I don't think anyone will be held accountable - ex-staff / lack processes and governance will be blamed. After all the current-CE has only been there about a year.
Posted by ex-MSD staffer at 13:37:15 on October 18, 2012

Flag abuse

History of not taking action Over the past few years many reports have been written for MSD by security experts and auditors both internal and external. Many recommendations have been made,few changes were made. Unlikely that Deloitte will report anything that hasn't been said before, but hopefully now action will be taken. From bad comes good.
Posted by Anonymous at 11:05:36 on October 18, 2012

Flag abuse

What about the wider security implications? The WINZ network has been wide open to information harvesting for two years? Where is the analysis to the broad whole of Government security issues this has caused?

Basically anything that was visible on the WINZ network, or associated trusted networks, must be considered compromised (as Matthew Poole pointed out). We know that probably included domain passwords.

Where the hell is the analysis of the biggest breach to NZ Govt IT ever and the wider implications to WINZ, MSD and other Govt orgs e.g. CERA, that have linkages to the WINZ network.

In military terms, where is the Bomb Damage Assessment?
Posted by John Holley at 20:05:20 on October 17, 2012

Flag abuse

Guessing Game Anyone want to hazard a guess of the hourly rate for the chairman of Deloitte... Id suggest not starting low.
Posted by Anonymous at 19:40:39 on October 17, 2012

Flag abuse

Great So, Murray Jack has a Batchelor of Commerce and Administration. In which part of that did he learn ANYTHING about securing IT systems?

I'm sure he'll write a lovely paper full of fluff and nonsense, which MSD's senior pencil pushers will point to as evidence that they are Doing Something (TM) about the issue.

What a pile of bullshit
Posted by Anonymous at 16:42:47 on October 17, 2012

Flag abuse

Great and exactly how where they appointed? Was this through normal procurement or just Murray's chummy with someone important? Don't get glorified accountants doing IT - never works
Posted by Anonymous at 22:52:52 on October 17, 2012

Flag abuse

Great getting someone to produce a copious amount of paperwork for a truck load of money.... and for something that could be summarised in a few bullet points... why not a bunch of bean counters.

I expect there will be some poor scapegoat in the bowels of the IT dept that gets blamed and booted. Either that, or someone in the echelons will get a golden handshake.
Posted by Anonymous at 8:58:13 on October 18, 2012

Flag abuse

Great LOL.... hurray for govt departments!
Posted by Anonymous at 8:59:33 on October 18, 2012

Flag abuse

Great While I agree with you the end result will be a nice multi-million dollar white wash, you do realise it won't be Murray Jack who'll *actually* do the reviewing? His name will be on the paper to give it that extra little bit of prestige needed to charge the big bucks.
Posted by Anonymous at 16:45:21 on October 17, 2012

Flag abuse

computerworld
Computerworld NZ has now reached LinkedIn! Join to expand your networks and meet others interested in information systems.