Skip to content

CyberSecurity Institute

Security News Curated from across the world

Menu
Menu

Author: admini

Law makers voice concerns over cybersecurity plan

Posted on March 1, 2008December 30, 2021 by admini

“It’s hard to believe that this Administration now believes it has the answers to secure our federal networks and critical infrastructure,” Representative Bennie Thompson (D-MS), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in prepared remarks at the opening of the hearing on Thursday. “I believe cybersecurity is a serious problem — maybe the most complicated national security issue in terms of threat and jurisdiction… This problem will be with us for decades to come.”

The U.S. government gave short shrift to cybersecurity issues at the beginning of the decade. While the Bush Administration released its National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace in 2003, the final document significantly softened the government’s stance on securing critical infrastructure, which is primarily maintained by private companies. The Administration also collected most of the cybersecurity capabilities into the Department of Homeland Security and then failed to fund the efforts. While Congress established the position of Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity within the DHS in 2005, the Bush Administration failed to fill the leadership role for more than a year, finally appointing Greg Garcia, a former information-technology lobbyist, to the post. In the last two years, however, the Bush Administration has focused more intently on securing government networks.

The U.S. computer emergency readiness team (US-CERT) has deployed a network-traffic analysis system, EINSTEIN, to monitor 15 agencies for possible computer intrusions.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has created the National Vulnerability Database and worked with other agencies to create important standards for configuration management and vulnerability detection.

The latest effort by the Bush Administration is the so-called “Cyber Initiative” — a plan to minimize the number of trusted Internet connections, or TICs, and improve EINSTEIN’s monitoring on those connection to prevent attacks in real time. The Bush Administration has budgeted $30 billion over the next five to seven years for the program, according to statements by Committee members. The 2009 budget has requested $294 million for US-CERT to hire more analysts and fund the additional deployment of the system.

During Thursday’s hearing, officials from the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Homeland Security answered the Committee’s questions on the non-classified components of the initiative.

As part of the Cyber Initiative, a major effort is under way to reduce the number of interconnections between federal agencies and the public Internet. Currently, more than 4,000 trusted Internet connections (TICs) link the federal government to the Internet, according to Robert Jamison, Under Secretary for the DHS’s National Protection and Programs Directorate. Under the Cyber Initiative, that will be reduced to 50.

The second part of the Cyber Initiative calls for improvement to the EINSTEIN intrusion detection system and the deployment of the system to monitor all 50 Internet access points. The information is analyzed on a daily basis, and so cannot detect threats in real time, DHS’s Jamison said. The original assessment, completed in September 2004, found that the EINSTEIN system did not need to have Privacy Act System of Records “because the program is not intended to collect information that will be retrieved by name or personal identifier.”

The committee also took issue with the DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff’s decision to appoint Scott Charbo, the former CIO for the department, to the position of Deputy Under Secretary in charge of implementing the program.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11507?ref=rss

Read more

How much does a data breach cost UK companies?

Posted on February 26, 2008December 30, 2021 by admini

The Ponemon Institute isn’t pulling these figures out of the ether – it talked to 21 UK companies about how much actual data breaches cost them.

Customer expectations of trust mean they also suffer a higher cost of lost business.

Phillip Dunkelberger, CEO at PGP Corporation, told The Reg: “Companies are increasingly waking up to the real cost of data losses, especially the cost of losing customers.

Ponemon estimates customer churn rates to go up by an average of 2.5 per cent after a data loss, but the worst example in the UK saw churn rates go up by seven per cent.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/25/data_breach_real_cost/

Read more

Trend Micro buys UK encryption firm

Posted on February 26, 2008December 30, 2021 by admini

Identum will likely strengthen Trend’s software-as-a-service product portfolio, however, because it gives the company a way to add e-mail encryption to its InterScan Messaging Hosted Security product line.

Like other security vendors, Trend has been trying to beef up its software-as-a-service lineup in recent months, offering customers a simpler way to keep on top of the latest threats than is found with traditional security products. The acquisition will “ensure an even safer, more secure Internet experience for the company’s global customers,” Trend said in a statement.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/022508-trend-micro-buys-uk-encryption.html

Read more

Banks: Losses From Computer Intrusions Up in 2007

Posted on February 24, 2008December 30, 2021 by admini

SARs are federally mandated write-ups that banks are required to file anytime they spot a suspicious or fraudulent transaction that amounts to $5,000 or more.

While the number of reported computer intrusion-related SARs (536) paled in comparison to the leading SARs categories – mortgage loan fraud (12,554) and check fraud (17,558) – the FDIC said financial crime aided by computer intrusions is growing at a rapid pace. Further, it noted that the mean (average) loss per SAR from computer intrusions was roughly $29,630 — almost triple the estimated loss per SAR during the same time period in 2006 ($10,536).

Manning notes in his book that for the purposes of this reporting requirement, computer intrusion does not mean attempted intrusions of Web sites or other non-critical information systems of the institution that provide no access to institution or customer financial or other critical information.

Anyway, back to the interesting bits: The report indicates that in most cases, banks are at a loss to say exactly how cyber crooks are stealing the funds. The report indicates that the 80 percent of the computer intrusions were classified as “unknown unauthorized access – online banking,” and that “unknown unauthorized access to online banking has risen from 10 to 63 percent in the past year.” Still, the FDIC indicates that a large share of the unknown losses most likely resulted from malicious data-stealing programs surreptitiously installed on customer PCs by cyber crooks.

Security Fix has written about this series of attacks spoofing the BBB, as well as a similarly successful spear phishing malware attacks that spoofed the Federal Trade Commission.

Of those computer intrusion-related SARs that were identified, online bill payment applications were most frequently targeted by cyber thieves, the FDIC found. However, unauthorized access to wire transfers and automated clearinghouse (ACH) payments caused the most losses to financial institutions in the computer intrusion category, mainly because ACH and wire transfers give the banks less time to detect and recover from unauthorized access.

Another case study cites an unnamed financial institution that had 14 customer account takeovers as a result of spyware infestations that recorded keystrokes on customer PCs, stolen credentials that allowed the crooks to initiate a series of fraudulent ACH transfers out of the victims’ corporate accounts into accounts set up and controlled by the attackers.

Avivah Litan, a financial fraud analyst with Gartner Inc., said unauthorized wire transfers disproportionately impact small to medium sized businesses that may be using online banking but do not have the same stringent financial controls in place at many larger corporations.

Fewer retailer payment card data breaches during the quarter caused lower losses to financial institutions. Retailers are resisting payment card industry (PCI) data security standards, which could lead to lower compliance, additional breaches, and more counterfeit card losses absorbed by card-issuing institutions.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/02/banks_losses_from_computer_int.html#more

Read more

Data Breach Notification Laws, State By State

Posted on February 21, 2008December 30, 2021 by admini

The logical answer to keeping your network and systems secure is to prevent unhealthy or unauthorized users on the network in the first place. Encryption may seem like an easy fix, but there is no easy answer to this complicated problem. In general, most state laws follow the basic tenets of California’s original law: Companies must immediately disclose a data breach to customers, usually in writing. Laws in other states are tough too, but some allow more exemptions or do not allow a private right of action.

When you click on a state on the map, you’ll see highlights of that state’s law, including specific instances where it might differ from the California law.

For example, the Massachusetts law pertains to paper record as well as computer data, as noted in the box. In California there is no such thing as an immaterial breach, while other states do have a definition of immaterial breach.

http://www.csoonline.com/read/020108/ammap/ammap.html

Read more

Report: Hacker Attacks Against Healthcare Organizations Up 85 Percent

Posted on February 16, 2008December 30, 2021 by admini

“Client-side attacks have continued to be popular with hackers because compromising an employee’s pc is often much easier than hacking directly into an organization’s database. Many times it is simpler to compromise an employee pc because an employee’s position often requires them to have access to the web, whereas a company’s databases and backend servers are usually not open to outside networks.

Taking control of employee computers are also desirable because they have authority to communicate to a company’s backend systems, whereas communications coming from an IP address outside the network is often blocked.

Often times, healthcare organizations are architected with very open networks so as to conduct necessary business activities such as billing, the transfer of patient records, and communication with different physician networks. These open networks give hackers more openings in which to try and break in making healthcare organizations prime targets.

Healthcare Organizations Store Personal, Identifiable Information, Banking information and Health Insurance Credentials Healthcare organizations store a lot of valuable personal, identifiable information such as SSNs, names, addresses, age, in addition to banking and credit card information. According to Don Jackson, who spent eight years working in healthcare IT security prior to coming to SecureWorks, healthcare organizations store other valuable information such as patients’ health insurance credentials. These computing resources make healthcare entities a very attractive target to hackers because they not only have lots of PCs that can be harvested for valuable data, but these computers can be turned into spam bots.

http://www.secprodonline.com/_MCV/amad.aspx?s=sp&a=mag&sz=728×90&p=m01&articleid=58536

Read more

Posts navigation

  • Previous
  • 1
  • …
  • 163
  • 164
  • 165
  • 166
  • 167
  • 168
  • 169
  • …
  • 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