[From the desk of Paul G Davis – his opinion and no-one else’s, apart from those of the authors of the articles.]
\nAnd so, now the news<\/p>\n
* Collaboration Is Key to Information Security
\n* Social media, the gateway for malware
\n* ATM hack prompts Thai state-run banks to install anti-malware
\n* US Senators Urge Obama To Prioritize Cyber Crime At G20 Summit
\n* Stop procrastinating: Signing emails is now a necessity
\n* 8 tips for building tech leadership skills
\n* Encryption hiding malware in half of cyber attacks
\n* DNSSEC: Don\u2019t throw the baby out with the bath water
\n* Risk and the Pareto Principle: Applying the 80\/20 rule to your risk management strategy
\n* New Cyber-Security Conference Focuses On Real-World Threats
\n* Buying cloud access security brokers with confidence
\n* \u200bWhy the death of SIEM has been greatly exaggerated
\n* How to Build an Economically-Driven Cyber Defense Strategy
\n* Five Signs of Identity Governance Trouble
\n* New data breach notification standards should be flexible, adaptive, ITAC says
\n* McCaskill wants military to fight cybersecurity brain drain
\n* Study Shows 137 Percent Spike In Fraud Attacks Over The Past Four Quarters
\n* Cyber security should be expanded to other departments other than IT: CII-KPMG report<\/p>\n
Collaboration Is Key to Information Security
\nCollaboration and information sharing within security can of itself introduce risk, however.
\nAny such engagement has to, therefore, be built upon a sense of trust and shared purpose.
\nDependent on the levels of confidence required, that trust may be gained through real-world relationships and informal \u2018Chatham House rules\u2019 or via more formalized legally binding NDA arrangements.
\nOutside of the more altruistic world of non-profit organizations, such factors are not always easy to establish, especially where protected IP, profit margins, livelihoods, kudos and commission may be at odds with such a notion.
\nIt is fantastic when different vendors can work together for the greater good of the industry.
\nThis fascinating piece around one of the first documented attacks using steganography demonstrates just that.
\nAs threats become ever-more sophisticated, research is certainly an area that requires collaboration of the best and brightest minds.
\nHere in the United Kingdom, CERT-UK has established the Cyber-Security Information Sharing Partnership, which is a joint industry-government initiative aspiring to encourage members across all sectors to share threat and vulnerability information.
\nOn a regional level, we in the South West of England are fortunate to benefit from an active security community of trust.
\nWe even have a first-class event Secure South West that runs in cooperation with Plymouth University.
\nEven within the untrusted online realm, we can all take advantage of and contribute to useful and rapid information sharing.
\nFor all the negatives we are used to hearing about through its misuse, social media provides most of us with a daily feast of news and other publicly disseminated security related information.
\nThe challenge here can be to discern \u2018the wheat from the chaff\u2019 and then find the time to watch\/listen\/read the most useful and relevant items.
\nIsolate, hoard, divide and fall or collaborate, share, unite, and win.
\nThe choice is ours.
\nYour adversaries know this only too well and will often collaborate where there is some mutually beneficial nefarious gain to be had.
\nThey are also adept at the art of spreading misinformation of course, but that is an altogether different consideration for another post.
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage2.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=b62be88cf5&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
Social media, the gateway for malware
\nWhy the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) doesn’t give an accurate picture of the security risks from social media sites
\nA recent NopSec 2016 State of Vulnerability Risk Management Report found that organizations use inadequate risk evaluation scoring systems.
\nThe report claimed that social media — which often isn’t included in any risk evaluation system — is now a top platform for cybersecurity.
\nAccording to the NopSec report, “Twitter is becoming one of the top platforms for security researchers and attackers looking to disseminate proof-of-concept exploits.
\nVulnerabilities associated with active malware are tweeted nine times more than vulnerabilities with just a public exploit and 18 times more than all other vulnerabilities.”
\nIn the sixth annual Smarsh 2016 Electronic Communications Compliance Survey, 48 percent of the respondents cited social media as the number one channel of perceived compliance risk.
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage2.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=dc40f4a6b6&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
ATM hack prompts Thai state-run banks to install anti-malware
\nGSB chief executive officer Chatchai Payuhanaveechai said the Scottish company NCR, the bank’s ATM vendor, has upgraded a programme to protect ATMs from malware virus, which is also the first in Asia-Pacific, will be installed at the existing ATMs manufactured by NCR.
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage2.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=3137d7ad7a&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
US Senators Urge Obama To Prioritize Cyber Crime At G20 Summit
\nAt a November summit, the G20 pledged not to conduct economically motivated cyber espionage, an agreement intended to reduce the estimated hundreds of billions of dollars worth of commercial trade secrets that are stolen by foreign governments seeking to benefit industry in their own countries.
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=d8f9d830a1&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
Stop procrastinating: Signing emails is now a necessity
\nI’ve used encryption for a long time, but only recently have I started signing all outgoing messages by default.
\nWhy.
\nBecause attacks (spoofing, phishing, SPAM, etc.) are not only growing more and more common, they’re becoming smarter and trickier to spot.
\nTo this end, I now sign every email…not just those related to business communications.
\nDigitally signing all outgoing email should be in your company’s security policy.
\nEvery employee that communicates using the company server should have, at the bare minimum, their emails digitally signed.
\nAny employee sending sensitive company data should also up the ante with full-blown encryption (but that’s another issue altogether).
\nAccording to The Radicati Group, over 205 billion emails a day were sent in 2015 and by 2019 that figure will reach over 246 billion a day.
\nEven if only 1% of those emails are spoofs or phishing scams, that still comes out to just over 2 billion a day.
\nThat’s a massive number of malicious email.
\nIf you’re not employing digital signatures for all outgoing company email, someone could spoof you.
\nWhen that happens, trust is lost.
\nLose the trust of your customer base, and your bottom line suffers.
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=be264b5885&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
8 tips for building tech leadership skills
\nExperts offer the following tips to gain leadership skills and rise up the tech ladder:
\n1) Make the choice.
\n“If you’re an engineer, it has to be a conscious decision that you want to be on this track, and want to be a leader and a manager of people and projects,” Hewes said.
\n2) Observe your leaders.
\nEvery organization has a particular culture and definition of leadership and management, even if it is not explicitly stated, Hewes said.
\n3) Talk to your manager.
\nEnsure you’re on the career advancement path of your choice at your current company, or at least make your aspirations known, Hewes said.
\n4) Join a professional organization to observe and connect with leaders in your field.
\nAnne Krook, owner and principal of the consulting firm Practical Workplace Advice, especially recommends this for young women looking for role models.
\n5) Seek out feedback from your manager and peers.
\n“Everybody has strengths and challenges\u2014get a good balanced view of where your strong points are, and what you should focus on,” Hewes said.
\n6) Avoid the “delegation trap.”
\nOnce you are given more responsibility, don’t put the pressure to do all the work on yourself, Hewes said.
\n7. Don’t define yourself as “apolitical” in the workplace.
\n“Anytime you have two or more people together, you need to understand how people work,” Hewes said.
\n8) Don’t expect any leadership program to be a cure-all.
\n“You can’t rely on any one program to give you soft skills,” Krook said. “It can provide you with guidance and a framework for thinking about how to get more skills.
\nBut it’s not a discrete subject matter class.”
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage1.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=581dd5222b&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
Encryption hiding malware in half of cyber attacks
\nMalware in nearly half of cyber attacks in the past 12 months has been sneaked into organisations under the cover of encryption, a study has revealed.
\n\u201cThe Hidden Threats in Encrypted Traffic study sheds light on important facts about the malicious threats lurking in today\u2019s corporate networks,\u201d said Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute.
\nWhile 80% of respondents said their organisations had been hit by a cyber attack in the past year, nearly half said their attackers had used encryption to evade detection.
\nThe trend is expected to grow in parallel with the greater legitimate use of encryption.
\nInbound encrypted traffic is expected to rise from 39% to 45% next year, and outbound encrypted traffic from 33% to 41%.
\nWhen asked about malware hiding outbound data within encrypted traffic, 74% said this was highly likely but only 16% thought their organisation could identify and mitigate SSL-encrypted malware attack before data exfiltration.
\nWhen asked if traffic from an SSL-secured malware server could be spotted by their intrusion prevention system (IPS), 79% of respondents said it is highly likely this could occur in their organisation; only 17% thought their organisation has the ability to mitigate such an attack.
\nWhen asked if an attacker could mask outbound communications or stolen data from a command and control server, two-thirds said it is highly possible.
\nOnly 26% thought their organisation could spot such behaviour and prevent data loss.
\nThe main reasons cited for not inspecting decrypted web traffic were a lack of enabling security tools (47%), insufficient skills and resources (45%), and degradation of network performance (45%).
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage2.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=61ccc265ea&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
DNSSEC: Don\u2019t throw the baby out with the bath water
\nDNSSECA recent report raiseed concerns about the abuse of DNSSEC to conduct DDoS attacks.
\nThe article reported that DNSSEC-signed domains can be used to conduct reflected DDoS attacks with large amplification factors (averaging 28.9x in their study) that could potentially cripple victim servers.
\nThe report went on to recommend that organizations deploying DNSSEC should configure their DNS servers to prevent this and other types of abuse.
\nWhile this report presents some useful information about the potential for misuse of DNSSEC, it has the side-effect of casting doubt on the overall value of the DNSSEC protocol itself.
\nIt would be a shame if someone reading this report concludes that DNSSEC creates more problems than it solves.
\nIn fact, DNSSEC is an essential protocol that continues to add critically needed trust to internet communications.
\nDNSSEC adds a missing ingredient to this globally distributed, highly scalable database \u2013 trust.
\nTrust means two things \u2013 first, knowing that data received from a domain came from the owner of the domain; and second, knowing that the data has not been altered while in transit.
\nIt is important to note that DNSSEC does not provide confidentiality to the DNS \u2013 it makes the DNS a trustworthy place to publish and retrieve public information, but it does not make it a place to publish confidential or sensitive information.
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage1.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=edca4b0d51&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
Risk and the Pareto Principle: Applying the 80\/20 rule to your risk management strategy
\nWhile organizations are investing in Threat and Vulnerability Management (TVM) solutions to understand their exposure to risk, they\u2019re also realizing that it\u2019s nearly impossible to address the explosion of vulnerabilities that they\u2019re suddenly detecting in their environment.
\nA TVM solution might be a step in the right direction, but organizations also need to approach their risk posture more strategically.
\nResearch indicates that the majority of risk (about 80 percent) is sourced to a fraction of their vulnerabilities (20 percent or less.) Looking ahead, that means organizations need to prioritize the vulnerabilities that present the most risk.
\nBy focusing on critical flaws with the potential for damage, enterprises can make a huge dent to business risk, while also streamlining threat management processes to be more efficient, cost effective and smarter.
\nHow can organizations hope to wrap their arms around all of those vulnerabilities hidden in their network.
\nThe short answer is that they probably can\u2019t \u2013 and shouldn\u2019t try.
\nIn order to truly understand their risk posture and address the threats that have the potential to cause the most damage, they need to be more strategic.
\nTo start, organizations need to understand the Pareto Principle \u2013 otherwise known as the 80-20 rule \u2013 and how it applies to their threat environment.
\nAt a high level, the Pareto Principle, named for economist Vilfredo Pareto, stipulates that roughly 80 percent of the effects or results are attributed to 20 percent of the causes or invested input.
\nThe Data Model: Like the foundation of a building, the ability to locate, query and prioritize the data is where it all starts, essentially setting the stage for an effective Pareto Principle approach to risk.
\nAutomation: These days, automation is not a luxury but a necessity for any organization attempting to get ahead of their business risk.
\nAutomation gives organizations the ability to streamline the process of operationalizing their security solutions \u2013 this includes content mapping, leveraging pre-built workflows, data ingestion with filtering, self-service business intelligence, and UI customization among other things that are now available \u201cout of the box.\u201d In addition to streamlining operations, automation is now an essential feature for data collection, providing organizations security threat information and asset discovery on an ongoing basis.
\nAnd the biggest advancement in automation is the ability to configure, not program, changes.
\nRisk Scoring and Analytics: For organizations, one of the biggest priorities is board reporting \u2013 which means they need quick and easy access to dashboards and heat maps that can be generated in near real time.
\nThey also need the ability to easily slice and dice risk intelligence as needed for business leaders, security personnel and IT team members.
\nThey need the ability to assemble vulnerability and threat intelligence feeds into comprehensive analytics that reflect their own business-specific risk likelihoods and impacts.
\nOrganizations can\u2019t manage what they can\u2019t see.
\nA big picture of risk environment is a start.
\nBut ultimately, honing in on the most important 20 percent by understanding where to look and what to look at will offer a crucial leg up in managing the threats and vulnerabilities that have the potential to cause the most damage.
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=ddd026ab4d&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
New Cyber-Security Conference Focuses On Real-World Threats
\n\ufeffSAN RAFEAL, Calif., Aug. 30, 2016 \/PRNewswire\/ — Netswitch’s virtual conference SecurliCon, scheduled for January 2017, provides vital help in understanding and defending against evolving and advanced external and internal security threats based on hard-earned experience in the real world.
\nThe agenda will cover topics ranging from security analytics to encryption, SCADA and Critical Infrastructure Protection to public key cryptology, behavior baselining, active response and the role of vulnerability assessments and penetration testing in today’s cyber-security environment.
\nAmong the expert speakers and panelists are keynoter Kim Green, President and CEO of KAZU Security, Phil Ferraro, CISO for the Las Vegas Sands, the FCC and now serving as Global CISO for Nielsen, Mischel Kwan, former Vice President of Public Sector Security for RSA Security and Director for the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) now serving on the board of the National Cyber Security Hall of Fame, Mary Landesman, CISO at Netflix and former Data Scientist for Norse Corporation and recently named as one of the “3 Women Leading the Way in IT Security”, and many others.
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage1.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=af242636cb&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
Buying cloud access security brokers with confidence
\nCloud access security brokers (CASBs) are either in-house network gateways or security-as-a-service cloud offerings that inspect network traffic destined for the cloud.
\nThese platforms and services inspect all network traffic to determine whether sensitive data is being transmitted to the cloud, and they apply various policies and security controls to protect the data or prevent it from being transmitted in the first place.
\nAll CASB platforms should provide the ability to inspect network traffic, apply customer-defined policies for controlling what data can go where and apply some form of protective controls to the data as warranted.
\nSome CASBs are integrated with significantly more cloud services than others and may also have many more tightly integrated features.
\nEnterprises should carefully evaluate the partnerships each CASB has.
\nFeatures to look for:
\n-Cloud service visibility and access control
\n-Data protection
\n-Threat protection
\n-Access controls
\n-Dashboard metrics and reporting
\nWhile not critical must-have features, the following are nice to have in a CASB offering:
\n-Integration with network malware sandboxes
\n-User behavior timelines
\n-In-house threat intelligence teams
\n-Cloud service reputation ratings
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage1.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=e21313eb4c&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
\u200bWhy the death of SIEM has been greatly exaggerated
\nThose proclaiming the death of SIEM point to the proliferation of newer analytics tools that can scour infrastructures and alert security staff to anomalies needing closer examination.
\nThey believe these tools can replace SIEM while at the same time delivering more value to the enterprise.
\nNothing could be further from the truth.
\nSIEM is not only alive and well, it’s also being put to work by small and mid-sized firms in increasing numbers.
\nThey are seeing value in the ability to proactively monitor their growing IT infrastructures and spot threats before they can cause disruption.
\nHowever SIEM has evolved and the tools of today bear little resemblance to those of the past.
\nModern SIEM tools are based on a big data analytics platform which enables them to scour much larger data sets.
\nThis is important for organisations experiencing a data deluge and with infrastructures that continue to grow in complexity.
\nToday’s SIEM tools can also deal with large volumes of both structured and unstructured data.
\nThis is relevant as potential security threats come in many forms and can only be identified through the careful analysis of both data types.
\nOnce in place, SIEM tools need to become part of a comprehensive security monitoring program.
\nManaged by one person in smaller firms or a team within a large corporate, this program will involve closely monitoring the output of the SEIM tool.
\nOne of the most important factors to consider is what capabilities it can provide out-of-the-box.
\nMany tools require complex configuration before they can be used, which make them inappropriate for organisations without skilled in-house security teams.
\nIt is also important to assess how well the tool will be able to monitor the volume of data being generated by the organisation’s IT infrastructure.
\nIf it can’t deal with the constant flow, it will be unlikely to add the value expected by the security team.
\nThe tool should also not trigger too many security alarms.
\nIf it is constantly providing alerts of potential low-level security threats, IT teams will quickly become overwhelmed and may miss critical alerts when they actually occur.
\nWhile modern tools usually have an intuitive user interface, some training will still be required to ensure maximum value can be gained from the investment.
\nA good SIEM tool will mask much of its underlying complexity, but it is still important to have an understanding of what is going on under the hood.
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage1.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=5c167690e0&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
How to Build an Economically-Driven Cyber Defense Strategy
\nThere still lingers an undeserved mystery around cyberattacks.
\nA romantic mythology born in the 1980s of a \u201crebel with a modem,\u201d preserving freedom of information or simply hacking to prove that they can.
\nToday, the numbers overwhelmingly favor attackers and the bar has been lowered to the point that almost anyone can enter a life of cybercrime.
\nA standard ransomware campaign could earn an attacker a 1,425 percent ROI, according to a report by Trustwave.
\nThis is in large part thanks to the explosion of Exploit Kits (EKs) \u2013 toolkits with packaged exploit codes \u2013 and other black market malware that puts sophisticated attack techniques into criminals\u2019 hands for a fraction of the cost of the potential payout.
\nThe most secure and economically sound approach is to stack the optimum, rather than maximum, complementing security technologies.
\nThis proposed new cybersecurity stack should balance traditional and innovative approaches while always keeping benefit, risk and operational load in mind.
\nEndpoints are the first line of cyber defense and the place most often compromised – more than 70% of successful breaches originate on the endpoint, according to IDC Research.
\nAt a minimum, an optimal endpoint stack should start with effective and efficient prevention.
\nRather than rip and replace with New Gen products (let\u2019s admit it, it will take years to throw AV out), could the stack be addressed differently?
\nDespite these flaws, anti-virus is still the most efficient prevention for run-of-the-mill malware.
\nRather than replacing it, one could augment AV with new memory protection and exploit prevention technologies.
\nOther components could be added according to some unmet critical (rather than incremental) risk mitigation need, with the goal of bringing the widest range of protection with the least cost and business disruption.
\nBusinesses that are attacked frequently may want to add EDR and sandboxing techniques, especially given that malware is most likely already in their network.
\nBy changing the economics of attacks \u2013 making the cost of attack higher than the gain \u2013 cybercriminals will take their business elsewhere.
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage1.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=8279e86675&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
Five Signs of Identity Governance Trouble
\nThere still lingers an undeserved mystery around cyberattacks.
\nA romantic mythology born in the 1980s of a \u201crebel with a modem,\u201d preserving freedom of information or simply hacking to prove that they can.
\nToday, the numbers overwhelmingly favor attackers and the bar has been lowered to the point that almost anyone can enter a life of cybercrime.
\nA standard ransomware campaign could earn an attacker a 1,425 percent ROI, according to a report by Trustwave.
\nThis is in large part thanks to the explosion of Exploit Kits (EKs) \u2013 toolkits with packaged exploit codes \u2013 and other black market malware that puts sophisticated attack techniques into criminals\u2019 hands for a fraction of the cost of the potential payout.
\nThe most secure and economically sound approach is to stack the optimum, rather than maximum, complementing security technologies.
\nThis proposed new cybersecurity stack should balance traditional and innovative approaches while always keeping benefit, risk and operational load in mind.
\nEndpoints are the first line of cyber defense and the place most often compromised – more than 70% of successful breaches originate on the endpoint, according to IDC Research.
\nAt a minimum, an optimal endpoint stack should start with effective and efficient prevention.
\nRather than rip and replace with New Gen products (let\u2019s admit it, it will take years to throw AV out), could the stack be addressed differently?
\nDespite these flaws, anti-virus is still the most efficient prevention for run-of-the-mill malware.
\nRather than replacing it, one could augment AV with new memory protection and exploit prevention technologies.
\nOther components could be added according to some unmet critical (rather than incremental) risk mitigation need, with the goal of bringing the widest range of protection with the least cost and business disruption.
\nBusinesses that are attacked frequently may want to add EDR and sandboxing techniques, especially given that malware is most likely already in their network.
\nBy changing the economics of attacks \u2013 making the cost of attack higher than the gain \u2013 cybercriminals will take their business elsewhere.
\nSo, what are the leading signs of identity governance trouble that can put an organization at risk.
\nHere are our top five in no particular order:
\n1. Orphaned Accounts
\n2. Poorly Defined Certification Processes
\n3. Inadequate Access Request Approvals
\n4. Lack of Segregation-of-Duty Controls
\n5. Independent Processes Across the Organization<\/p>\n
If any of these signs of identity governance trouble ring true, you\u2019re not the only one.
\nFortunately, the right identity governance and intelligence solution can solve these issues to minimize your security risks and help you systematically achieve and manage your regulatory compliance.
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=41a0a3f0c5&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
New data breach notification standards should be flexible, adaptive, ITAC says
\nAs Innovation Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) prepares to release a second version of the country\u2019s new data breach notification standards this fall, the Information Technology Association of Canada (ITAC) hopes the latest proposed regulations will take a flexible, outcome-based approach, while also providing a grace period to give businesses time to adjust.
\n\u201cWe want there to be an appropriate balance between the need to protect Canadians by notifying them of data breaches, and the costs and challenges sometimes faced by businesses in in doing so,\u201d ITAC senior director David Messer tells ITBusiness.ca.
\nSince 2015, data breaches have been governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), a law passed in 1998 to regulate how non-government organizations (excluding charities and not-for-profits) were allowed to collect, use, disclose, and dispose of personal data.
\nCanada\u2019s current privacy commissioner, Daniel Therrien, has expressed concern that federal privacy laws including PIPEDA haven\u2019t kept up with technology.
\nFortunately, ISED has been developing new data breach notification standards since last June, and released a draft version in March 2016.
\nIn contrast to the privacy commissioner, ITAC is comfortable with PIPEDA\u2019s current notification requirements, Messer says, though it also supports the introduction of new data breach notification regulations.
\nITAC also believes that whatever it chooses to do, the federal government needs to help facilitate its new data breach reporting laws \u2013 by introducing accreditation and support programs to help businesses make sense of the cybersecurity landscape, for example, so that meeting the new requirements is as painless as possible, Messer says.
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage2.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=5068a52aa6&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
McCaskill wants military to fight cybersecurity brain drain
\nU.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill says the military needs to be more aggressive in attracting and recruiting qualified people for cyber security operations.
\nSpeaking to reporters after the briefing, McCaskill said cyber security experts could often make much more money working in the private sector.
\nThat\u2019s why it may make sense to create incentives for active duty personnel to eventually join the National Guard.
\nAnother thing McCaskill heard from Missouri National Guard personnel is how a cyber unit member almost had to leave because of physical fitness requirements.
\n\u201cI think the example they gave of one of the most crucial members of this team almost having to leave the team because he couldn\u2019t do enough sit ups,\u201d McCaskill said. \u201cThat doesn\u2019t make sense to me.
\nI understand it in a conventional military culture that having that physical capability is very, very important.
\nBut if you\u2019re part of an elite team that is working in a cyberspace where we are trying to go toe-to-toe with people who have no constitutions they have to respect and have no rules they have to obey, we\u2019ve got to get the best and the brightest in this space.
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage1.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=7956b0a35f&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
Study Shows 137 Percent Spike In Fraud Attacks Over The Past Four Quarters
\nBOSTON–(EON: Enhanced Online News)–Fraudsters have been causing problems for retailers over the past four quarters, leading to a 137 percent jump in fraud attacks and affecting $7 out of every $100 made in retail sales, according to the latest PYMNTS.com Global Fraud Attack Index.
\nThe collaborative study with Forter measures the rate of fraud attempts made on U.S. online merchants and how that changes over time, and examines the types, sources and geography of fraud attacks.
\nThe study also quantifies the potential cost to merchants, left unchecked, of these attempts based on attack amounts and how these amounts are trending over time.
\nThere was a significant increase in the rate of fraud attacks throughout 2015 and the first quarter of this year.
\nTypically, fraud rates decrease in the fourth quarter each year due to the high volume of transactions made during the holiday season before increasing in the first quarter of the following year when transactional volume drops, according to the Index.
\nHowever, that was not the case late last year into the first quarter of this year.
\nThe majority of industries saw increased fraud attacks, with digital goods seeing a 186 spike, followed by food and beverages with a 116 jump.
\nOne industry, clothing, saw fraud attacks diminish by 19 percent.
\nFor every 1,000 transactions made in the first quarter this year, there were 34 fraud attacks, compared to 15 per 1,000 during the second quarter of 2015, which represents a 126 increase.
\nAdditionally, the fraud attack rate rose from quarter to quarter, increasing 11 percent between the third quarter of last year to the fourth quarter of 2015 and 26 percent from Q4 2015 to Q1 2016.
\nSome of the other highlights from the study include:
\n\u2022 Fraud attacks in the U.S. are up more than 10 percent since the liability shift in October 2015.
\n\u2022 More and more fraudsters are utilizing botnets. 83 percent of fraud attacks now deploy the networks of infected computers.
\n\u2022 In the U.S., fraud attacks have increased 26 percent since the October 2015 liability shift.
\nLink: http:\/\/paulgdavis.us3.list-manage.com\/track\/click?u=45bf3caf699abf9904ddc00e3&id=57c3371a60&e=20056c7556<\/p>\n
Cyber security should be expanded to other departments other than IT: CII-KPMG report
\nTitled \u2018De-risking India in the new age of technology,\u2019 the paper launched at the second CII National Risk Summit 2016 in Mumbai suggested that cyber security has started gaining visibility at the top level and is now an essential part of boardroom discussions. \u201cWell-orchestrated risk management practices help organizations deliver sustainable results by keeping pace with changes in client behavior, staying ahead of competition, identifying emerging technology trends and business model changes early,\u201d added Suresh Senapaty, Chairman, CII National Risk Summit 2016.
\nRegulators are increasingly holding board members and senior executives of a company accountable for c<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
[From the desk of Paul G Davis – his opinion and no-one else’s, apart from those of the authors of the articles.] And so, now the news * Collaboration Is Key to Information Security * Social media, the gateway for malware * ATM hack prompts Thai state-run banks to install…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2504","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2504","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2504"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2504\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4991,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2504\/revisions\/4991"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}