DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Security Researcher Comments on HIPAA Security Rule

Posted on March 20, 2025 by Dissent
Image: AI-generated.

As long-time readers know, DataBreaches has occasionally run into difficulties when trying to helpfully notify entities of their data leaks or breaches. In other cases, independent researchers have also reported frustration with trying to get entities to respond to responsible disclosures. More often than not, initial attempts at disclosure are ignored or go to spam or trash. At other times, we may be accused of being extortionists or spammers.

Good faith security researchers need protection and entities need to get their cybersecurity hygiene acts together and create systems to receive and process notifications or disclosures.

Some of us have raised the issue with HHS in response to their request for comments on proposed HIPAA Security Rules changes.

Adam Shostack writes:

A group of us have urged HHS to require that health care providers to act on (and facilitate reporting of) security issues by good faith cybersecurity researchers.

The core of what we recommend is that HHS should require cooperation with Good Faith researchers.

  1. All regulated entities should be required to enable people to report security issues in a way that’s easy to discover and aligned with standards.
  2. All regulated entities that produce software should be required to publish a vulnerability disclosure policy.
  3. Regulated entities should be discouraged from threatening Good Faith researchers
  4. Regulated entities should be rewarded for positive engagement with Good Faith researchers
  5. HHS should add “insecure operations” to the wall of shame, including threatening Good Faith researchers or possibly even failing to engage in Good Faith.
  6. Receipt of a Good Faith report must be tracked and managed, but not all reports rise to the level of an incident.

We chose to discuss regulated entities (rather ‘covered’ ones) because we believe these should be applied to those entering a BAA.

The comments are by a set of security researchers including myself, Jack Cable, Dissent Doe, Josiah Dykstra, Ph.D., Fred Jennings, and Chloé Messdaghi on the HIPAA Security Rule Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Strengthen Cybersecurity for Electronic Protected Health Information. Lastly, the official comment doesn’t include Chloe as a contributor because of an oversight, this version does.

Don’t miss the snarky background stories!


Related:

  • Two more entities have folded after ransomware attacks
  • British institutions to be banned from paying ransoms to Russian hackers
  • Global hack on Microsoft product hits U.S., state agencies, researchers say
  • Premier Health Partners issues a press release about a breach two years ago. Why was this needed now?
  • More than 100 British government personnel exposed by Ministry of Defence data leak
  • North Country Healthcare responds to Stormous's claims of a breach
Category: Commentaries and AnalysesHIPAAOf Note

Post navigation

← Department of Defense civilian employee pleads guilty to taking classified documents
Former University of Michigan Football Quarterbacks Coach and Co-Offensive Coordinator Indicted on Charges of Unauthorized Access to Computers and Aggravated Identity Theft →

1 thought on “Security Researcher Comments on HIPAA Security Rule”

  1. Jake from Statefarm says:
    March 20, 2025 at 6:34 pm

    They should also be more specific on encryption. Database encryption or disk encryption…

Comments are closed.

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Scattered Spider Hijacks VMware ESXi to Deploy Ransomware on Critical U.S. Infrastructure
  • Hacker group “Silent Crow” claims responsibility for cyberattack on Russia’s Aeroflot
  • AIIMS ORBO Portal Vulnerability Exposing Sensitive Organ Donor Data Discovered by Researcher
  • Two Data Breaches in Three Years: McKenzie Health
  • Scattered Spider is running a VMware ESXi hacking spree
  • BreachForums — the one that went offline in April — reappears with a new founder/owner
  • Fans React After NASCAR Confirms Ransomware Breach
  • Allianz Life says ‘majority’ of customers’ personal data stolen in cyberattack (1)
  • Infinite Services notifying employees and patients of limited ransomware attack
  • The safe place for women to talk wasn’t so safe: hackers leak 13,000 user photos and IDs from the Tea app

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Congress tries to outlaw AI that jacks up prices based on what it knows about you
  • Microsoft’s controversial Recall feature is now blocked by Brave and AdGuard
  • Trump Administration Issues AI Action Plan and Series of AI Executive Orders
  • Indonesia asked to reassess data privacy terms in new U.S. trade deal
  • Meta Denies Tracking Menstrual Data in Flo Health Privacy Trial
  • Wikipedia seeks to shield contributors from UK law targeting online anonymity
  • British government reportedlu set to back down on secret iCloud backdoor after US pressure

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.