Skip to content

CyberSecurity Institute

Security News Curated from across the world

Menu
Menu

Author: admini

Service providers lack confidence in LEAs

Posted on February 9, 2012December 30, 2021 by admini

They are still rare, indicating that the slow uptake of IPv6 makes it “not yet economically or operationally significant enough to warrant serious attention by the Internet criminal underground.”

However, there has been a significant increase in large flood-based attacks in excess of 10 Gbps, constituting “an extremely serious threat to network infrastructure and ancillary support services such as DNS, not to mention end-customer properties.”

Two things that might surprise network customers are the providers’ concern over the effectiveness of stateful firewalls, IPS and load-balancing devices in the face of DDoS attacks, and what Arbor describes as the “perennial disengagement of most network operators from law enforcement.”

On law enforcement, network operators lack confidence in LEA’s ability and willingness to investigate online attacks, and “evince strong dissatisfaction with current governmental efforts to protect critical infrastructure.”

Read more

Is Your Lawyer the Weakest Link? Hackers Are Now Targeting

Posted on February 3, 2012December 30, 2021 by admini

According to the January 31, 2012 article entitled “China-Based Hackers Target Law Firms to Get Secret Deal Data,” the attacks have been sufficiently serious that the FBI’s cyber division convened a meeting with the top 200 law firms in New York City last November to address the rising number of law firm intrusions.

The hackers “zeroed in on offices on Toronto’s Bay Street, home of the Canadian law firms handling the deal.” According to the article:

http://www.hahnloeser.com/tradesecretlitigator/post/2012/02/03/Is-Your-Lawyer-the-Weakest-Link-Hackers-Are-Targeting-Law-Firms-to-Get-Secret-Deal-Data.aspx

Read more

New SEC security breach rules no big game changer, experts say

Posted on October 20, 2011December 30, 2021 by admini

“For example, if a registrant experienced a material cyber attack in which malware was embedded in its systems and customer data was compromised, it likely would not be sufficient for the registrant to disclose that there is a risk that such an attack may occur. Instead, as part of a broader discussion of malware or other similar attacks that pose a particular risk, the registrant may need to discuss the occurrence of the specific attack and its known and potential costs and other consequences,” the SEC explained.

David Navetta, a founding partner of the Information Law Group, and Nicole Friess, an associate at the law firm, wrote in their blog, “SEC Issues Guidance Concerning Cyber Security Incident Disclosure,” not to expect a wave of new public security breach disclosures from listed companies as a result of the SEC guidance. “While cyber security risk has always been a potential financial disclosure issue, and something that directors and officers need to take into account, the SEC guidance really highlights the issue and brings it to the fore. Even so, materiality is still going to a big issue, and not every breach will need to be reported as many/most will not likely involve the potential for a material impact to a company,” they wrote.

“It’s not as if companies are not already expected to report a breach that is material to earnings, such as Heartland, TJX, and many others have in the past. What the SEC has done is underline that IT security risks to materiality are no different than any other types of risks and need to be considered as such,” he says.

While we may not see a wave of new breach disclosures, Navetta and Friess estimate that many firms are not as prepared internally as they need to be in order to determine the potential impact of IT security breaches.

http://www.csoonline.com/article/691951/new-sec-security-breach-rules-no-big-game-changer-experts-say?source=CSONLE_nlt_update_2011-10-20

Read more

Incident Response and Recovery May Be the Best Defense

Posted on August 1, 2011December 30, 2021 by admini

In this case, the examples are more extreme- military contractor Booz Allen Hamilton recently had the emails and passwords of 90,000 servicemen & women posted to the Web, biotech giant Monsanto had employee PII leaked, a massive theft of PII from Sony causing it to shutdown the PlayStation Network (PSN) for 3 weeks and company stock to drop 16% throughout the process., a public of usernames & passwords for members of FBI-affiliated industry organization Infragard while even the U.S.

In spending the last several years talking to senior information security executives and professionals, the focus always seems to be about securing the network or (in the case of virtualization and migration to cloud-based offerings) critical digital assets wherever they may be. When the topic of incident response would come up, it was usually with regard to compliance mandate and the least amount of investment was put into something that was often not quantifiable – for if it were, the belief seemed to be that it was admitting poor risk posture.

“In contrast, it’s much harder to analyze and understand an organization’s incident response plans and capabilities. … “For an example, look at attacks from the APT or other advanced threats, which take a long time to build up capabilities to breach layered defenses one by one… Well-developed incident response/recovery plans and procedures raise the chances of detection and counter-action at some point after a layered attack has commenced but before the final defensive layer has been breached and the prize obtained (the RSA breach comes to mind as a good example),” points out Tiffany. “That raised risk of detection may increase the real risk of getting caught, or, more likely, it may increase the perceived cost of the attack from the attacker’s perspective, because of the heightened chance that the entire effort is blown before yielding anything worthwhile.

By not being prepared when a security event occurs, companies and organizations are setting themselves up for massive amount of time, resource and overall monetary spend in both response and recovery. Once a true incident is finally detected, there’s the necessary forensics that may need to happen at great haste depending on industry regulation to ensure a fast response. If the organizational network, services, servers and applications are slowed or shut down in any way during this process, getting them back online in a timely manner is critical to business continuity and profitability to mitigate the loss against the spend on the incident response itself.

After the details are ascertained and law enforcement begins any relevant investigation, the additional internal IT response must occur to shore up defenses where the attackers got in and mitigate any future similar means of exploiting weaknesses.

Finally, regulatory requirements with regard to state and industry breach or information loss reporting need to be responded to, often in a specific, often limited amount of time after the event is discovered.

Then knowing that there is a strong chance that true, full security is rapidly becoming illusory, if the cost of asset compromise becomes greater than the defense of the asset or the asset itself, far more steps need to be taken within the company to be prepared for any eventuality of an incident occurring.

Make sure you have solid incident response and business continuity and disaster recovery (BCDR) plans and conduct a business impact assessment (BIA) – this will help determine potential costs and timelines should something occur, giving a starting point for reduction of risk and spend. Read the “Incident Response Fundamentals” blog series from Rich Mogull and Mike Rothman of Securosis to get a strong baseline for what should be within your initial plan.

Collect metrics at all levels – technical, operational, and managerial – in an effort to enumerate the risks and their cost to be able to communicate it effectively to company management.

Work to show company management why proactive spending can result in cost-savings in the immediate, short and long-term and bolstering the organizational risk posture in this way will save the company a lot of money should something happen- like an insurance policy but better.

Work to implement both incident response and BCDR plans, run drills within the scope of several scenarios making use of any internal Red Team/Blue Teams or an external 3rd party company skilled in testing such preparedness. This will ensure organizational readiness being in-line with plan expectations and that it is realistic based on organizational needs.

Investigate the variety of offerings on the market such as the data loss SaaS management platform from start-up Co3 Systems and the various cloud-based BCDR solutions from companies such as IBM, Iron Mountain and Asigra. Be sure to not only research what you read in industry publications and analyst reports but talk to your peers who are utilizing these services or who have gone through proof of concepts (PoCs) already and made a selection for the best possible insight on what’s working and what’s not.

What it comes down to is companies and organizations moving out of the mindset that preparing for the possibility that an incident will occur is tantamount to admission of weakness. Not doing so is proving for organization after organization to be costly both monetarily and reputation-wise as well as heavily damaging to their risk posture. Companies need to also understand that just because they don’t believe they fit within a high-profile target or risk matrix does not mean they will not be attacked.

The AntiSec movement has little logic to who they are going after and just like the breaches that are occurring on a daily basis, the smaller ones that aren’t driven by attention seekers are not high-profile as recently written up in the Wall Street Journal – it was the same when so-called “script kiddies” were defacing Web sites. … Senate, Oracle, Amazon.ca and other large sites and others would go after whole hosting providers, taking out over 100-200 small, unknown Web sites at a time.

Never think you’re immune because if attackers can get into the high profile targets, there’s always a chance someone can get into your network or access your critical assets. Be prepared and ready when they do, lowering the cost of response and recovery in the process.

http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/incident-response-and-recovery-may-be-best-defense-080111

Read more

‘Indestructible’ rootkit enslaves 4.5m PCs in 3 months

Posted on June 30, 2011December 30, 2021 by admini

TDL-4 is endowed with an array of improvements over TDL-3 and previous versions of the rootkit, which is also known as Alureon or just TDL. As previously reported, it is now able to infect 64-bit versions of Windows by bypassing the OS’s kernel mode code signing policy, which was designed to allow drivers to be installed only when they have been digitally signed by a trusted source.

“The changes in TDL-4 affected practically all components of the malware and its activity on the web to some extent or other,” the Kaspersky researchers wrote in their report.

Like the Popureb trojan and the Torpig botnet (aka Sinowal and Anserin), it also infects the master boot record of a compromised PC’s hard drive, ensuring that malware is running even before Windows is loaded.

In the event there is a takedown of the 60 or more command and control servers used to maintain the TDSS botnet (hard but not impossible given the recent eradications of the Rustock and Coreflood botnets), the infected TDSS machines can receive instructions using a custom built Kad client.

The Kaspersky researchers were able to analyze the number of TDL-4 infections by exploiting a flaw that exposed three MySQL databases located in Moldova, Lithuania, and the US. Remarkably, the data revealed no Russian users, most likely because the affiliate programs that pay from $20 to $200 for every 1,000 TDSS infections don’t provide rewards for installations on computers based in Russia.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/29/tdss_alureon_advances/

Read more

Federal agency issues new security rules for financial institutions

Posted on June 28, 2011December 30, 2021 by admini

The FFIEC also instructs banks and financial institutions to focus their network defense on layered security protections that involve fraud monitoring; use of dual customer authorization through different access devices; the use of out-of-band verification; and the use of “positive pay,” debit blocks and other technologies to appropriately limit the transactional use of the account. The FFIEC guidelines also tell financial institutions they must use “two elements at a minimum” as “process designed to detect anomalies and effectively respond to suspicious and anomalous activity.”

Since 2005 when the FFIEC, on behalf of other federal government agencies with regulatory oversight of banks, issued its initial guidelines, banks have moved to deploy some different types of two-factor authentication more broadly.

The new guidance is more specific, and the FFIEC says that’s because cybercrime against the banking industry and its customers is worse now. “Fraudsters have continued to develop and deploy more sophisticated, effective and malicious methods to compromise authentication mechanisms and gain unauthorized access to customer accounts,” the FFIEC says.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217999/Federal_agency_issues_new_security_rules_for_financial_institutions?source=CTWNLE_nlt_dailyam_2011-06-29

Read more

Posts navigation

  • Previous
  • 1
  • …
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • …
  • 421
  • Next

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