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:

  • Cyber-Attack On Bectu’s Parent Union Sparks UK National Security Concerns
  • Attorney General James Announces Settlement with Wojeski & Company Accounting Firm
  • JFL Lost Up to $800,000 Weekly After Cyberattack, CEO Says No Patient or Staff Data Was Compromised
  • John Bolton Indictment Provides Interesting Details About Hack of His AOL Account and Extortion Attempt
  • UK: 'Catastrophic' attack as Russians hack files on EIGHT MoD bases and post them on the dark web
  • A business's cyber insurance policy included ransom coverage, but when they needed it, the insurer refused to pay. Why?
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

  • Short-term renewal of cyber information sharing law appears in bill to end shutdown
  • Yanluowang ransomware IAB pleads guilty
  • Lawsuit Alleges Ex-Intel Employee Hid 18,000 Sensitive Documents Prior to Leaving the Company
  • HIPAA, but for non-Covered Entities?
  • Manassas City Public Schools close on Monday due to cyberattack
  • San Joaquin County Superior Court concludes sensitive info leaked in data breach
  • NCCIA arrests man over massive data breach involving millions of Pakistanis
  • Defense Contractors Are Silencing Their Cybersecurity Watchdogs
  • Fourth Circuit Weighs in on Standing in Data Breach Class Actions
  • ALT5 Sigma sues former consultant over alleged data breach

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

  • Changes in the Rules for Disclosure for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Records: 42 CFR Part 2: What Changed, Why It Matters, and How It Aligns with HIPAAs
  • Always watching: How ICE’s plan to monitor social media 24/7 threatens privacy and civic participation
  • Who’s watching the watchers? This Mozilla fellow, and her Surveillance Watch map
  • EPIC Publishes New Whitepaper Detailing Privacy Risks of Government Data Mining Programs
  • Modern cars are spying on you. Here’s what you can do about it.

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[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.