Tuesday, 23 April 2019

How Business can address the Security Concerns of Online Shoppers

It’s no secret that cybersecurity is an epidemic problem that affects online businesses on a global scale. E-commerce businesses are especially affected by data breaches because it weakens the consumer’s trust in online businesses to protect their personal data. In response to the growing number of breaches, governments and enterprises alike are stepping up to the plate to provide sustainable solutions to the problem.

The UK is aiming to become a world leader in cybersecurity by investing a substantial amount of money (to the tune of £70 million) in the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund. The fund represents the government’s commitment to increase funding in research and development by £4.7 billion over a four year period. One of the primary goals of the investment will be to supply the industry with the money necessary to design and develop state-of-the-art hardware that’s more secure and resilient to common cyber threats.

The logic stems from the fact that cybercriminals are constantly finding new ways to exploit current technology, so the best way to combat future attacks is to design chips and hardware with stronger security features built into them to outpace cyber threats. However, this means businesses will have to invest in new IT systems as it rolls out to keep their security measures up to par.

For the time being, online business owners need to do everything in their power to address the privacy concerns of their users. In some cases, this might mean investing in more secure and modern e-commerce platforms that offer security features, such as TLS (still commonly known as SSL) protection and security software to protect against malware attacks, or simply generating new, strong admin passwords on a regular basis.

The fact is, there is no way to provide customers with a 100% guarantee their personal data is safe, but there are actions webmasters and companies can do to make their websites a lot safer to use by their customers. To help you learn more about how you can secure your site from cyber threats, Wikibuy has laid out 15 steps in the infographic below.


How Business Owners Can Address Online Shopping Concerns

Monday, 15 April 2019

Third Party Security Risks to Consider and Manage

Guest article by Josh Lefkowitz, CEO of Flashpoint
 
Acceptable business risks must be managed, and none more so than those associated with external vendors who often have intimate access to infrastructure or business data. As we’ve seen with numerous breaches where attackers were able to leverage a weaknesses a contractor or service provider, third-party risk must be assessed and mitigated during the early stages of such a partnership, as well as throughout the relationship.
 
The following tips can help security decision makers more effectively address the risks posed by relationships with technology vendors.
 
Do Your Homework
Conducting thorough due diligence on a prospective vendor is essential. Organisations could evaluate technical and regulatory risk through due diligence questionnaires, for example, or even on-site visits if necessary. The point is to evaluate not only a third party’s information security risk, but compliance with regulations such as GDPR for privacy and PCI DSS for payment card security, for example. An organisation may also want to evaluate a third party’s adherence to industry standards such as NIST or ISO in certain security- and privacy-related areas.
 
Next, consider what this compliance information doesn’t tell you. What do you still need to learn about the vendor’s security posture before deciding whether you’re comfortable with it? Think about what questions you still have and, if possible, seek answers from the vendor’s appropriate security contact. Here are some questions to pose: 
When was your last penetration test? Is your remediation on schedule?
  • Have you documented security incidents? How did you remediate those incidents?
  • Do you have the result of your last business continuity test? If yes, can you share it?
  • What security controls exist for your users? Do they use multifactor authentication, etc.?
  • How are you maturing your security program?
  • Are you ISO, SOC 1/SOC 2, and NIST Compliant, and is there documentation to support this? 
Additional Security: It’s All in the Controls
If you’re unsatisfied with the answers from a potential partner regarding their security, it’s OK to walk away, especially if you make the determination that working with the vendor may not be critical to your business.  

That’s not always the case, however. If you must partner with a particular third party and if no other reputable vendors offer anything comparable, you will likely need to implement additional technical and/or policy controls to mitigate the security risks associated with your business’s use of the offering, such as:
 
Technical
These are typically restrictions on the access and/or technical integrations of vendor offerings. For example, if a product is web-based but unencrypted, consider blocking users on your network from accessing its website; provided the proper authentication is in place, use its API instead. In most cases, there are two options, remediation or compensating controls:
  • Remediation: Can you work with the vendor to remediate the technical risk?
  • Compensating controls: If you cannot remediate the risks entirely, can you establish technical compensating controls to minimise or deflect the risk?
Policy
These are policies that users of the offering should follow, such as limits on the types and amounts of data that can be input securely. Some typical policy scenarios include:
  • Regulatory compliance: For example, a vendor’s non-compliance could mandate you walk away from a third-party relationship.
  • Contractual obligations: Are there contractual obligations in place with your existing clients that prevent you from working vendors who don’t meet certain security and privacy standards?
  • Security best practices: Ensure your policies around risk are enforced and determine whether they may conflict with your vendors’ policies.
Asset Inventory is a Must
There are several reasons why it’s imperative to know which of your business’s assets the vendor will be able to store and/or access. For one, this knowledge can help identify and shape any additional security controls. Second, having this knowledge on hand is crucial should the vendor suffer a breach. Knowing exactly what assets were impacted, as well as who is doing what with your inventory, can expedite your response and identify and mitigate any exposure efficiently and effectively.
 
Response Plans Must Include Partners
Before finalising a vendor relationship, it’s crucial to use all the information gathered during your due diligence process to construct a response plan in preparation for any future incidents the vendor might experience. Tracking the assets to which your vendor has access is one component of an effective response plan. Others include courses of action to mitigate exposure, disclosure and notification procedures, external communications strategies, and plans to re-evaluate the vendor’s security and remediation following an incident.
 
The most effective way to manage vendor risk is not to work with any external vendors in the first place, which isn’t a feasible strategy. The most secure and successful vendor relationships are rooted in preparation and transparency. Thoroughly understanding all facets of a vendor’s security program, implementing additional controls as needed to appropriately safeguard your business’s assets, and being prepared to respond to future incidents can go a long way toward reducing business risks associated with any vendor relationship.
Josh Lefkowitz, CEO of Flashpoint

Wednesday, 3 April 2019

Cyber Security Roundup for March 2019

The potential threat posed by Huawei to the UK national infrastructure continues to be played out. GCHQ called for a ban on Huawei technology within UK critical networks, such as 5G networks, while Three said a Huawei ban would delay the UK 5G rollout, and the EU ignored the US calls to ban Huawei in 5G rollouts, while promoting the EU Cybersecurity certification scheme to counter the Chinese IT threat, which is all rather confusing.  Meanwhile, Microsoft Researchers found an NSA-style Backdoor in Huawei Laptops, which was reported to Huawei by Microsoft, leading to the flaw being patched in January 2019.
A serious security flaw placed Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) customers at risk. The vulnerability was discovered by PenTest Partners in the bank provided 'Heimdal Thor', security software, which was meant to protect NatWest customers from cyber-attacks but actually permitted remote injection commands at the customer's endpoint. PenTest Partners said "We were able to gain access to a victim's computer very easily. Attackers could have had complete control of that person's emails, internet history and bank details. To do this we had to intercept the user's internet traffic but that is quite simple to do when you consider the unsecured public wi-fi out there, and it's often all too easy to compromise home wi-fi setups.
 
Facebook made negative security headlines yet against after they disclosed that 20,000 of their employees had access to hundreds of millions of their user account passwords for years.

One of the world’s biggest aluminium producers, 
Norsk Hydrosuffered production outages after a ransomware outbreak impacted its European and US operations.  Damages from ransomware attack on Norsk Hydro reach as high as $40M.

Citrix disclosed a security breach of its internal network may have compromised 6Tb of sensitive data. The FBI had told Citrix that international cyber criminals had likely gained access to its internal network. Citrix said in a statement it had taken action to contain the breach, “We commenced a forensic investigation; engaged a leading cyber security firm to assist; took actions to secure our internal network; and continue to cooperate with the FBI”.  According to security firm Resecurity, the attacks were perpetrated by Iranian-linked group known as IRIDIUM.

Credit monitoring Equifax admitted in a report it didn't follow its own patching schedule, neglecting to patch Apache Struts which led to a major 2017 breach which impacted 145 million people.  The report also said Equifax delayed alerting their customers for 6 weeks after detecting the breach.

ASUS computers had backdoors added through its software update system, in an attack coined “ShadowHammer”. Kaspersky researchers estimated malware was distributed to nearly a million people, although the cybercriminals appeared to have only targeted 600 specific devices. Asus patched the vulnerability but questions still remain.

Data breaches are up 400% in 2018 according to a report by 4iQ, with almost 15 billion records exposed.

The top 10 biggest breaches of 2018 according to 4iQ were:
  1. Anti-Public Combo Collections – (Hacked) Sanixer Collection #1-6, 1.8 billion unique email addresses.
  2. Aadhaar, India – (Open third party device) 1.1 billion people affected
  3. Marriott Starwood Hotels – (Hacked) 500 million guests PII
  4. Exactis – (Open device) 340 million people and businesses.
  5. HuaZhu Group – (Accidental Exposure) 240 million records
  6. Apollo – (Open device) 150 million app users.
  7. Quora – (Hacked) 100 million users.
  8. Google+ – (API Glitch) 52.2 million users.
  9. Chegg – (Hacked) 40 million accounts 
  10. Cathay Pacific Airways (Targeted attack) 9.4 million passengers.
Barracuda Networks reported the top 12 phishing email subject lines, after they analysed 360,000 phishing emails over a three-month period.
BLOG
NEWS

Tuesday, 12 March 2019

e-Crime & Cybersecurity Congress: Cloud Security Fundamentals

I was a panellist at the e-Crime & Cybersecurity Congress last week, the discussion was titled 'What's happening to your business? Cloud security, new business metrics and future risks and priorities for 2019 and beyond", a recap of the points I made.
Cloud is the 'Default Model' for Business
Cloud is now the default model for IT services in the UK; cloud ticks all the efficiency boxes successful business continually craves. Indeed, the 'scales of economy' benefits are not just most cost-effective and more agile IT services, but also include better cybersecurity (by the major cloud service providers), even for the largest of enterprises. It is not the CISO's role to challenge the business' cloud service mitigation, which is typically part of a wider digital transformation strategy, but to ensure cloud services are delivered and managed to legal, regulatory and client security requirements, and in satisfaction of the board's risk appetite, given they ultimately own the cybersecurity risk, which is an operational business risk.

There are security pitfalls with cloud services, the marketing gloss of 'the cloud' should not distract security professionals into assuming IT security will be delivered as per the shiny sales brochure, as after all, cloud service providers should be considered and assessed in the same way as any other traditional third-party IT supplier to the business.

Cloud Security should not be an afterthought

It is essential for security to be baked into a new cloud services design, requirements determination, and in the procurement process. In particular, defining and documenting the areas of security responsibility with the intended cloud service provider.

Cloud does not absolve the business of their security responsibilities

All cloud service models, whether the standard models of Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS) or Software as a Service (SaaS), always involve three areas of security responsibilities to define and document:
  • Cloud Service Provider Owned
  • Business Owned
  • Shared (Cloud Service Provider & Business)
For example with a PaaS model, the business is fully responsible for application deployment onto the cloud platform, and therefore the security of applications. The cloud service provider is responsible for the security of the physical infrastructure, network and operating system layers. The example of the 'shared' responsibility with this model, are the processes in providing and managing privileged operating system accounts within the cloud environment.

Regardless of the cloud model, data is always the responsibility of the business.


A "Trust but Verify" approach should be taken with cloud service providers when assuring the security controls they are responsible for. Where those security responsibilities are owned by or shared with the cloud service provider, ensure the specific controls and processes are detailed within a contract or in a supporting agreement as service deliverables, then oversight the controls and processes through regular assessments.

Monday, 11 March 2019

Learning from the Big Data Breaches of 2018

Guest article by Cybersecurity Professionals

What can we learn from the major data breaches of 2018?
2018 was a major year for cybersecurity. With the introduction of GDPR, the public’s awareness of their cyber identities has vastly increased – and the threat of vulnerability along with it. The Information Commissioner’s Office received an increased number of complaints this year and the news was filled with reports of multi-national and multi-millionaire businesses suffering dramatic breaches at the hand of cybercriminals.

2018 Data Breaches
Notable breaches last year include:

5. British Airways
The card details of 380,000 customers were left vulnerable after a hack affected bookings on BA’s website and app. The company insists that no customer’s card details have been used illegally but they are expected to suffer a major loss of money in revenue and fines as a result of the attack.

4. T-Mobile
Almost 2 million users had their personal data, including billing information and email addresses accessed through an API by an international group of hackers last August.

3. Timehop
A vulnerability in the app’s cloud computing account meant that the names and contact details of 21 million users were affected on Timehop. The company assured users that memories were only shared on the day and deleted after, meaning that the hackers were not able to access their Facebook and Twitter history.

2. Facebook & Cambridge Analytica
One of the most sensationalised news stories of the last year, Facebook suffered a string of scandals after it was released that analytics firm Cambridge Analytica had used the Facebook profile data of 87 million users in an attempt to influence President Trump’s campaign and potentially aid the Vote Leave campaign in the UK-EU referendum.

1. Quora
After a “malicious third party” accessed Quora’s system, the account information, including passwords, names and email addresses, of 100 million users was compromised. The breach was discovered in November 2018.

GDPR
As the UK made the switch from the Data Protection Act to GDPR, businesses and internet users across the country suddenly became more aware of their internet identities and their rights pertaining to how businesses handled their information.

With the responsibility now firmly on the business to protect the data of UK citizens, companies are expected to keep a much higher standard of security in order to protect all personal data of their clients.

How many complaints to the ICO?
Elizabeth Denham, the UK’s Information Commissioner, said that the year 2017-18 was ‘one of increasing activity and challenging actions, some unexpected, for the office’.

This is shown in an increase in data protection complaints by 15%, as well as an increase in self-reported breaches by 30%. Since this is the first year of GDPR, it is expected that self-reported breaches have increased as businesses work to insure themselves against much higher fines for putting off their announcement.

The ICO also reports 19 criminal prosecutions and 18 convictions last year and fines totalling £1.29 million for serious security failures under the Data Protection Act 1998. The office has assured that they don’t intend to make an example of firms reporting data breaches in the early period of GDPR but as time goes on, leniency is likely to fade as businesses settle into the higher standards.

What does it mean for SMEs?
With 36% of SMEs having no cybersecurity plan, the general consensus is that they make for unpopular targets. However, with the GDPR, the responsibility is on the business to protect their data so being vulnerable could result in business-destroying costs. Considering the cost to businesses could total the higher of 2% of annual turnover or €10 million, data protection is of paramount importance to small businesses.

How exposed are we in the UK?
At 31%, our vulnerability rating is higher than the Netherlands, Germany, Estonia (30%) and Finland (29%), but the UK is a more likely target for cybercriminals looking to exploit high tech and financial services industries, which are some of the most vulnerable across Great Britain.

Despite a higher level of vulnerability, the UK has one of the largest cyber security talent pools, showing there is time and manpower being dedicated to the protection of our data online.

https://www.cybersecurity-professionals.com/blog/2019/03/01/cybercrime-in-the-uk-infographic/

Thursday, 7 March 2019

Deriving value from the MITRE ATT&CK Threat Model

The MITRE ATT&CK knowledge base continues to gain traction as the defacto source for supporting business threat assessing, developing proactive cybersecurity and cyber resilience strategies. ATT&CK provides a defined understanding of the adversaries, their associated tactics, their techniques and procedures (TTPs). The ATT&CK comprehensive knowledge base of adversary tactics and techniques has been built up using real-world observations and is freely available to use. 
There are many ways in which organisations can benefit from ATT&CK, often dependant on an organisation's security capabilities and the general security maturity. Steve Rivers, Technical Director International at ThreatQuotient has written guidance on the MITRE ATT&CK stages of maturity, so that any organisation can derive value from it.

MITRE ATT&CK Framework: Keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer

Steve Rivers, Technical Director International at ThreatQuotient

So, how can you get started and use the framework? Nearly every organisation is interested in using MITRE ATT&CK, but they have different views on how it should be adopted based the capabilities of their security operations. We need to make sure that the MITRE ATT&CK framework doesn’t become another source of threat data that is not fully utilised, or a passing fad, or a tool that only the most sophisticated security operations teams can apply effectively. To avoid this fate, we must look at ways to map the framework to stages of maturity so that every organisation can derive value. Here are a few examples of how to use the framework with appropriate use cases as maturity levels evolve.

Stage 1: Reference and Data Enrichment

The MITRE ATT&CK framework contains a tremendous amount of data that could potentially be valuable to any organisation. The MITRE ATT&CK Navigator provides a matrix view of all the techniques so that security analysts can see what techniques an adversary might apply to infiltrate their organisation. To more easily consume this data, a good place to start is with tools that make that data easy to access and share across teams. This may be through an enrichment tool or a platform with a centralised threat library that allows a user to aggregate the data and easily search for adversary profiles to get answers to questions like: Who is this adversary? What techniques and tactics are they using? What mitigations can I apply? Security analysts can use the data from the framework as a detailed source of reference to manually enrich their analysis of events and alerts, inform their investigations and determine the best actions to take depending on relevance and sightings within their environment.

Stage 2: Indicator or Event-driven Response

Building on the ability to reference and understand MITRE ATT&CK data, in Stage 2 security teams incorporate capabilities in the platform within their operational workflows that allow them to apply a degree of action to the data more effectively. For example, with the data ingested in a centralised threat library, they can build relationships between that data automatically without having to form those relationships manually. By automatically correlating events and associated indicators from inside the environment (from sources including the security information and event management (SIEM) system, log management repository, case management systems and security infrastructure) with indicators from the MITRE ATT&CK framework, they gain the context to immediately understand the who, what, where, when, why and how of an attack. They can then automatically prioritise based on relevance to their organisation and determine high-risk indicators of compromise (IOCs) to investigate within their environment. With the ability to use ATT&CK data in a more simple and automated manner, security teams can investigate and respond to incidents and push threat intelligence to sensors for detection and hunt for threats more effectively.

Stage 3: Proactive Tactic or Technique-driven Threat Hunting
At this stage, threat hunting teams can pivot from searching for indicators to taking advantage of the full breadth of ATT&CK data. Instead of narrowly focusing on more targeted pieces of data that appear to be suspicious, threat hunting teams can use the platform to start from a higher vantage point with information on adversaries and associated TTPs. They can take a proactive approach, beginning with the organisation’s risk profile, mapping those risks to specific adversaries and their tactics, drilling down to techniques those adversaries are using and then investigating if related data have been identified in the environment. For example, they may be concerned with APT28 and can quickly answer questions including: What techniques do they apply? Have I seen potential IOCs or possible related system events in my organisation? Are my endpoint technologies detecting those techniques?

The success of MITRE ATT&CK will depend on how easy it is to apply effectively. With an understanding of maturity levels and use cases, and the ability for technologies to support security operations teams at whatever stage they are in, organisations will be able to use the framework to their advantage. As their desire and capabilities to use the data evolve and grow, they’ll be able to dig deeper into the MITRE ATT&CK framework and gain even greater value.

Friday, 1 March 2019

Cyber Security Roundup for February 2019

The perceived threat posed by Huawei to the UK national infrastructure continued to make the headlines throughout February, as politicians, UK government agencies and the Chinese telecoms giant continued to play out their rather public spat in the media. See my post Is Huawei a Threat to UK National Security? for further details. And also, why DDoS might be the greater threat to 5G than Huawei supplied network devices.

February was a rather quiet month for hacks and data breaches in the UK, Mumsnet reported a minor data breach following a botched upgrade, and that was about it. The month was a busy one for security updates, with Microsoft, Adobe and Cisco all releasing high numbers of patches to fix various security vulnerabilities, including several released outside of their scheduled monthly patch release cycles.

A survey by PCI Pal concluded the consequences of a data breach had a greater impact in the UK than the United States, in that UK customers were more likely to abandon a company when let down by a data breach. The business reputational impact should always be taken into consideration when risk assessing security.


Another survey of interest was conducted by Nominet, who polled 408 Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) at midsize and large organisations in the UK and the United States. A whopping 91% of the respondents admitted to experiencing high to moderate levels of stress, with 26% saying the stress had led to mental and physical health issues, and 17% said they had turned to alcohol. The contributing factors for this stress were job security, inadequate budget and resources, and a lack of support from the board and senior management. A CISO role can certainly can be a poisoned-chalice, so its really no surprise most CISOs don't stay put for long.

A Netscout Threat Landscape Report declared in the second half of 2018, cyber attacks against IoT devices and DDoS attacks had both rose dramatically. Fuelled by the compromise of high numbers of IoT devices, the number of DDoS attacks in the 100GBps to 200GBps range increased 169%, while those in the 200GBps to 300GBps range exploded 2,500%. The report concluded cybercriminals had built and used cheaper, easier-to-deploy and more persistent malware, and cyber gangs had implemented this higher level of efficiency by adopting the same principles used by legitimate businesses. These improvements has helped malicious actors greatly increase the number of medium-size DDoS attacks while infiltrating IoT devices even quicker.

In a rare speech, Jeremy Fleming, the head of GCHQ warned the internet could deteriorate into "an even less governed space" if the international community doesn't come together to establish a common set of principles. He said "China, Iran, Russia and North Korea" had broken international law through cyber attacks, and made the case for when "offensive cyber activities" were good, saying "their use must always meet the three tests of legality, necessity and proportionality. Their use, in particular to cause disruption or damage - must be in extremis".  Clearly international law wasn't developed with cyber space in mind, so it looks like GCGQ are attempting to raise awareness to remedy that.

I will be speaking at the e-crime Cyber Security Congress in London on 6th March 2019, on cloud security, new business metrics, future risks and priorities for 2019 and beyond.

Finally, completely out of the blue, I was informed by 4D that this blog had been picked by a team of their technical engineers and Directors as one of the best Cyber Security Blogs in the UK. The 6 Best Cyber Security Blogs - A Data Centre's Perspective Truly humbled and in great company to be on that list.

BLOG
NEWS 
AWARENESS, EDUCATION AND THREAT INTELLIGENCE
REPORTS

    Friday, 22 February 2019

    What's the greater risk to UK 5G, Huawei backdoors or DDoS?

    Have we been focusing too much on the Huawei backdoor threat instead of the DDoS threat facing the incoming 5G network infrastructure? Lee Chen, CEO at A10 networks thinks so.

    The size and sophistication of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks have risen at an ever-accelerating pace. As new 5G networks become operational, we expect the size of attacks will dwarf these records. This is primarily due to the increase in IoT devices that 5G will introduce, with the number set to reach 4.1 billion globally by 2024. Each device is a perfect nest for botnets carrying malware, offering a new DDoS weapon for hackers to take advantage of.

    Service providers will need to evolve rapidly with these growing threats and adopt intelligent automation to detect and mitigate security anomalies in a matter of seconds. Sophisticated DDoS threat intelligence, combined with real-time threat detection and automated signature extraction, will allow the marketplace to defend against even the most massive multi-vector DDoS attacks, no matter where they originate.


    The Huawei threat remains a political football, there is still uncertainty on whether the Chinese telecoms giant's network devices will be banned in the UK or not. I have updated my post - Is Huawei a Threat to UK National Security? with the latest developments.

    Monday, 11 February 2019

    The Business of Organised Cybercrime

    Guest article by David Warburton, Senior Threat Research Evangelist, F5 Networks

    Team leader, network administrator, data miner, money specialist. These are just some of the roles making a difference in today’s enterprises. The same is also true for sophisticated cybergangs.

    Many still wrongly believe that the dark web is exclusively inhabited by hoodie-clad teenagers and legions of disaffected disruptors. The truth is, the average hacker is just a cog in a complex ecosystem more akin to that of a corporate enterprise than you think. The only difference is the endgame, which is usually to cause reputational or financial damage to governments, businesses and consumers.

    There is no way around it; cybercrime is now run like an industry with multiple levels of deceit shielding those at the very top from capture. Therefore, it’s more important than ever for businesses to re-evaluate cybercriminal perceptions and ensure effective protective measures are in place.

    Current perceptions surrounding Cybergangs

    Cybergangs as a collective are often structured like legitimate businesses, including partner networks, resellers and vendors. Some have even set up call centres to field interactions with ransomware victims. Meanwhile, entry-level hackers across the world are embarking on career development journeys of sorts, enjoying opportunities to learn and develop skills. 

    This includes the ability to write their own tools or enhance the capabilities of others. In many ways, it is a similar path to that of an intern. They often become part of sophisticated groups or operations once their abilities reach a certain level. Indeed, a large proportion of hackers are relatively new entrants to the cybercrime game and still use low-level tools to wreak havoc. This breed of cybercriminal isn’t always widely feared by big corporations. They should be.

    How Cybergangs are using Technology to Work Smarter and Cheaper

    Cybergangs often work remotely across widely dispersed geographies, which makes them tricky to detect and deal with. The nature of these structures also means that cyber attacks are becoming more automated, rapid and cost-effective. The costs and risks are further reduced when factoring in the fluidity and inherent anonymity of cryptocurrencies and the dark web.

    The industry has become so robust that hackers can even source work on each link in an attack chain at an affordable rate. Each link is anonymous to other threat actors in the chain to vastly reduce the risk of detection.

    IoT Vulnerabilities on the Rise
    According to IHS Markit, there will be 125 billion IoT devices on the planet by 2030.  With so much hype surrounding the idea of constant and pervasive connectivity, individuals and businesses are often complacent when it comes to ensuring all devices are secure. 

    Significantly, it is easier to compromise an IoT device that is exposed to the public Internet and protected with known vendor default credentials than it is to trick an individual into clicking on a link in a phishing email.

    Consequently, it is crucial for organisations to have an IoT strategy in place that encompasses the monitoring and identification of traffic patterns for all connected devices. Visibility is essential to understand network behaviour and any potential suspicious activities that may occur on it.

    Why Cybersecurity Mindsets must Change

    IT teams globally have been lecturing staff for years on the importance of creating different passwords. Overall, the message is not resonating enough.

    To combat the issue, businesses need to consider alternative tactics such as password manager applications, as well as ensuring continuous security training is available and compulsory for all staff.

    It is worth noting that the most commonly attacked credentials are the vendor defaults for some of the most commonly used applications in enterprise environments. Simply having a basic system hardening policy that ensures vendor default credentials are disabled or changed before the system goes live will prevent this common issue from becoming a painful breach. System hardening is a requirement in every best practice security framework or compliance requirement.

    Ultimately, someone with responsibility for compliance, audit, or security should be continually reviewing access to all systems. Commonly, security teams will only focus on systems within the scope of some compliance or regulatory obligation. This can lead to failure to review seemingly innocuous systems that can occasionally result in major breaches.

    In addition to continual access reviews, monitoring should be in place to detect access attacks. Brute force attacks can not only lead to a breach, they can also result in performance impacts on the targeted system or lock customers out of their accounts. As a result, there are significant financial incentives for organisations to equip themselves with appropriate monitoring procedures.

    Cybergangs use many different methods to wreak havoc, making it increasingly difficult to identify attacks in a timely manner. Businesses are often ignorant about the size of attacks, the scope of what has been affected, and the scale of the operation behind them. You are operating in the dark without doing the utmost to know your enemy. Failing to do so will continue to put information, staff and customers at risk by allowing cybergangs to operate in the shadows.
    David Warburton, Senior Threat Research Evangelist with F5 Labs with over 20 years’ experience in IT and security.