Skip to content

CyberSecurity Institute

Security News Curated from across the world

Menu
Menu

From:Reply-To:To:Date:Message-ID:List-ID:List-Unsubscribe:Sender:Content-Type:MIME-Version; i=mail=3Dpaulgdavis.com@mail41.atl11.rsgsv.net;

Posted on August 30, 2016December 30, 2021 by admini

[From the desk of Paul Davis – his opinions and no-one else’s]
Apart from the reporter’s opinions 😉
So onto the news:

Adversary Intelligence: Getting Behind the Keyboard

Arguably one of the most controversial subjects in Threat Intelligence currently is the topic of Attribution, or developing Adversary Intelligence.

Without Adversary Intelligence, both producers and consumers of Threat Intelligence may risk overestimating or underestimating a given threat by myopically addressing a single source or facet of a given threat, simply because it is the path of least resistance. However, it is very important for organizations look to carefully compliment their technical analysis with Adversary Intelligence, thereby ensuring that they do not fall victim to biases and oversights.

Link: http://paulgdavis.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=38afad659c&e=20056c7556

Be Prepared: Incident Response Plans Help Stem Costs of a Cyberattack

CFOs can be instrumental in helping their organizations prepare for a possible cyberattack. Hoping it won’t happen or simply transferring responsibility for cybersecurity to the IT department are not good options. Financial executives can help their organizations shore up their cybersecurity defenses with the following actions:

Take inventory of your assets.

Assess vendors’ security measures.

Develop a risk profile.

Create an incident response team and develop a plan of action.

Ignoring cybersecurity issues will ultimately cost you in numerous ways, but certainly in terms of dollars. Financial executives can and should play a key role in examining their organization’s cybersecurity measures, supporting efforts to bolster internal defenses and encouraging the development of a robust response plan. While companies cannot completely guard against a cyberattack, they can be prepared for one. And being prepared will not only provide peace of mind but will translate into savings in terms of time, money, reputational damage and headaches if a breach does occur.

Link: http://paulgdavis.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=3bebd135f9&e=20056c7556

Businesses overestimate data theft readiness, claims report

The research, carried out by Pierre Audin Consultants (PAC), discovered that, also found that only 30 per cent of firms with a cyber readiness plan, which addresses how they will respond in the event of a data security breach, test it monthly, with many of the remaining 70 per cent testing it only annually. This is despite 86 per cent of firms claimed to have a “high state of readiness”, according to the report.

PAC found that the most prepared sectors are government and financial services, but that they also suffer the highests remediation costs when a data breach happens.

Link: http://paulgdavis.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=cced47454b&e=20056c7556

Due diligence with CPA firm subcontractors

CPA firms often use subcontractors to help provide payroll, tax, accounting, and audit services or to provide administrative support to the firm. In the course of rendering these services, subcontractors may obtain access to a vast amount of confidential client data. Examples of subcontractors include part-time help hired during busy season, other accounting firms assisting with tax return preparation, or even companies that provide mailroom or office cleaning services. … While the above items are good considerations to help evaluate a subcontractor’s privacy and confidentiality policies, what would happen if a client asked your CPA firm similar questions? Now is an excellent time to review and update the firm’s processes to protect confidential client data, train employees, and understand how insurance coverage may apply in the event of a data breach.

Link: http://paulgdavis.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=694ddf35e7&e=20056c7556

Cyberbreach and Reputation Woes Hack Away at Bottom Line for 44% of Financial Firms

According to the 2015 Makovsky Wall Street Reputation Study, released Thursday, 42% of U.S. consumers believe that failure to protect personal and financial information is the biggest threat to the reputation of the financial firms they use. What’s more, three-quarters of respondents said that the unauthorized access of their personal and financial information would likely lead them to take their business elsewhere. In fact, security of personal and financial information is much more important to customers compared to a financial services firm’s ethical responsibility to customers and the community (23%).

Link: http://paulgdavis.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=3e5d2f6c88&e=20056c7556

Attacking cybercrime through infrastructure, not individuals

Cisco’s Talos security team and Level 3 took against a cybercrime group known as SSH Psychos.

The Psychos were scanning the entire internet looking for Linux servers running the secure SSH protocol. Used properly it lets a server’s owner log in securely to that machine even though they may be a long way away from it.

In response, Level 3 and Cisco changed the way data from the attack was handled by net hardware they controlled. They essentially poured it into a virtual dustbin. This ended the scanning and stopped the password attacks. It got more even effective when some other large ISPs joined in.

Link: http://paulgdavis.us3.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=90c6652b94&e=20056c7556

The Amorphous Nature of Cyber Risk: GCs should look at the enterprise-wide impact of a breach

General counsel would benefit from taking a 360-degree look at how their operation, reputation and overall enterprise would be impacted by a breach. The lessons learned from recent case studies, coupled with the recent introduction of new cyberlegislation, offer guidance to the general counsel in creating and implementing best practices.

Recent new legislation now affords companies, irrespective of size, the ability to more readily and meaningfully address cybersecurity issues through the exchange of information about cyberthreats between the government and the private sector. In mid-April 2015, the House passed two significant pieces of cybersecurity legislation, during what has been called “Cyber Week.” This legislation offers liability protections to companies that share information on cyberthreat indicators on their networks – such as weak or default passwords, outdated software vulnerabilities, or suspicious code – with each other and the federal government. The first bill, the Protecting Cyber Networks Act, Intelligence Committee Bill, H.R. 1560, was passed by the House on April 22, 2015, by a 307-116 vote. The next day, the Homeland Security Committee’s National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act, H.R. 1731, passed by a 355-63 vote.

As daunting as protecting companies from cyberbreaches can be, by understanding the unique issues and concerns that arise in this new landscape, the general counsel is better able to protect and inform his company and board. Having a successful internal protocol and working with an industry ISAC can prove to be a significant asset for general counsel.

Link: http://paulgdavis.us3.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=fcbebdef47&e=20056c7556

Major payroll processor loses data in physical breach

Heartland Payment Systems, a major payroll processing company, is notifying customers their information may be exposed after computers were stolen from the company’s offices in Santa Ana, Calif.

Link: http://paulgdavis.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=30d5bcdef0&e=20056c7556

How to Talk about Security Testing without Scaring People

Sylvia Killinen noted that her company’s most frequent difficulty wasn’t the testing itself. Instead, it was the communication that provided problems, in part because of the words used to explain what would be performed. If you take care with how you describe your process, you may get more support while executing tests and repairing systems.

“There are several steps to a security test at my organization. The first is when we move to sign off that the test is OK to perform, with permission from the product owner as well as the environment manager for whichever system is under test. This is best done by a document, because it’s easy to forget a conversation or lose an IM, so I fill out a statement of intent for each system to be under test. In that document, I describe at a high level what sort of testing will be performed, when, and what impacts may result. Considering any good security test aims to find and exploit vulnerabilities, impacts can include anything from system downtime to loss of data. I use the same language to describe tests as I would to describe vulnerabilities, as the statement of intent will also serve to guide development of test cases.”

Link: http://paulgdavis.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=d44037ee0d&e=20056c7556

76 countries fell to Botnet attacks in first quarter of 2015

The Kaspersky Lab statistics has shown that a total of 23,095 DDoS attacks were carried out on web resources located in 76 countries in the first quarter of 2015.

Link: http://paulgdavis.us3.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=c0379f0c9f&e=20056c7556

Detection changes: search protection code

Microsoft security products will detect programs with browser search protection functionality from June 1, 2015.

Non-compliant programs that exhibit such functionality will be detected by our software signatures that look for browser search protection code. Any program using code that can potentially perform search protection may be detected, regardless of whether the code is active.

Non-compliant programs that exhibit such functionality will be detected by our software signatures that look for browser search protection code. Any program using code that can potentially perform search protection may be detected, regardless of whether the code is active.

Link: http://paulgdavis.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=3618fd02cc&e=20056c7556

============================================================
Feedback, questions? Our mailing address is: ** dailynews@paulgdavis.com (mailto:dailynews@paulgdavis.com)

If someone forwarded this email to you and you want to be added in,
please click this: ** Subscribe to this list (http://paulgdavis.us3.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=e09452545a)

** Unsubscribe from this list (http://paulgdavis.us3.list-manage2.com/unsubscribe?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=e09452545a&e=20056c7556&c=09ec41edab)

** Update subscription preferences (http://paulgdavis.us3.list-manage1.com/profile?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=e09452545a&e=20056c7556)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Posts

  • AI/ML News – 2024-04-14
  • Incident Response and Security Operations -2024-04-14
  • CSO News – 2024-04-15
  • IT Security News – 2023-09-25
  • IT Security News – 2023-09-20

Archives

  • April 2024
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • September 2020
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • December 2018
  • April 2018
  • December 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • August 2014
  • March 2014
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • February 2012
  • October 2011
  • August 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003

Categories

  • AI-ML
  • Augment / Virtual Reality
  • Blogging
  • Cloud
  • DR/Crisis Response/Crisis Management
  • Editorial
  • Financial
  • Make You Smile
  • Malware
  • Mobility
  • Motor Industry
  • News
  • OTT Video
  • Pending Review
  • Personal
  • Product
  • Regulations
  • Secure
  • Security Industry News
  • Security Operations
  • Statistics
  • Threat Intel
  • Trends
  • Uncategorized
  • Warnings
  • WebSite News
  • Zero Trust

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
© 2025 CyberSecurity Institute | Powered by Superbs Personal Blog theme