Securing Faculty & Student PII: Preventing Identity-Based Data Breaches in Higher Education

Protecting faculty & student PII in higher education

Universities handle large amounts of personally identifiable information (PII), including Social Security numbers, birthdates, financial records, and academic data. This information is a big target for higher education cyber threats, as attackers seek to exploit student and faculty records for identity theft and financial fraud.

Many institutions focus heavily on research data security and third-party vendor access, but PII protection in universities requires a different approach. Risks often come from internal security gaps, including weak identity governance policies, excessive access privileges, and insufficient monitoring. Without stronger identity and access management (IAM) in higher education, student and faculty records remain vulnerable to unauthorized access and data breaches.

‍

‍

Expanding PII risks in higher education

Universities store large amounts of sensitive student and faculty data, making them a common target for cybersecurity threats in higher education. PII security gaps can lead to different forms of exploitation, including:

• Financial fraud – Stolen Social Security numbers and birthdates can be used for tax fraud, financial aid fraud, and identity theft.

• Credential theft – Faculty and staff accounts often hold access to student information systems, payroll data, and research records. Attackers use compromised credentials to move deeper into university data systems.

• Regulatory non-compliance – Unauthorized access or data breaches can violate FERPA, GLBA, and HIPAA compliance for universities, leading to lawsuits and financial penalties.

• Decentralized data storage – Many universities store PII across multiple departments without centralized identity governance, creating inconsistencies that increase security risks.

• Synthetic identity fraud – Attackers combine stolen student or faculty PII with fake information to create new identities. These fraudulent identities can be used to apply for loans, open financial accounts, or commit other types of fraud.

• Targeted phishing attacks – Hackers use stolen PII to craft convincing phishing emails, tricking students, faculty, and staff into revealing passwords or further personal information.

• Loan and grant fraud – Stolen student PII can be used to fraudulently apply for student loans, scholarships, or government grants, often leaving victims unaware until they attempt to apply for aid themselves.

• Doxxing and harassment – Cybercriminals may publicly expose PII, including addresses and phone numbers, leading to harassment, identity fraud, or personal safety risks for students and faculty.

• Medical identity theft – Universities with student health services store protected health information (PHI). Attackers can use compromised records to obtain medical treatments, prescriptions, or insurance benefits fraudulently.

• Black market PII sales – Student and faculty records are often sold on the dark web, where they can be used for identity theft, fraudulent financial transactions, and even employment fraud.

While institutions focus on protecting research data and securing vendor access, student and faculty PII security often receives less attention. A higher education data breach can cause lasting damage, from financial losses and legal issues to reputational harm that affects enrollment and funding.

‍

‍

Common identity and access management gaps in PII security

Many of the risks to faculty and student PII security come from weak identity governance in universities. Without clear oversight, institutions struggle to control who has access to sensitive data. This lack of visibility increases the risk of data breaches and compliance violations.

Some of the biggest IAM security weaknesses in universities include:

• Over-provisioned access – Faculty, staff, and third-party vendors often have unnecessary access to student records, payroll systems, and financial data, increasing the risk of unauthorized data exposure.

• Weak authentication policies – Many universities still rely on password-only authentication, leaving student and faculty accounts vulnerable to phishing and credential stuffing attacks.

• Orphaned and dormant accounts – Former faculty, staff, and students sometimes retain active credentials even after leaving, creating potential entry points for cyberattacks on higher education institutions.

• Lack of centralized identity governance – Without a unified IAM system, universities struggle to enforce consistent access policies and prevent excessive data exposure.

• Unrestricted vendor and third-party access – External platforms, including learning management systems (LMS) and financial aid services, often maintain long-term access to student PII without regular oversight.

Universities often struggle with identity governance challenges, leaving student PII, faculty records, and research data vulnerable to unauthorized access. Without strong IAM controls, institutions risk exposing sensitive information to cyber threats. Explore strategies for protecting research data in our previous blog.  

‍

‍

Strengthening PII protection with identity governance and lifecycle (IGL)

To reduce higher education data security risks, universities need a structured approach to identity governance. Stronger identity lifecycle management helps ensure that access is granted only when needed and revoked when no longer necessary.

Key strategies for PII protection in universities include:

• Role-based access control (RBAC) – Limit faculty and staff access to only the student and payroll records necessary for their roles.

• Just-in-time (JIT) access – Grant temporary access to student records only when required, and automatically revoke access after a set period.

• Automated account deprovisioning – Ensure departing faculty, staff, and students lose access immediately to reduce orphaned account risks.

• Multi-factor authentication (MFA) for PII access – Require stronger authentication measures for payroll data, Social Security numbers, and student information systems.

• Real-time anomaly detection – Identify unusual access patterns, such as large PII exports or logins from suspicious locations, and flag them for immediate review.

• Continuous vendor access monitoring – Limit third-party access to student records, and implement automated access reviews to prevent unnecessary privileges.

By implementing identity governance solutions, universities can reduce their risk of data breaches, improve higher education compliance, and protect student and faculty data more effectively.

‍

‍

‍

Case study: University of Central Florida (UCF) data breach

Overview of the incident

In January 2016, the University of Central Florida (UCF) experienced a data breach that exposed the personal information of approximately 63,000 current and former students, faculty, and staff. The compromised data included names, Social Security numbers, and university-issued ID numbers. Notably, the breach affected student-athletes, athletic staff, and various university employees, underscoring the widespread impact of inadequate identity security measures.

‍

Identity governance failures that led to the breach

Several weaknesses in UCF's identity and access management contributed to the breach:

• Compromised user credentials –The breach involved unauthorized access to personal information, suggesting that attackers may have exploited compromised university accounts. However, specific details about how the attackers gained access have not been publicly disclosed.

• Weak authentication measures – The university did not require multi-factor authentication (MFA) for accessing sensitive systems, leaving accounts vulnerable to credential theft.

‍

How UCF responded

Following the discovery of the breach, UCF took several steps to mitigate the damage and enhance its cybersecurity posture:

• Notification of affected individuals – The university promptly informed those impacted by the incident and offered one year of free credit monitoring and identity protection services.  

• Comprehensive security audit – UCF conducted a thorough review of its online systems, policies, and training to identify vulnerabilities and implement improvements.

• Implementation of stronger IAM policies – The university enhanced access controls and authentication measures to prevent similar incidents in the future.

• Security awareness and training gaps – UCF expanded its information security education and training programs after the breach, helping educate the public.

This case highlights the critical importance of proactive identity governance in higher education institutions. Without robust security measures, universities risk exposing sensitive personal information, leading to potential financial losses, legal consequences, and reputational damage.

Source: University of Central Florida

‍

‍

‍

Compliance and regulatory considerations for higher education institutions

Higher education institutions must adhere to several federal regulations to protect student and faculty personally identifiable information and avoid legal repercussions. Key compliance requirements include the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA): FERPA mandates that educational institutions safeguard student education records and control access to them. Universities must obtain written consent from students before disclosing their educational records, except under specific circumstances outlined by the law. Compliance with FERPA is monitored by the institution's Office of the Registrar, which oversees access to student educational records.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA): The GLBA requires financial institutions, including universities that offer financial services like student loans, to protect non-public personal information. The act includes the Safeguards Rule, which obligates institutions to implement security measures for financial data. Notably, compliance with FERPA satisfies the privacy requirements of the GLBA.

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA): HIPAA governs the privacy and security of health information. In educational settings, its applicability depends on the nature of the health services provided and how records are maintained. Generally, student health records at educational institutions are protected under FERPA, not HIPAA. However, records maintained by a university hospital may fall under HIPAA regulations.

‍

To ensure compliance with these regulations, universities should:

• Conduct regular audits to assess data protection measures and identify vulnerabilities.

• Implement robust identity governance frameworks to control access to sensitive information.

• Provide ongoing training for faculty and staff on data privacy policies and procedures.

By aligning identity governance practices with these regulatory requirements, higher education institutions can protect sensitive data and mitigate the risk of non-compliance penalties.

‍

‍

‍

Strengthening PII security in higher education

Universities collect and store a vast amount of personally identifiable information, making them a frequent target for cyber threats. Weak identity governance, excessive access privileges, and outdated authentication measures leave student and faculty data vulnerable to breaches. Without stronger security controls, institutions face financial, legal, and reputational risks.

To improve student and faculty PII security, universities should take a proactive approach by strengthening identity and access management policies and ensuring compliance with FERPA, GLBA, and HIPAA regulations. Implementing effective identity governance solutions can help mitigate risks and prevent unauthorized access to sensitive data.

Key next steps for universities:

• Conduct an IAM audit to identify security gaps in PII access management.

• Enforce multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all users accessing sensitive student and faculty records.

• Implement automated identity lifecycle management to ensure immediate deactivation of unused accounts.

• Adopt real-time access monitoring to detect and prevent suspicious activity.

Universities must prioritize higher education data security by integrating role-based access controls, continuous monitoring, and automated governance policies. Taking these steps will reduce the risk of data breaches, strengthen regulatory compliance, and help protect the privacy of students and faculty.

‍

How we can help

Protecting student and faculty PII is not just about security—it’s about ensuring privacy, maintaining trust, and complying with regulatory requirements. A well-structured identity governance strategy helps universities manage access effectively, reduce security risks, and prevent unauthorized use of sensitive data.

We provide identity governance solutions that help universities:

• Strengthen IAM policies to control access to student and faculty records.

• Enforce strong authentication for sensitive information, including payroll data and Social Security numbers.

• Monitor access in real time to detect anomalies and prevent data breaches.

• Ensure compliance with FERPA, GLBA, and HIPAA through automated access reviews and reporting.

Contact us at info@anomalix.com to learn how we can help you secure student and faculty data, improve IAM practices, and mitigate security risks in higher education.