Guest article by Genevra Champion, Sector Marketing Manager at IT Governance
The financial services industry is naturally a lucrative target for cyber criminals. Financial organisations trade and control vast amounts of money, as well as collect and store customers’ personal information so clearly, a data breach could be disastrous for an industry that is built on trust with its customers.
The financial services industry is second only to retail in terms of the industries most affected by cyber crime – the number of breaches reported by UK financial services firms to the FCA increased 480 per cent in 2018, compared to the previous year. While financial services organisations are heavily regulated and cybersecurity is becoming more of a business priority, there is still much more to be accomplished when it comes to businesses understanding what measures must be taken – from the C-suite down – to effectively protect organisations against inevitable breaches.
So how can financial services firms proactively equip themselves to respond to increased regulatory scrutiny and mitigate the impact from the growing number of threats they will face?
Mitigating the Cyber Threat Financial institutions were able to defend against two-thirds of unauthorised fraud attempts in 2018, but the scale of attacks significantly increased. Significant market players including Tesco Bank, Metro Bank and HSBC all reported breaches in the last year. Clearly, the banks’ cybersecurity defences have not developed at a fast enough pace. Cyber criminals can and will dramatically outspend their targets with increasingly sophisticated attack methods. In addition, many of the traditional banks struggle with large, cumbersome legacy systems, which pose significant reliability issues, as well as flaws in security.
Last year’s IT banking disaster led to thousands of TSB customers being locked out of their accounts, leading to fraudsters exploiting the situation by posing as bank staff on calls to customers in order to steal significant sums of money from customers. The breach occurred while the company was conducting an upgrade on its IT systems to migrate customer data to a new platform. This wasn’t just bad luck for TSB, but a failure to adequately plan and assess the risks that come with such a huge project. The bank has since pledged to refund all customers that are victims of fraud, a move which will likely see other banks reviewing their approach to the rise of this particular type of cybercrime.
The industry must understand that security incidents are an ever-present risk. However, organisations can be prepared - scoping a defence strategy specific to the firm, with processes for implementation, will mean an attack can be quickly identified, isolated and resolved, minimising business impact.
Appropriate Defence Strategy
The FCA has set out various cybersecurity insights that show how cybersecurity practices of UK financial services firms are under the regulatory microscope, as the cyber threat continues to grow. The approach from the FCA includes practices for organisations to put into action such as those that promote governance and put cyber risk on the board agenda. The advice also covers areas such as identifying and protecting information assets, being alert to emerging threats and being ready to respond, as well as testing and refining defences. With cybercrime tools and techniques advancing at a rapid pace, and increasing regulations, it’s no wonder that many organisations struggle to keep up to ensure their defences stay ahead of the game.
In order for in-house security teams to keep up to date with current and evolving threats and data protection issues, firms must invest in regular training. Specialist skills are required to mitigate cyber risk, which for some could be cost-prohibitive. As an alternative, an insourced model allows you to leverage a dedicated and skilled team on an ‘as you need’ basis to deliver an appropriate strategy. With a Cyber Security as a Service (CSaaS) model in place, organisations can rapidly access a dedicated team with the knowledge and skills to deliver a relevant and risk appropriate cyber security strategy.
Crucially, in addition to completing a gap analysis and a multi-layered defence strategy, the model will also apply to people and processes. Attackers will generally aim at the weakest point of an organisation – often it’s staff. Human nature means passwords are forgotten, malware isn’t noticed, or phishing emails are opened, for example. Therefore, a blended approach of technology, processes and shared behaviour is required that promotes the need for staff awareness and education of the risks, in order to effectively combat the threat.
Conclusion
With increased regulatory attention across security and privacy, firms must take steps to improve their defences, or risk severe financial and reputational damage. The issue of cybersecurity risk must become as embedded within business thinking as operational risk. Anyone within an organisation can be a weak link, so the importance of cybersecurity defences must be promoted at all levels – from the board all the way through to the admin departments. It’s everyone’s responsibility to keep the organisation protected against threats.
While the threat of cyber attack is real, financial services firms do not have to take on the battle alone. With a CSaaS model in place, organisations can start to take back control of their cybersecurity strategy and embed it as a trusted, cost-effective and workable core part of the business’ process.
Monday, 24 June 2019
Friday, 21 June 2019
How organisations can effectively manage, detect and respond to a data breach?
Guest article by Andy Pearch, Head of IA Services at CORVID
78% of businesses cite cyber security as a high priority for their organisation’s senior management. Whilst it is encouraging that this figure has risen year on year, generating awareness of cyber security is only one part of the issue. The next step for organisations to take is not only understanding, but intelligently acting on the risks presented. Despite the heightened awareness, many organisations are still focusing on mitigating assumed risks, rather than real risks, without a robust security strategy in place.
Whilst perimeter security is a key part of any organisation’s security posture, the fact is that it cannot work in isolation. Data breaches are now commonplace and largely regarded as inevitable, and the rise of new technologies means that today’s threats have increased in sophistication. As Andy Pearch, Head of IA Services at CORVID, explains, safeguarding data integrity, confidentiality and availability should be fundamental to all cyber security strategies. After all, it is the speed with which a breach is detected and the effectiveness with which it is remediated that will provide the most value – this can be achieved with a strategic Managed Detection and Response solution.
Unidentified attacks The Government’s Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2019 revealed that in the last 12 months alone, almost one third of UK businesses identified cyber security breaches or attacks. What’s more, the research also showed that just under half of these companies identified at least one breach or attack per month. While these figures should be enough to make a business refocus its strategic security thinking, it is the use of the word ‘identified’ that is significant: many more attacks could have occurred, but not yet been discovered.
Indeed, global figures reveal that the median dwell time – the time a criminal can be on a company’s network undetected – is over 100 days. And in many cases, the breach is not revealed by the security team itself; it is a call from a supplier, a customer or business partner that brings the problem to light, typically following the receipt of a diversion fraud email requesting, for example, that future payments should be sent to a different bank account.
These breaches not only have the ability to undermine business relationships, but in some cases, can also incur significant financial liability. These frauds usually follow one of two forms: either impersonation, where a criminal masquerades as the business using a very similar domain name and email address, or following a successful compromise, the email comes from the company’s own system. It is the latter case that raises the issue of liability for any financial losses a business partner may have suffered.
Asking the tough questions
Alongside phishing attacks, this approach to cyber attacks completely bypasses the traditional cyber security methods, such as anti-virus (AV) software and firewalls, upon which so many companies still rely. Indeed, while 80% of businesses cite phishing attacks as the cause of breach, 28% confirm the cause was the impersonation of an organisation in emails or online. Only 27% cite viruses, spyware or malware, including ransomware attacks, as the root cause of the breach.
Many companies still depend on perimeter security, and for those that do, it is time to ask some serious questions. Firstly, can you be 100% confident that your business has not been compromised? How would you know if the attacker has not used malware or a virus that would be picked up by the perimeter defences? Secondly, even when a compromise is identified, many companies aren’t sure what the next steps should be. If a supplier makes the call to reveal the business has been compromised, can you confidently identify where that occurred? What part of the business has been affected? What is the primary goal of the attack? Is the attacker only leveraging a compromised email system to defraud customers, or aiming to gain intellectual property or personal data?
The GDPR has demonstrated that the risk associated with a cyber attack is not only financial, as hackers are also actively seeking to access personal information. Security plans, therefore, must also consider data confidentiality, integrity and availability. But it is also essential for organisations to accept that protection is not a viable option given today’s threat landscape: a fundamental shift in security thinking is required. When hackers are using the same tactics and tools as genuine users, preventing these attacks is impossible. Rapid detection and remediation must be the priority.
Removing the burden
Managed Detection and Response (MDR) enables an organisation to spot the unusual activity that indicates a potential breach. For example, if a user is accessing files they would never usually open or view, sending unexpected emails or reaching out to a new domain, such activity should prompt a review. The problem for most companies, however, is they lack not only the tools to detect this activity but also the time and skills to analyse whether it is a breach or actually a false positive.
A managed approach not only takes the burden away from the business, but also enables every company to benefit from the pool of knowledge gathered by detecting and remediating attacks on businesses across the board. With MDR, every incident detected is investigated and, if it’s a breach, managed. That means shutting down the attack’s communication channel to prevent the adversary communicating with the compromised host, and identifying any compromised assets – this can then either be remediated in-house, if preferred, or as part of the MDR service.
Information relating to the mode of attack is also collected. This timely, actionable intelligence is immediately applied to the MDR service, creating either a prevention or detection technique to minimise the chance of this approach succeeding again. Because of this, the speed with which attacks can now be detected is compelling: whilst the average dwell time has continued to decrease in recent years, it is now entirely possible for unknown malware to be detected and nullified within the hour.
Reflect and act
The threat landscape is continuously evolving – it’s important for organisations to recognise this and match security strategies to the true level of risk. What’s more, whilst the increased commitment to security at a Board level is encouraged, organisations cannot equate expenditure with effectiveness.
Organisations must reflect and consider not only the consequences of data loss, but of integrity and availability too. Security strategies can no longer rely on users not making mistakes; when a breach occurs, an organisation must know what happened.
Security strategies cannot afford to stand still. With the rise in phishing and diversion fraud, it is not enough for organisations to simply lock down the perimeter. Companies cannot prevent all attacks, but when a compromise occurs, it is essential to understand how, when and why the attack succeeded so the appropriate response can be determined, and learnings can be applied for the future. It is only with this process in place that organisations can safeguard their business, data and reputation.
Whilst perimeter security is a key part of any organisation’s security posture, the fact is that it cannot work in isolation. Data breaches are now commonplace and largely regarded as inevitable, and the rise of new technologies means that today’s threats have increased in sophistication. As Andy Pearch, Head of IA Services at CORVID, explains, safeguarding data integrity, confidentiality and availability should be fundamental to all cyber security strategies. After all, it is the speed with which a breach is detected and the effectiveness with which it is remediated that will provide the most value – this can be achieved with a strategic Managed Detection and Response solution.
Unidentified attacks The Government’s Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2019 revealed that in the last 12 months alone, almost one third of UK businesses identified cyber security breaches or attacks. What’s more, the research also showed that just under half of these companies identified at least one breach or attack per month. While these figures should be enough to make a business refocus its strategic security thinking, it is the use of the word ‘identified’ that is significant: many more attacks could have occurred, but not yet been discovered.
Indeed, global figures reveal that the median dwell time – the time a criminal can be on a company’s network undetected – is over 100 days. And in many cases, the breach is not revealed by the security team itself; it is a call from a supplier, a customer or business partner that brings the problem to light, typically following the receipt of a diversion fraud email requesting, for example, that future payments should be sent to a different bank account.
These breaches not only have the ability to undermine business relationships, but in some cases, can also incur significant financial liability. These frauds usually follow one of two forms: either impersonation, where a criminal masquerades as the business using a very similar domain name and email address, or following a successful compromise, the email comes from the company’s own system. It is the latter case that raises the issue of liability for any financial losses a business partner may have suffered.
Asking the tough questions
Alongside phishing attacks, this approach to cyber attacks completely bypasses the traditional cyber security methods, such as anti-virus (AV) software and firewalls, upon which so many companies still rely. Indeed, while 80% of businesses cite phishing attacks as the cause of breach, 28% confirm the cause was the impersonation of an organisation in emails or online. Only 27% cite viruses, spyware or malware, including ransomware attacks, as the root cause of the breach.
Many companies still depend on perimeter security, and for those that do, it is time to ask some serious questions. Firstly, can you be 100% confident that your business has not been compromised? How would you know if the attacker has not used malware or a virus that would be picked up by the perimeter defences? Secondly, even when a compromise is identified, many companies aren’t sure what the next steps should be. If a supplier makes the call to reveal the business has been compromised, can you confidently identify where that occurred? What part of the business has been affected? What is the primary goal of the attack? Is the attacker only leveraging a compromised email system to defraud customers, or aiming to gain intellectual property or personal data?
The GDPR has demonstrated that the risk associated with a cyber attack is not only financial, as hackers are also actively seeking to access personal information. Security plans, therefore, must also consider data confidentiality, integrity and availability. But it is also essential for organisations to accept that protection is not a viable option given today’s threat landscape: a fundamental shift in security thinking is required. When hackers are using the same tactics and tools as genuine users, preventing these attacks is impossible. Rapid detection and remediation must be the priority.
Removing the burden
Managed Detection and Response (MDR) enables an organisation to spot the unusual activity that indicates a potential breach. For example, if a user is accessing files they would never usually open or view, sending unexpected emails or reaching out to a new domain, such activity should prompt a review. The problem for most companies, however, is they lack not only the tools to detect this activity but also the time and skills to analyse whether it is a breach or actually a false positive.
A managed approach not only takes the burden away from the business, but also enables every company to benefit from the pool of knowledge gathered by detecting and remediating attacks on businesses across the board. With MDR, every incident detected is investigated and, if it’s a breach, managed. That means shutting down the attack’s communication channel to prevent the adversary communicating with the compromised host, and identifying any compromised assets – this can then either be remediated in-house, if preferred, or as part of the MDR service.
Information relating to the mode of attack is also collected. This timely, actionable intelligence is immediately applied to the MDR service, creating either a prevention or detection technique to minimise the chance of this approach succeeding again. Because of this, the speed with which attacks can now be detected is compelling: whilst the average dwell time has continued to decrease in recent years, it is now entirely possible for unknown malware to be detected and nullified within the hour.
Reflect and act
The threat landscape is continuously evolving – it’s important for organisations to recognise this and match security strategies to the true level of risk. What’s more, whilst the increased commitment to security at a Board level is encouraged, organisations cannot equate expenditure with effectiveness.
Organisations must reflect and consider not only the consequences of data loss, but of integrity and availability too. Security strategies can no longer rely on users not making mistakes; when a breach occurs, an organisation must know what happened.
Security strategies cannot afford to stand still. With the rise in phishing and diversion fraud, it is not enough for organisations to simply lock down the perimeter. Companies cannot prevent all attacks, but when a compromise occurs, it is essential to understand how, when and why the attack succeeded so the appropriate response can be determined, and learnings can be applied for the future. It is only with this process in place that organisations can safeguard their business, data and reputation.
Thursday, 20 June 2019
Blocking DDoS Attacks Using Automation
Guest article by Adrian Taylor, Regional Vice President at A10 Networks
DDoS attacks can be catastrophic, but the right knowledge and tactics can drastically improve your chances of successfully mitigating attacks. In this article, we’ll explore the five ways, listed below, that automation can significantly improve response times during a DDoS attack while assessing the means to block such attacks.
Response time is critical for every enterprise because, in our hyper-connected world, DDoS attacks cause downtime, and downtime means money lost. The longer your systems are down, the more your profits will sink.
Let’s take a closer look at all the ways that automation can put time on your side during a DDoS attack. But first, let’s clarify just how much time an automated defence system can save.
Automated vs. Manual Response Time
Sure, automated DDoS defence is faster than manual DDoS defence, but by how much?
Founder and CEO of NimbusDDoS Andy Shoemaker recently conducted a study to find out. The results spoke volumes: automated DDoS defence improves attack response time five-fold.
The average response time using automated defence was just six minutes, compared to 35 minutes using manual processes, a staggering 29-minute difference. In some cases, the automated defence was even able to eliminate response time completely.
An automated defence system cuts down on response time in five major ways. Such systems can:
Although DDoS attackers will never stop innovating and adapting, neither will automated and intelligent DDoS protection systems.
By using an automated system to rapidly identify and mitigate threats with the help of up-to-date threat intelligence, enterprises can defend themselves from DDoS attacks as quickly as bad actors can launch them.
Three key strategies to block DDoS attacks
While it’s crucial to have an automated system in place that can quickly respond to attacks, it’s equally important to implement strategies that help achieve your goal of ensuring service availability to legitimate users.
After all, DDoS attacks are asynchronous in nature: You can’t prevent the attacker from launching an attack, but with three critical strategies in place, you can be resilient to the attack, while protecting your users.
Each of the three methods listed below is known as a source-based DDoS mitigation strategy. Source-based strategies implement cause as a basis for choosing what traffic to block. The alternative of destination-based mitigation relies on traffic shaping to prevent the system from falling over.
While destination traffic shaping is effective in preserving system health from being overwhelmed during an attack, it is equally fraught with indiscriminate collateral damage to legitimate users.
Tracking deviation: A tracking deviation strategy works by observing traffic on an ongoing basis to learn what qualifies as normal and what represents a threat.
They do, however, have the significant advantage of being able to prevent legitimate users from being blocked, thereby reducing downtime and preventing unnecessarily lost profits.
Knowing that, it’s safe to say that these three mitigation strategies are all well worth the investment.
DDoS attacks can be catastrophic, but the right knowledge and tactics can drastically improve your chances of successfully mitigating attacks. In this article, we’ll explore the five ways, listed below, that automation can significantly improve response times during a DDoS attack while assessing the means to block such attacks.
Response time is critical for every enterprise because, in our hyper-connected world, DDoS attacks cause downtime, and downtime means money lost. The longer your systems are down, the more your profits will sink.
Let’s take a closer look at all the ways that automation can put time on your side during a DDoS attack. But first, let’s clarify just how much time an automated defence system can save.
Automated vs. Manual Response Time
Sure, automated DDoS defence is faster than manual DDoS defence, but by how much?
Founder and CEO of NimbusDDoS Andy Shoemaker recently conducted a study to find out. The results spoke volumes: automated DDoS defence improves attack response time five-fold.
The average response time using automated defence was just six minutes, compared to 35 minutes using manual processes, a staggering 29-minute difference. In some cases, the automated defence was even able to eliminate response time completely.
An automated defence system cuts down on response time in five major ways. Such systems can:
- Instantly detect incoming attacks: Using the data it has collected during peace time, an automated DDoS defence system can instantly identify suspicious traffic that could easily be missed by human observers.
- Redirect traffic accordingly: In a reactive deployment, once an attack has been detected, an automated DDoS defence system can redirect the malicious traffic to a shared mitigation scrubbing center – no more manual BGP routing announcements of suspicious traffic.
- Apply escalation mitigation strategies: During the attack’s onslaught of traffic, an automated DDoS defence system will take action based on your defined policies in an adaptive fashion while minimising collateral damage to legitimate traffic.
- Identify patterns within attack traffic: By carefully inspecting vast amounts of attack traffic in a short period of time, an automated DDoS defence system can extract patterns in real-time to block zero-day botnet attacks.
- Apply current DDoS threat intelligence: An automated DDoS defence system can access real-time, research-driven IP blocklists and DDoS weapon databases and apply that intelligence to all network traffic destined for the protected zone.
Although DDoS attackers will never stop innovating and adapting, neither will automated and intelligent DDoS protection systems.
By using an automated system to rapidly identify and mitigate threats with the help of up-to-date threat intelligence, enterprises can defend themselves from DDoS attacks as quickly as bad actors can launch them.
Three key strategies to block DDoS attacks
While it’s crucial to have an automated system in place that can quickly respond to attacks, it’s equally important to implement strategies that help achieve your goal of ensuring service availability to legitimate users.
After all, DDoS attacks are asynchronous in nature: You can’t prevent the attacker from launching an attack, but with three critical strategies in place, you can be resilient to the attack, while protecting your users.
Each of the three methods listed below is known as a source-based DDoS mitigation strategy. Source-based strategies implement cause as a basis for choosing what traffic to block. The alternative of destination-based mitigation relies on traffic shaping to prevent the system from falling over.
While destination traffic shaping is effective in preserving system health from being overwhelmed during an attack, it is equally fraught with indiscriminate collateral damage to legitimate users.
Tracking deviation: A tracking deviation strategy works by observing traffic on an ongoing basis to learn what qualifies as normal and what represents a threat.
- Specifically, a defence system can analyse data rate or query rate from multiple characteristics (e.g. BPS, PPS, SYN-FIN ratio, session rate, etc.) to determine which traffic is legitimate and which is malicious or may identify bots or spoofed traffic by their inability to answer challenge questions.
- For example, DDoS attacks are initiated by a motivated attacker that leverages an orchestration platform providing the distributed weapons with instructions on how to flood the victim with unwanted traffic. The common command and control (C&C) and distributed attack exhibit patterns that can be leveraged as a causal blocking strategy.
- The system will then use that intelligence to block any matching IP addresses during an attack.
They do, however, have the significant advantage of being able to prevent legitimate users from being blocked, thereby reducing downtime and preventing unnecessarily lost profits.
Knowing that, it’s safe to say that these three mitigation strategies are all well worth the investment.
Adrian Taylor, Regional Vice President at A10 Networks
Friday, 7 June 2019
UK Security BSides, Mark Your Calendar & Don't Miss Out
BSides conferences are fantastic events for budding cyber and information security novices through to seasoned security professionals to learn, discuss the latest security challenges, network with peers and to make new contacts from across the UK cyber security scene.
Mark Your Calendar & Don't Miss Out
UK BSides events are incredibly popular, they tend to be ticket only events, with tickets often selling out weeks and sometimes months prior to the event. Below lists the current UK Security BSides scene (as of 7th June 2019), so mark your calendar and avoid missing out on these excellent and highly rewarding events.
BSides London
Website: https://www.securitybsides.org.uk/
Twitter: @BSidesLondon
Last Event: 5th June 2019
Next Event: TBC (expected June 2020)
Some BSides conferences are run in tandem with nearby popular mainstream security conferences, but unlike most mainstream security conferences, BSides agendas are more participation driven and are more collaborative focused. Any group of security passionate individuals can organise a BSides event at a city not already covered, under the official Security BSides direction. In recent years, following on from the multi-year success of BSides London, there has been a steady stream of new BSides conferences popping up at the various regions throughout the UK.
Mark Your Calendar & Don't Miss Out
UK BSides events are incredibly popular, they tend to be ticket only events, with tickets often selling out weeks and sometimes months prior to the event. Below lists the current UK Security BSides scene (as of 7th June 2019), so mark your calendar and avoid missing out on these excellent and highly rewarding events.
BSides London
Website: https://www.securitybsides.org.uk/
Twitter: @BSidesLondon
Last Event: 5th June 2019
Next Event: TBC (expected June 2020)
Notes: Annually held in since April 2011
BSidesMCR (Manchester)
Website: https://www.bsidesmcr.org.uk/
BSidesMCR (Manchester)
Website: https://www.bsidesmcr.org.uk/
Twitter: @BSidesMCR
Last Event: 16th Augst 2018
Next Event: 29th August 2019 (tickets on sale soon)
Notes: Annually held in August since 2014
BSides Liverpool
Website: https://bsidesliverpool.com/
Twitter: @bsideslivrpool
Next Event: Saturday 29th June 2019 (Sold Out)
Past Event: Inaugural event June 2019
BSides Cymru (Wales)
Website: https://www.bsides.cymru/
Twitter: @BSidesCymru
Next Event: In Cardiff on 28th September 2019
Past Event: Inaugural event September 2019
BSides Scotland
Website: https://www.bsidesscotland.org.uk/
Twitter: @BSidesScot
Next Event: Expected April 2020
Past Event: at Edinburgh on 23rd April 2019
Notes: Annually held since 2017
BSides Belfast
Website: https://bsidesbelfast.org/
BSides Leeds
Website: http://bsidesleeds.co.uk/
Sunday, 2 June 2019
Cyber Security Roundup for May 2019
May 2019 was the busiest month of the year for critical security vulnerabilities and patch announcements. The standout was a Microsoft critical security update for Windows, rated with a CVSS score of 9.8 of 10. This vulnerability fixes CVE-2019-0708 aka 'BlueKeep', which if exploited could allow the rapid propagation of malware (i.e. worm) across networked devices, similar to the devastating WannaCry ransomware attacks of 2017. Such is the concern at Microsoft, they have released BlueKeep patches for their unsupported versions of Windows (i.e. XP, Visa, Server 2003), a very rare occurrence. Researchers at Errata Security said they have found almost one million internet-connected systems which are vulnerable to the BlueKeep bug.
A zero-day Microsoft vulnerability was also reported by an individual called 'SandboxEscaper', which I expect Microsoft will patch as part of their monthly patch cycle in June. And a past Microsoft vulnerability, CVE-2019-0604, which has a security update available, has been reported as being actively exploited by hackers.
There were also critical security vulnerabilities and patch releases for Adobe, Drupal, Cisco devices, WhatsApp and Intel processors. The WhatsApp vulnerability (CVE-2019-3568) grabbed the mains stream news headlines. Impacting both iPhone and Android versions of the encrypted mobile messaging app, an Israeli firm called NSO, coded and sold a toolkit which exploited the vulnerability to various government agencies. The NSO toolkit, called Pegasus, granted access a smartphone's call logs, text messages, and could covertly enable and record the camera and microphone. New and fixed versions of WhatsApp are available on AppStore, so update.
Political and UK media controversy surrounding the Huawei security risk went into overdrive in May after Google announced it would be placing restrictions on Chineses telecoms giant accessing its Android operating system. For the further details see my separate post about The UK Government Huawei Dilemma and the Brexit Factor and Huawei section towards the end of this post.
May was a 'fairly quiet' month for data breach disclosures. There were no media reports about UK pub chain 'Greene King', after they emailed customers of their gift card website, to tell them their website had been hacked and that their personal data had been compromised. I covered this breach in a blog post after being contacted by concerned Greene King voucher customers. It seems that TalkTalk did not inform at least 4,500 customers that their personal information was stolen as part of the 2015 TalkTalk data breach. BBC consumer show Watchdog investigated and found the personal details of approximately 4,500 customers available online after a Google search. The Equifax data breach recovery has surpassed $1 billion in costs after it lost 148 million customer records in a 2017 security breach.
The UK army is to get a new UK Based Cyber Operations Centre, to help the army conduct offensive cyber operations against 'enemies', following a £22 million investment by the defence secretary Penny Mordaunt. She said "it is time to pay more than lip service to cyber. We know all about the dangers. Whether the attacks come from Russia, China or North Korea. Whether they come from hacktivists, criminals or extremists. Whether its malware or fake news. Cyber can bring down our national infrastructure and undermine our democracy." The army's cyber operation centre will be up and running next year and should help to plug a 'grey area' between the British security intelligence services and the military.
Action Fraud and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said UK victims lost £27 million to cryptocurrency and foreign exchange investment scams last year, triple the number of the previous year.
The 2019 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report was released, a key report in understanding what cyber threat actors have been up to and what they are likely to target next.
BLOG
A zero-day Microsoft vulnerability was also reported by an individual called 'SandboxEscaper', which I expect Microsoft will patch as part of their monthly patch cycle in June. And a past Microsoft vulnerability, CVE-2019-0604, which has a security update available, has been reported as being actively exploited by hackers.
There were also critical security vulnerabilities and patch releases for Adobe, Drupal, Cisco devices, WhatsApp and Intel processors. The WhatsApp vulnerability (CVE-2019-3568) grabbed the mains stream news headlines. Impacting both iPhone and Android versions of the encrypted mobile messaging app, an Israeli firm called NSO, coded and sold a toolkit which exploited the vulnerability to various government agencies. The NSO toolkit, called Pegasus, granted access a smartphone's call logs, text messages, and could covertly enable and record the camera and microphone. New and fixed versions of WhatsApp are available on AppStore, so update.
Political and UK media controversy surrounding the Huawei security risk went into overdrive in May after Google announced it would be placing restrictions on Chineses telecoms giant accessing its Android operating system. For the further details see my separate post about The UK Government Huawei Dilemma and the Brexit Factor and Huawei section towards the end of this post.
May was a 'fairly quiet' month for data breach disclosures. There were no media reports about UK pub chain 'Greene King', after they emailed customers of their gift card website, to tell them their website had been hacked and that their personal data had been compromised. I covered this breach in a blog post after being contacted by concerned Greene King voucher customers. It seems that TalkTalk did not inform at least 4,500 customers that their personal information was stolen as part of the 2015 TalkTalk data breach. BBC consumer show Watchdog investigated and found the personal details of approximately 4,500 customers available online after a Google search. The Equifax data breach recovery has surpassed $1 billion in costs after it lost 148 million customer records in a 2017 security breach.
The UK army is to get a new UK Based Cyber Operations Centre, to help the army conduct offensive cyber operations against 'enemies', following a £22 million investment by the defence secretary Penny Mordaunt. She said "it is time to pay more than lip service to cyber. We know all about the dangers. Whether the attacks come from Russia, China or North Korea. Whether they come from hacktivists, criminals or extremists. Whether its malware or fake news. Cyber can bring down our national infrastructure and undermine our democracy." The army's cyber operation centre will be up and running next year and should help to plug a 'grey area' between the British security intelligence services and the military.
Action Fraud and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said UK victims lost £27 million to cryptocurrency and foreign exchange investment scams last year, triple the number of the previous year.
The 2019 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report was released, a key report in understanding what cyber threat actors have been up to and what they are likely to target next.
BLOG
- The Price of Loyalty, almost half of UK Office Workers are willing to sell Company's Information
- UK Pub Chain 'Greene King' Gift Card Website Hacked
- The UK Government Huawei Dilemma and the Brexit Factor
- WhatsApp, Microsoft and Intel Chip Vulnerabilities
- ZombieLoad: Researchers discover New Hardware Vulnerability in Modern Intel Processors
- Zavvi Champions League Final Competition Winner Email Blunder
- 2019 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR) Key Takeaways
- Top Tips On Cyber Security for SMEs
- TalkTalk Data Breach Customer Details Found Online
- Digital Minister Margot James: IoT Devices with Default Passwords could be Banned
- EternalBlue believed to be behind Crippling Baltimore Attack
- First American Financial website leaked 885 million documents
- TeamViewer reportedly hit by Chinese Hackers in 2016
- Army to get new £22m Cyber Centre to Combat Digital Threats
- GozNym Cyber-Crime Gang which stole Millions Busted
- Europol announces Takedown of Wall Street Market and Valhalla Dark Web Markets
- Another Three Billion Fake Facebook Profiles Culled
- £27m lost in Cryptocurrency ‘Scammers’ Paradise’
- Equifax Data Breach Recovery Costs Pass $1 billion
- License Plate Reader Firm Breached, Data Leaked
- Hacker steals Canva Data belonging to 139M users
- North Face apologises over Wikipedia 'hack'
- Microsoft Patches 79 Vulnerabilities, including 22 Critical for Windows, IE\Edge, OWA, .NET, Chakra and SharePoint
- Almost One Million Vulnerable to BlueKeep Vulnerability (CVE-2019-0708)
- Adobe Releases Fixes at least 84 Vulnerabilities in Acrobat and Acrobat Reader
- Intel ZombieLoad side-channel Processor Vulnerability
- Windows 10 Zero-Day Vulnerability released, Microsoft Patch not yet Available
- WhatsApp Patches flaw Allowing easy Installation of Pegasus Spyware
- WordPress Slick Popup plugin could leave a backdoor open to Hackers
- Cisco Critical Vulnerability in Switch Software and 41 other Flaws
- Cisco Patches Critical Vulnerability in Cisco Elastic Services Controller
- Drupal Core Patches Moderately Critical Vulnerability
- Mozilla patches Two Critical flaws with Firefox 67
- Slack Patches Flaw that could allow Attackers to Hijack Downloaded Documents
- Bypass Vulnerability discovered in MacOS X GateKeeper
- Mirai variant uses 13 Exploits to compromise IoT
- Department of Commerce Announces the Addition of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to the Entity List
- Huawei's use of Android restricted by Google
- Google will work with Huawei for the next 90 days after US eases restrictions
- What happens to my Huawei smartphones and tablets now
- ARM memo tells staff to stop working with China’s tech giant
- China warns of investment blow to the UK over 5G ban
- Trump declares a national emergency over IT threats
- Trump says Huawei could be part of trade deal
- Huawei: Which countries are blocking its 5G technology?
- Huawei 'to go the extra mile' to reassure world on 5G spying
- Is Huawei in retreat?
- Huawei says billions of customers could be harmed by US sanctions
- Mike Pompeo warns the UK over Huawei 'security risks'
- Huawei's microchip vulnerability explained
- Vodafone Found Hidden Backdoors in Huawei Equipment
- Microsoft researchers find NSA-style backdoor in Huawei laptop
- Huawei the Company and the Security Risks Explained
- Theresa May has questions to answer over the Huawei scandal
- Sacked defence secretary denies security council leak on Huawei decision
- Vodafone denies Huawei Italy security risk
AWARENESS, EDUCATION AND THREAT INTELLIGENCE
- How Chinese Spies Got the NSA’s Hacking Tools, and Used Them for Attacks
- APT10 Campaign Debuts Two New Loaders for Distributing PlugX and Quasar RATs
- MegaCortex Ransomware Attacks Spike
- Nansh0u Cryptomining Malware hits 50,000 Servers
- HawkEye Malware Campaign Upticks on Business Users
- 2019 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report released
- Apricorn Survey: Encryption on the Rise Due to GDPR
- Ponemon Institute Study found, there has been a dramatic increase in IoT-related Data Breaches
- Report finds Ransomware Recovery Firms Simply Paying Attackers
- Blancco Report reveals 42% of Used Drives sold on eBay are holding Sensitive Data
- Digital Shadows Photon Research “Too Much Information” Report: 2.3 billion files exposed across online file storage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)