Login
Phishers are enjoying remarkable success using text messages to steal remote access credentials and one-time passcodes from employees at some of the world’s largest technology companies and customer support firms. A recent spate of SMS phishing attacks from one cybercriminal group has spawned a flurry of breach disclosures from affected companies, which are all struggling to combat the same lingering security threat: The ability of scammers to interact directly with employees through their mobile devices.
In mid-June 2022, a flood of SMS phishing messages began targeting employees at commercial staffing firms that provide customer support and outsourcing to thousands of companies. The missives asked users to click a link and log in at a phishing page that mimicked their employer’s Okta authentication page. Those who submitted credentials were then prompted to provide the one-time password needed for multi-factor authentication.
The phishers behind this scheme used newly-registered domains that often included the name of the target company, and sent text messages urging employees to click on links to these domains to view information about a pending change in their work schedule.
The phishing sites leveraged a Telegram instant message bot to forward any submitted credentials in real-time, allowing the attackers to use the phished username, password and one-time code to log in as that employee at the real employer website. But because of the way the bot was configured, it was possible for security researchers to capture the information being sent by victims to the public Telegram server.
This data trove was first reported by security researchers at Singapore-based Group-IB, which dubbed the campaign “0ktapus” for the attackers targeting organizations using identity management tools from Okta.com.
“This case is of interest because despite using low-skill methods it was able to compromise a large number of well-known organizations,” Group-IB wrote. “Furthermore, once the attackers compromised an organization they were quickly able to pivot and launch subsequent supply chain attacks, indicating that the attack was planned carefully in advance.”
It’s not clear how many of these phishing text messages were sent out, but the Telegram bot data reviewed by KrebsOnSecurity shows they generated nearly 10,000 replies over approximately two months of sporadic SMS phishing attacks targeting more than a hundred companies.
A great many responses came from those who were apparently wise to the scheme, as evidenced by the hundreds of hostile replies that included profanity or insults aimed at the phishers: The very first reply recorded in the Telegram bot data came from one such employee, who responded with the username “havefuninjail.”
Still, thousands replied with what appear to be legitimate credentials — many of them including one-time codes needed for multi-factor authentication. On July 20, the attackers turned their sights on internet infrastructure giant Cloudflare.com, and the intercepted credentials show at least three employees fell for the scam.
Image: Cloudflare.com
In a blog post earlier this month, Cloudflare said it detected the account takeovers and that no Cloudflare systems were compromised. Cloudflare said it does not rely on one-time passcodes as a second factor, so there was nothing to provide to the attackers. But Cloudflare said it wanted to call attention to the phishing attacks because they would probably work against most other companies.
“This was a sophisticated attack targeting employees and systems in such a way that we believe most organizations would be likely to be breached,” Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince wrote. “On July 20, 2022, the Cloudflare Security team received reports of employees receiving legitimate-looking text messages pointing to what appeared to be a Cloudflare Okta login page. The messages began at 2022-07-20 22:50 UTC. Over the course of less than 1 minute, at least 76 employees received text messages on their personal and work phones. Some messages were also sent to the employees family members.”
On three separate occasions, the phishers targeted employees at Twilio.com, a San Francisco based company that provides services for making and receiving text messages and phone calls. It’s unclear how many Twilio employees received the SMS phishes, but the data suggest at least four Twilio employees responded to a spate of SMS phishing attempts on July 27, Aug. 2, and Aug. 7.
On that last date, Twilio disclosed that on Aug. 4 it became aware of unauthorized access to information related to a limited number of Twilio customer accounts through a sophisticated social engineering attack designed to steal employee credentials.
“This broad based attack against our employee base succeeded in fooling some employees into providing their credentials,” Twilio said. “The attackers then used the stolen credentials to gain access to some of our internal systems, where they were able to access certain customer data.”
That “certain customer data” included information on roughly 1,900 users of the secure messaging app Signal, which relied on Twilio to provide phone number verification services. In its disclosure on the incident, Signal said that with their access to Twilio’s internal tools the attackers were able to re-register those users’ phone numbers to another device.
On Aug. 25, food delivery service DoorDash disclosed that a “sophisticated phishing attack” on a third-party vendor allowed attackers to gain access to some of DoorDash’s internal company tools. DoorDash said intruders stole information on a “small percentage” of users that have since been notified. TechCrunch reported last week that the incident was linked to the same phishing campaign that targeted Twilio.
This phishing gang apparently had great success targeting employees of all the major mobile wireless providers, but most especially T-Mobile. Between July 10 and July 16, dozens of T-Mobile employees fell for the phishing messages and provided their remote access credentials.
“Credential theft continues to be an ongoing issue in our industry as wireless providers are constantly battling bad actors that are focused on finding new ways to pursue illegal activities like this,” T-Mobile said in a statement. “Our tools and teams worked as designed to quickly identify and respond to this large-scale smishing attack earlier this year that targeted many companies. We continue to work to prevent these types of attacks and will continue to evolve and improve our approach.”
This same group saw hundreds of responses from employees at some of the largest customer support and staffing firms, including Teleperformanceusa.com, Sitel.com and Sykes.com. Teleperformance did not respond to requests for comment. KrebsOnSecurity did hear from Christopher Knauer, global chief security officer at Sitel Group, the customer support giant that recently acquired Sykes. Knauer said the attacks leveraged newly-registered domains and asked employees to approve upcoming changes to their work schedules.
Image: Group-IB.
Knauer said the attackers set up the phishing domains just minutes in advance of spamming links to those domains in phony SMS alerts to targeted employees. He said such tactics largely sidestep automated alerts generated by companies that monitor brand names for signs of new phishing domains being registered.
“They were using the domains as soon as they became available,” Knauer said. “The alerting services don’t often let you know until 24 hours after a domain has been registered.”
On July 28 and again on Aug. 7, several employees at email delivery firm Mailchimp provided their remote access credentials to this phishing group. According to an Aug. 12 blog post, the attackers used their access to Mailchimp employee accounts to steal data from 214 customers involved in cryptocurrency and finance.
On Aug. 15, the hosting company DigitalOcean published a blog post saying it had severed ties with MailChimp after its Mailchimp account was compromised. DigitalOcean said the MailChimp incident resulted in a “very small number” of DigitalOcean customers experiencing attempted compromises of their accounts through password resets.
According to interviews with multiple companies hit by the group, the attackers are mostly interested in stealing access to cryptocurrency, and to companies that manage communications with people interested in cryptocurrency investing. In an Aug. 3 blog post from email and SMS marketing firm Klaviyo.com, the company’s CEO recounted how the phishers gained access to the company’s internal tools, and used that to download information on 38 crypto-related accounts.
A flow chart of the attacks by the SMS phishing group known as 0ktapus and ScatterSwine. Image: Amitai Cohen for Wiz.io. twitter.com/amitaico.
The ubiquity of mobile phones became a lifeline for many companies trying to manage their remote employees throughout the Coronavirus pandemic. But these same mobile devices are fast becoming a liability for organizations that use them for phishable forms of multi-factor authentication, such as one-time codes generated by a mobile app or delivered via SMS.
Because as we can see from the success of this phishing group, this type of data extraction is now being massively automated, and employee authentication compromises can quickly lead to security and privacy risks for the employer’s partners or for anyone in their supply chain.
Unfortunately, a great many companies still rely on SMS for employee multi-factor authentication. According to a report this year from Okta, 47 percent of workforce customers deploy SMS and voice factors for multi-factor authentication. That’s down from 53 percent that did so in 2018, Okta found.
Some companies (like Knauer’s Sitel) have taken to requiring that all remote access to internal networks be managed through work-issued laptops and/or mobile devices, which are loaded with custom profiles that can’t be accessed through other devices.
Others are moving away from SMS and one-time code apps and toward requiring employees to use physical FIDO multi-factor authentication devices such as security keys, which can neutralize phishing attacks because any stolen credentials can’t be used unless the phishers also have physical access to the user’s security key or mobile device.
This came in handy for Twitter, which announced last year that it was moving all of its employees to using security keys, and/or biometric authentication via their mobile device. The phishers’ Telegram bot reported that on June 16, 2022, five employees at Twitter gave away their work credentials. In response to questions from KrebsOnSecurity, Twitter confirmed several employees were relieved of their employee usernames and passwords, but that its security key requirement prevented the phishers from abusing that information.
Twitter accelerated its plans to improve employee authentication following the July 2020 security incident, wherein several employees were phished and relieved of credentials for Twitter’s internal tools. In that intrusion, the attackers used Twitter’s tools to hijack accounts for some of the world’s most recognizable public figures, executives and celebrities — forcing those accounts to tweet out links to bitcoin scams.
“Security keys can differentiate legitimate sites from malicious ones and block phishing attempts that SMS 2FA or one-time password (OTP) verification codes would not,” Twitter said in an Oct. 2021 post about the change. “To deploy security keys internally at Twitter, we migrated from a variety of phishable 2FA methods to using security keys as our only supported 2FA method on internal systems.”
Update, 6:02 p.m. ET: Clarified that Cloudflare does not rely on TOTP (one-time multi-factor authentication codes) as a second factor for employee authentication.
Using a VPN on your smartphone can boost your privacy in a big way, particularly with all the data tracking that’s happening out there today.
For some time now, we’ve recommended a VPN when using public Wi-Fi in airports, libraries, hotels, and coffee shops. Given that these are public networks, a determined hacker can snoop on the other devices transmitting data on it. With a VPN, any connection becomes a secure connection, which includes public Wi-Fi. That advice still holds true. Yet there’s a good reason to use it on your smartphone all the time—for your privacy.
Let’s start with a quick look at the two big things a VPN does for you.
The bank-grade encryption used by a strong VPN shields your data and information while it’s in transit, which makes it terrifically difficult for hackers to spy on your connection. (Think of your data and information traveling through a tunnel that no one else can use or see into.) In that way, at VPN makes all kinds of online activities more secure—like banking, shopping, and checking up on your finances.
By masking your whereabouts and your IP address, along with encryption that helps keep your activities private, a VPN reduces the personal information that others can collect and track. That includes internet service providers, social media companies, businesses, app developers, websites, and others who gather your data for marketing purposes or for resale to third parties.
As far as your privacy is concerned, a VPN on a smartphone can be a smart move. There are a couple of reasons for that: first, because of the way smartphones have additional tracking technologies built in, and second, because of all the trackable data we create when using smartphones as frequently as we do—up to six hours per day for some.
As for how your smartphone is built, data collectors can harvest your personal information that reveals what you’re doing, when you’re doing it, and where you’re doing it as well. Several technologies allow them to pinpoint where you are at any given time, such as GPS and location services, along with Bluetooth connectivity and location tracking based on which cell phone tower you’re connected to. Even scanning a QR code with your phone can reveal location information. It can all get rather precise, which is of interest to advertisers, businesses, and even governments.
Next, think about all the activities you do on your phone, with a special emphasis on the apps you use and the data they create, about your health, your shopping habits, your travels, who you’re chatting with, and what content you’re posting online—just to name a few things. Once again, that information in of itself is valuable to data collectors. It becomes even more valuable when they know where you do these things.
Taken together, data broker companies readily gather this information from millions of devices, generating billions of data points, and create massive lists of targeted information. And that information gets quite specific. With some data brokers collecting hundreds and into the thousands of data points per person, they can provide interested buyers with a high-resolution snapshot of who you are, where you live, who’s in your family, your income, where you shop, what you like to buy—right on down to your favorite shampoo. And that’s just for starters.
It’s little surprise that all this data brokering activity fuels a global business estimated at $200 billion U.S. dollars a year.
How’s this happening? In large part by way of the privacy policies you may or may not have read.
Within those policies, device manufacturers, social media companies, app developers, and so on will detail what data they collect, under what conditions, what they do with it, and if they share or resell that data to other parties. However, if you’ve ever taken a dive into the fine print of a privacy policy, what’s stated there isn’t always clear. Now consider all the apps you have on your phone and the privacy policies associated with each one—your personal data privacy picture gets even less clear.
With digital data and information collection baked into so much of what we do online, it’s little wonder that more than 70% of people feel like their data privacy is out of their control.
Yet there are things you can do.
Using a VPN on your smartphone can make you far more anonymous online. A VPN can minimize the data that gets exposed as it transmits to and from your smartphone. As a result, companies and data brokers can potentially learn far less about you, your shopping, your travels, your habits, and any other information that they could possibly collect and otherwise profit from.
While you have free VPN options available, I suggest steering clear of them. As with many “free” services, there’s going to be some catch, often involving data collection. For example, some so-called “free VPNs” have served up tracking malware or actually collected private data and information for sale—the very things you want a VPN to prevent.
Given that this is your privacy we’re talking about, do a little background check. Has the VPN you’re considering been independently audited for security? The technology that powers ours undergoes a thorough audit every year. Search news articles and see if the VPN you’re looking at has a track record of collecting and selling data in any way. Again, with our VPN technology, we don’t log or track what you do online so your online activity remains private.
What about the information that’s already out there? Our Personal Data Cleanup can help you remove your personal information from high-risk data broker sites, so you can prevent it from being further collected and sold online. If you’re unsure if your data and information are out there, consider what one major data brokers has touted in the past—a reach of over 62 countries and the ability to reach over 2.5 billion consumers globally. With 5 billion internet users today, that accounts for half of the world’s online population. And that’s just one data broker alone.
Moreover, consider that data brokers acquire plenty of information from places other than your smartphone and other connected devices. They skim and collate public records associated with you, information purchased from retailers with loyalty card programs, not to mention census data, court records, and motor vehicle records. And that’s just a few of the many sources. Using our Personal Data Cleanup can help remove those sorts of records too.
Together, the combination of a VPN and Personal Data Cleanup can help you become far more private than before. With so much of our digital lives getting collected, tracked, and tabulated, often without our knowledge thanks to confusing privacy policies, taking control of your privacy makes sense and only gets easier to do thanks to the tools and services available to you.
The post Privacy, please! Why a VPN on your smartphone may be a smart move for you. appeared first on McAfee Blog.
“But everyone else has one.”
Those are familiar words to a parent, especially if you’re having the first smartphone conversation with your tween or pre-teen. In their mind, everyone else has a smartphone so they want a one too. But does “everyone” really have one? Well, your child isn’t wrong.
Our recent global study found that 76% of children aged 10 to 14 reported using a smartphone or mobile device, with Brazil leading the way at 95% and the U.S. trailing the global average at 65%.
Our figures show that younger children with smartphones and mobile devices make up a decisive majority of younger children overall.
Of course, just because everyone else has smartphone doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily right for your child and your family. After all, with a smartphone comes access to a wide and practically unfettered world of access to the internet, apps, social media, instant messaging, texting, and gaming, all within nearly constant reach. Put plainly, some tweens and pre-teens simply aren’t ready for that just yet, whether in terms of their maturity, habits, or ability to care for and use a device like that responsibly.
Yet from a parent’s standpoint, a first smartphone holds some major upsides. One of the top reasons parents give a child a smartphone is “to stay in touch,” and that’s understandable. There’s something reassuring knowing that your child is a call or text away—and that you can keep tabs on their whereabouts with GPS tracking. Likewise, it’s good to know that they can reach you easily too. Arguably, that may be a reason why some parents end up giving their children a smartphone a little sooner than they otherwise would.
However, you don’t need a smartphone to do to text, track, and talk with your child. You have alternatives.
One way to think about the first smartphone is that it’s something you ease into. In other words, if the internet is a pool, your child should learn to navigate the shallows with some simpler devices before diving into the deep end with a smartphone.
Introducing technology and internet usage in steps can build familiarity and confidence for them while giving you control. You can oversee their development, while establishing rules and expectations along the way. Then, when the time is right, they can indeed get their first smartphone.
But how to go about that?
It seems a lot of parents have had the same idea and device manufacturers have listened. They’ve come up with smartphone alternatives that give kids the chance to wade into the mobile internet, allowing them to get comfortable with device ownership and safety over time without making the direct leap to a fully featured smartphone. Let’s look at some of those options, along with a few other long-standing alternatives.
These small and ruggedly designed devices can clip to a belt loop, backpack, or simply fit in a pocket, giving you the ability to see your child’s location. In all, it’s quite like the “find my” functionality we have on our smartphones. When it comes to GPS trackers for kids, you’ll find a range of options and form factors, along with different features such as an S.O.S. button, “geofencing” that can send you an alert when your child enters or leaves a specific area (like home or school), and how often it sends an updated location (to regulate battery life).
Whichever GPS tracker you select, make sure it’s designed specifically for children. So-called “smart tags” designed to locate things like missing keys and wallets are just that—trackers designed to locate things, not children.
With GPS tracking and many other communication-friendly features for families, smart watches can give parents the reassurance they’re looking for while giving kids a cool piece of tech that they can enjoy. The field of options is wide, to say the least. Smart watches for kids can range anywhere from devices offered by mobile carriers like Verizon, T-Mobile, and Vodaphone to others from Apple, Explora, and Tick Talk. Because of that, you’ll want to do a bit of research to determine the right choice for you and your child.
Typical features include restricted texting and calling, and you’ll find that some devices are more durable and more water resistant than others, while yet others have cameras and simple games. Along those lines, you can select a smart watch that has a setting for “school time” so that it doesn’t become a distraction in class. Also, you’ll want to look closely at battery life, as some appear to do a better job of holding a charge than others.
Another relatively recent entry on the scene are smartphones designed specifically for children, which offer a great step toward full-blown smartphone ownership. These devices look, feel, and act like a smartphone, but without web browsing, app stores, and social media. Again, features will vary, yet there are ways kids can store and play music, stream it via Bluetooth to headphones or a speaker, and install apps that you approve of.
Some are paired with a parental control app that allows you to introduce more and more features over time as your child as you see fit—and that can screen texts from non-approved contacts before they reach your child. Again, a purchase like this one calls for some research, yet names like Gabb wireless and the Pinwheel phone offer a starting point.
The old reliable. Rugged and compact, and typically with a healthy battery life to boot, flip phones do what you need them to—help you and your child keep in touch. They’re still an option, even if your child may balk at the idea of a phone that’s “not as cool as a smartphone.” However, if we’re talking about introducing mobile devices and the mobile internet to our children in steps, the flip phone remains in the mix.
Some are just phones and nothing else, while other models can offer more functionality like cameras and slide-out keyboards for texting. And in keeping with the theme here, you’ll want to consider your options so you can pick the phone that has the features you want (and don’t want) for your child.
Despite what your younger tween or pre-teen might think, there’s no rush to get that first smartphone. And you know it too. You have time. Time to take eventual smartphone ownership in steps, with a device that keeps you in touch and that still works great for your child.
By easing into that first smartphone, you’ll find opportunities where you can monitor and guide their internet usage. You’ll also find plenty of moments to help your child start forming healthy habits around device ownership and care, etiquette, and safety online. In all, this approach can help you build a body of experience that will come in handy when that big day finally comes—first smartphone day.
The post Smartphone Alternatives: Ease Your Way into Your Child’s First Phone appeared first on McAfee Blog.
The hybrid work environment has been around for years, albeit not common but it existed. I can recall my first job where I was able to split my time working in an office and working from my makeshift home office. This was many moons ago as I will call it… pre-COVID-19.
Job seekers are certainly looking to have the flexibility of working from anywhere at any time – preferably in an environment of their choosing. Even though a hybrid workforce will provide people with the option to work from anywhere, those remote locations are sometimes in unsecured locations. Organizations must now reimagine a workforce that will need access to your internal collaboration tools along with access to your network from both on- and off-premises.
Cisco, a leader in equipping organizations with the right products for a hybrid workforce, provides the tools & services to protect your organization from bad threat actors.
With pervasive ransomware attacks, malware attacks, and email attacks, you must be ready and have not only a security solution but also a security analyst team ready to respond when an attack happens.
Securing access to your endpoint must be a top priority and your security analysts must be agile and have the right telemetry to provide around-the-clock monitoring and the ability to quickly respond to threats.
Cisco Secure Endpoint provides you with the visibility and ability to respond to threats by blocking them before they compromise your network. Combined with global, proactive threat hunting, leading-edge forensic/analytic capabilities, and reduced leading Mean Time To Detection (MTTD)/Mean Time To Resolution (MTTR) across the supply chain that no other vendor can parallel; why would you partner with any other company to secure and scale your unique hybrid workforce or workplace clients?
Click here to listen to my fireside chat on how we at Cisco would define 5 Best Practices Security Analysts Can Use to Secure Their Hybrid Workforce:
I am joined by Cisco Talos global Senior Threat Defense and Response Analyst, William (Bill) Largent who has over 20 plus years of infosec experience, specifically in network intrusion detection, traffic analysis, and signature/rule writing.
I will also be speaking with Eric Howard, Cisco Secure Technical Marketing Engineer Leader for the Security Platform and Response Group. Eric is a seasoned team leader in both Information Security Sales, and Product Management. He has built and led teams that apply deep technical understanding to business needs, initiatives, and strategies in both start-ups and established companies.
This is a conversation you do not want to skip! There were a lot of gems shared by these gentlemen that will get you where you need to be as a Security Analyst.
We’d love to hear what you think. Ask a Question, Comment Below, and Stay Connected with Cisco Secure on social!
Cisco Secure Social Channels
A Florida teenager who served as a lackey for a cybercriminal group that specializes in cryptocurrency thefts was beaten and kidnapped last week by a rival cybercrime gang. The teen’s captives held guns to his head while forcing him to record a video message pleading with his crew to fork over a $200,000 ransom in exchange for his life. The youth is now reportedly cooperating with U.S. federal investigators, who are responding to an alarming number of reports of physical violence tied to certain online crime communities.
The grisly kidnapping video has been circulating on a number of Telegram chat channels dedicated to SIM-swapping — the practice of tricking or bribing mobile phone store employees into diverting a target’s phone number, text messages and calls to a device the attackers control.
The teen, known to the SIM-swapping community by the handle “Foreshadow,” appears to have served as a “holder” — a term used to describe a low-level member of any SIM-swapping group who agrees to carry out the riskiest and least rewarding role of the crime: Physically keeping and managing the various mobile devices and SIM cards that are used in SIM-swapping scams.
“Yo, Dan, please bro send the 200k,” Foreshadow said in the video, which was shot on Sept. 15 in the backseat of a moving car. Bleeding from a swollen mouth with two handguns pointed at his head, Foreshadow pleaded for his life. A still shot from that video is available here [Warning: the image is quite graphic].
“They’re going to kill me if you don’t,” Foreshadow continued, offering to get a job as a complicit mobile store employee or “plug” to help with future SIM-swaps. “I’ll pay you back. Just let me know what you need. I got you, for real. Any work for free. Whatever. However long you need me, too. I’ll apply to any store you need me to apply to. I can be a plug. I don’t care if I get caught by the cops or anything. I’ll get that money back for you. I used to do that work.”
It’s not clear where in the world the hostage video was recorded. But at one point in the video, the vehicle’s radio can be heard in the background mentioning WMIB, which is a hip-hop station in South Florida that serves both Ft. Lauderdale and Miami.
As Foreshadow’s hostage video began making the rounds on SIM-swapping Telegram channels, a rumor surfaced that Foreshadow had died after being shot in the leg. It soon emerged that Foreshadow had not died, and that he was cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Members of the SIM-swapping community were then warned to delete any messages to or from Foreshadow. One of those messages read:
JUST IN: FORESHADOW IS NOT DEAD!!!!
HES CURRENTLY CO-OPERATING WITH THE FBI DUE TO HIM BEING KIDNAPPED AND AN ATTEMPT TO EXTORT HIM FOR 200K
IF YOU HAVE CHATS WITH HIM CLEAR THEM
Foreshadow appears to be a teenager from Florida whose first name is Justin. Foreshadow’s main Telegram account was converted from a user profile into a channel on Sept. 15 — the same day he was assaulted and kidnapped — and it is not currently responding to messages.
Foreshadow’s erstwhile boss Jarik told KrebsOnSecurity that the youth was indeed shot by his captors, and blamed the kidnapping on a rival SIM-swapper from Australia who was angry over getting shortchanged of the profits from a previous SIM-swapping escapade.
The FBI did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Reached via Telegram, the alleged mastermind of the kidnapping — a SIM-swapper who uses the handle “Gus” — confirmed that he ordered the attack on Foreshadow because the holder had held back some of his stolen funds. In the same breath, Gus said Jarik was “gonna get done in next” for sharing Gus’ real name and address with KrebsOnSecurity.
“No1 cared about that nigga anyway, he snaked targs [targets] and flaunted it everywhere,” Gus said of Foreshadow. “I’ve been fucked over so many times I’ve lost millions. I am just a guy trying to make more money.”
Foreshadow’s experience is the latest example of a rapidly escalating cycle of physical violence that is taking hold of criminal SIM-swapping communities online. Earlier this month, KrebsOnSecurity detailed how multiple SIM-swapping Telegram channels are now replete with “violence-as-a-service” offerings, wherein denizens of the underground hire themselves out to perform various forms of physical violence — from slashing tires and throwing a brick through someone’s window, to conducting drive-by shootings, firebombings and home invasions.
On Aug. 12, 2022, 21-year-old Patrick McGovern-Allen of Egg Harbor Township, N.J. was arrested by the FBI and charged with stalking in connection with several of these violence-as-a-service jobs. Prosecutors say the defendant fired a handgun into a Pennsylvania home, and helped to torch another residence in the state with a Molotov Cocktail — all allegedly in service of a beef over stolen cryptocurrency.
Earlier this month, three men in the United Kingdom were arrested for attempting to assault a local man and steal his virtual currencies. The local man’s neighbor called the cops and said the three men were acting suspiciously and that one of them was wearing a police uniform. U.K. police stopped the three men allegedly fleeing the scene, and found a police uniform and weapons in the trunk of the car. All three defendants in that case were charged with “intent to cause loss to another to make an unwarranted demand of Crypto Currency from a person.”
Dina Temple-Raston and Sean Powers over at The Record recently interviewed several members of the SIM-swapping community about this escalation in violence. That story is also available on the Click Here podcast — Throwing Bricks for $$$: Violence-as-a-Service Comes of Age.
Scott Heider is a manager within the Cisco Security Visibility and Incident Command team that reports to the company’s Security & Trust Organization. Primarily tasked with helping to keep the integration of an acquired company’s solutions as efficient as possible, Heider and his team are typically brought into the process after a public announcement of the acquisition has already been made. This blog is the final in a series focused on M&A cybersecurity, following Dan Burke’s post on Making Merger and Acquisition Cybersecurity More Manageable.
Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are complicated. Many factors are involved, ensuring cybersecurity across the entire ecosystem as an organization integrates a newly acquired company’s products and solutions—and personnel—into its workstreams.
Through decades of acquisitions, Cisco has gained expertise and experience to make its M&A efforts seamless and successful. This success is in large part to a variety of internal teams that keep cybersecurity top of mind throughout the implementation and integration process.
“Priority one for the team,” says Heider, “is to balance the enablement of business innovation with the protection of Cisco’s information and systems. Because Cisco is now the ultimate responsible party of that acquisition, we make sure that the acquisition adheres to a minimum level of security policy standards and guidelines.”
The team looks at the acquired company’s security posture and then partners with the company to educate and influence them to take necessary actions to achieve Cisco’s security baseline.
That process starts with assessing the acquired company’s infrastructure to identify and rate attack surfaces and threats. Heider asks questions that help identify issues around what he calls the four pillars of security, monitoring, and incident response:
The infrastructure that Heider’s team evaluates isn’t just the company’s servers and data center infrastructure. It can also include the systems the acquisition rents data center space to or public cloud infrastructure. Those considerations further complicate security and must be assessed for threats and vulnerabilities.
Once Heider’s team is activated, they partner with the acquired company and meet with them regularly to suggest areas where that acquisition can improve its security posture and reduce the overall risk to Cisco.
Identifying and addressing risk is critical for both sides of the table, however, not just for Cisco. “A lot of acquisitions don’t realize that when Cisco acquires a company, that organization suddenly has a bigger target on its back,” says Heider. “Threat actors will often look at who Cisco is acquiring, and they might know that that company’s security posture isn’t adequate—because a lot of times these acquisitions are just focused on their go-to-market strategy.”
Those security vulnerabilities can become easy entry points for threat actors to gain access to Cisco’s systems and data. That’s why Heider works so closely with acquisitions to gain visibility into the company’s environment to reduce those security threats. Some companies are more focused on security than others, and it’s up to Heider’s team to figure out what each acquisition needs.
“The acquisition might not have an established forensics program, for instance, and that’s where Cisco can come in and help out,” Heider says. “They might not have tools like Stealthwatch or NetFlow monitoring, or Firepower for IDS/IPS operations.”
When Heider’s team can bring in their established toolset and experienced personnel, “that’s where the relationship between my team and that acquisition grows because they see we can provide things that they just never thought about, or that they don’t have at their disposal,” he says.
One of the most important factors in a successful acquisition, according to Heider, is to develop a true partnership with the acquired company and work with the new personnel to reduce risk as efficiently as possible—but without major disruption.
Cisco acquires companies to expand its solution offerings to customers, so disrupting an acquisition’s infrastructure or workflow would only slow down its integration. “We don’t want to disrupt that acquisition’s processes. We don’t want to disrupt their people. We don’t want to disrupt the technology,” says Heider. “What we want to do is be a complement to that acquisition, – that approach is an evolution, not a revolution.”
The focus on evolution can sometimes result in a long process, but along the way, the teams come to trust each other and work together. “They know their environment better than we do. They often know what works—so we try to learn from them. And that’s where constant discussion, constant partnership with them helps them know that we are not a threat, we’re an ally,” says Heider. “My team can’t be everywhere. And that’s where we need these acquisitions to be the eyes and ears of specific areas of Cisco’s infrastructure.”
Training is another way Heider, and his team help acquisitions get up to speed on Cisco’s security standards. “Training is one of the top priorities within our commitments to both Cisco and the industry,” Heider says. “That includes training in Cisco technologies, but also making sure that these individuals are able to connect with other security professionals at conferences and other industry events.”
When asked what advice he has for enterprises that want to maintain security while acquiring other companies, Heider has a few recommendations.
Having the right security agents and clear visibility into endpoints is critical. As is inputting the data logs of those endpoints into a security event and incident management (SEIM) system. That way, explains Heider, you have visibility into your endpoints and can run plays against those logs to identify security threats. “We’ll reach out to the asset owner and say they might have malware on their system—which is something nobody wants to hear,” says Heider. “But that’s what the job entails.”
Often, end users don’t know that they’re clicking on something that could have malware on it. Heider says user education is almost as important as visibility into endpoints. “Cisco really believes in training our users to be custodians of security, because they’re safeguarding our assets and our customers’ data as well.”
End users should be educated about practices such as creating strong passwords and not reusing passwords across different applications. Multi-factor authentication is a good practice, and end users should become familiar with the guidelines around it.
Updating software and systems is a never-ending job, but it’s crucial for keeping infrastructure operating. Sometimes, updating a system can weaken security and create vulnerabilities. Enterprises must maintain a balance between enabling business innovation and keeping systems and data secure. Patching systems can be challenging but neglecting the task can also allow threat actors into a vulnerable system.
Heider says public cloud operations can be beneficial because you’re transferring ownership liability operations to a third party, like Amazon Web Services or Google Cloud platform. “The only caveat,” he says, “is to make sure you understand that environment before you go and put your customer’s data on it. You might make one false click and expose your certificates to the Internet.”
Heider says that while a big part of his job is helping acquisitions uplevel their security domain to meet baseline security requirements, there’s always the goal to do even better. “We don’t want to be just that baseline,” he says. His team has learned from acquisitions in the past and taken some of those functionalities and technologies back to the product groups to make improvements across Cisco’s solutions portfolio.
“We’re customer zero – Cisco is Cisco’s premier customer,” says Heider, “because we will take a product or technology into our environment, identify any gaps, and then circle back to product engineering to improve upon it for us and our customers.”
Managing Cybersecurity Risk in M&A
Demonstrating Trust and Transparency in Mergers and Acquisitions
When It Comes to M&A, Security Is a Journey
Making Merger and Acquisition Cybersecurity More Manageable
We’d love to hear what you think. Ask a Question, Comment Below, and Stay Connected with Cisco Secure on social!
Cisco Secure Social Channels
Just a few years ago when the topic of supporting offsite workers arose, some of the key conversation topics were related to purchase, logistics, deployment, maintenance and similar issues. The discussions back then were more like “special cases” vs. today’s environment where supporting workers offsite (now known as the hybrid workforce) has become a critical mainstream topic.
Now with the bulk of many organization’s workers off-premise, the topic of security and the ability of a security vendor to help support an organization’s hybrid workers has risen to the top of the selection criteria. In a soon to be released Cisco endpoint survey, it’s not surprising that the ability of a security vendor to make supporting the hybrid workforce easier and more efficient was the key motivating factor when organizations choose security solutions.
Today, when prospects and existing customers look at Cisco’s ability to support hybrid workers with our advanced security solution set and open platform, it’s quite clear that we can deliver on that promise. But, yes, good tools make it easier and more efficient, but the reality is that running a SOC or any security group, large or small, still takes a lot of work. Most organizations not only rely on advanced security tools but utilize a set of best practices to provide clarity of roles, efficiency of operation, and for the more prepared, have tested these best practices to prove to themselves that they are prepared for what’s next.
Knowing that not all organizations have this degree of security maturity and preparedness, we gathered a couple of subject matter experts together to discuss 5 areas of time-tested best practices that, besides the advanced tools offered by Cisco and others, can help your SOC (or small security team) yield actionable insights and guide you faster, and with more confidence, toward the outcomes you want.
In this webinar you will hear practical advice from Cisco technical marketing and a representative from our award winning Talos Threat Intelligence group, the same group who have created and are maintaining breach defense in partnership with Fortune 500 Security Operating Centers (SOC) around the globe.
You can expect to hear our 5 Best Practices recommendations on the following topics;
Check out our webinar to find out how you can become more security resilient and be better prepared for what’s next.
We’d love to hear what you think. Ask a Question, Comment Below, and Stay Connected with Cisco Secure on social!
Cisco Secure Social Channels
The word is out! Cisco Secure Endpoint’s effectiveness is off the charts in protecting your enterprise environment.
This is not just a baseless opinion; however, the facts are rooted in actual test results from the annual AV-Comparative EPR Test Report published in October 2022. Not only did Secure Endpoint knock it out of the park in enterprise protection; but Cisco Secure Endpoint obtained the lowest total cost of ownership (TCO) per agent at $587 over 5 years. No one else was remotely close in this area. More to come on that later.
If you are not familiar with the “AV-Comparatives Endpoint Prevention and Response Test is the most comprehensive test of EPR products ever performed. The 10 products in the test were subjected to 50 separate targeted attack scenarios, which used a variety of different techniques.”
These results are from an industry-respected third-party organization that assesses antivirus software and has just confirmed what we know and believe here at Cisco, which is our Secure Endpoint product is the industry’s best of the best.
Look for yourself at where we landed. That’s right, Cisco Secure Endpoint smashed this test, we are almost off the quadrant as one of the “Strategic Leaders”.
We ended up here for a combination of reasons, with the top being our efficacy in protecting our customers’ environments in this real-world test that emulates multi-stage attacks similar to MITRE’s ATT&CK evaluations which are conducted as part of this process (click here for an overview of MITRE ATT&CK techniques). Out of all the 50 scenarios tested, Secure Endpoint was the only product that STOPPED 100% of targeted threats toward enterprise users, which prevented further infiltration into the organization.
In addition, this test not only assesses the efficacy of endpoint security products but also analyzes their cost-effectiveness. Following up on my earlier remarks about achieving the lowest cost of ownership, the graph below displays how we stacked up against other industry players in this space including several well-known vendors that chose not to display their names due to poor results.
These results provide a meaningful proof point that Cisco Secure Endpoint is perfectly positioned to secure the enterprise as well as secure the future of hybrid workers.
Enriched with built-in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) capabilities, Cisco Secure Endpoint has allowed our customers to maintain resiliency when faced with outside threats.
As we embark on securing “what’s next” by staying ahead of unforeseen cyber threats of tomorrow, Cisco Secure Endpoint integration with the complete Cisco Secure Solutions portfolio allows you to move forward with the peace of mind that if it’s connected, we can and will protect it.
Now that you have seen how effective Secure Endpoint is with live real-world testing, try it for yourself with one of our live instant demos. Click here to access instructions on how to download and install your demo account for a test drive.
Click here to see what analysts, customers, and third-party testing organizations have to say about Cisco Secure Endpoint Security efficacy, easy implementation and overall low total cost of ownership for their organization —and stay ahead of threats.
We’d love to hear what you think. Ask a Question, Comment Below, and Stay Connected with Cisco Secure on social!
Cisco Secure Social Channels
Lots of exciting things happening at Cisco, and for our customers, all to help them better prepare for what’s next. Case in point, we just returned from a very successful Cisco Partner Summit where the spotlight shined on cyber security. When our executives were on stage talking about solutions, the attendees heard a very catchy phrase; “if it’s connected, it’s protected.” A cool phrase, but there is more to that phrase and much more behind it.
To tie both connected and protected together, it’s good to note that Cisco is uniquely positioned as a security vendor with 80% of the worldwide internet traffic running through our network hardware and secured by our open platform, with hundreds of thousands of customers benefitting from automation, and from enriched and prioritized threat intel via our Extended Detection and Response (XDR) capabilities. That means a vast amount of unique insights for our customers to become more resilient, stay ahead of threats, be more confident, and benefit from less risk.
As examples of these questions above:
(1) what about proof points on the above?
(2) and do Cisco’s capabilities align with what customers want and need?
Let’s find out on the first by bringing the XDR aspect of security into the discussion, and the second by observing responses from a Forrester Total Economic Impact
(TEI) study commissioned by Cisco, both points utilizing our Secure Endpoint solution.
First off, in simple terms, XDR provides the benefit of integrating threat intel from all control points of the security platform and combines that into actionable insights for better, faster, and where appropriate, prioritized remediation of the most critical threats, i.e. XDR helps security teams to identify the threats that can do the most damage and enables the workflows to neutralize those threats first.
And here is where the proof point comes in. One of the most critical components of XDR is endpoint security. And in the case of Cisco, it’s our Secure Endpoint solution. Cisco recently participated in the AV-Comparatives’ Endpoint Prevention and Response (EPR) Test. The AV-C test is described by that independent test organization as “… the most comprehensive test of EPR products ever performed.” Secure Endpoint was one of the 10 endpoint security products in the test that were subjected to 50 separate targeted attack scenarios, which used a variety of different techniques.
Here are the highlights of the AV-C EPR report where Cisco Secure Endpoint:
Stunning results and confidence building for our customers that Cisco is effective in endpoint security. Read the complete AV-C EPR Test Report here.
And then, what about the second proof point – is Cisco providing what customers want & need?
Cisco commissioned Forrester Consulting to perform an unbiased cost-benefit analysis of our Cisco Secure Endpoint product. The report yielded the highlights below, based upon a composite organization, and also includes 20+ outstanding customer quotes.
Here’s the Forrester TEI Study bottom line for the composite organization:
Very good results and again, confidence building for our customers that Cisco is effective in endpoint security. Read the Forrester “The Total Economic Impact Of Cisco Secure Endpoint” Study here.
One last thing, what about those customer quotes? Here are a couple of examples:
Director of IT security, logistics
Director of IT security, logistics
To find out more, read Forrester’s “The Total Economic Impact Of Cisco Secure Endpoint” Study here. And if you are not familiar with Secure Endpoint, or would like to sign up for a free trial, check it out here.
We’d love to hear what you think. Ask a Question, Comment Below, and Stay Connected with Cisco Secure on social!
Cisco Secure Social Channels
Smishing and vishing are scams where criminals attempt to get users to click a fraudulent link through a phone text message, email, or voicemail. These scams are becoming increasingly popular as cybercriminals try to take advantage of people who are more likely to fall for them, such as those who aren’t as familiar with technology or who may be experiencing a crisis.
Be aware that cybercrime and hacking can happen to anyone. Criminals are always looking for new ways to exploit people, and they know that others may not be cautious or recognize the warning signs of phishing scams when using the internet. That’s why it’s important to be aware of the different types of cybercrime and how to protect yourself.
This article discusses how to protect yourself from smishing attempts and scams where criminals try to get you to click on a fraudulent link or respond to their voicemail message to steal your personal data.
Most people are familiar with phishing scams, where scammers try to trick you into giving them your personal or financial information by pretending to be a legitimate company or organization. But have you ever heard of smishing or vishing?
Smishing is a type of phishing scam where attackers send SMS messages (or text messages) to trick victims into sharing personal information or installing malware on their devices. Vishing is almost identical to smishing, except cybercriminals use VoIP (Voice over IP) to place phone calls to trick victims instead of SMS (short message service) messages.
Smishing messages often appear to be from a legitimate source, such as a well-known company or government agency. It may even include urgent language or threats in an effort to get victims to act quickly. In some cases, the message may also include a link that directs victims to a fake website where they are prompted to enter personal information or download malware.
Here are some examples of smishing text messages hackers use to steal your personal details:
If you fall for a smishing scam, you could end up giving away your personal information or money. Cybercriminals use smishing messages to get personal and financial information, like your credit card number or access to your financial services.
For example, one type of smishing scam is when you get a text message that looks like it’s from your bank. The message might say there’s been suspicious activity on your account and that you need to click on a link to verify your identity. If you do click on the link, you’ll be taken to a fake website where you’ll be asked to enter your banking information. Once the scammers have your login information, they have access to clean out your account.
Smishing scams can be very difficult to spot, but there are some telltale signs to look for and steps to take to protect yourself.
One of the easiest ways to protect yourself from smishing scams is to be able to recognize the signs of a smishing text message. Here are some tips:
While you can’t avoid smishing attacks altogether, you can block spam text messages you receive on your mobile phone. iPhone and Android have cybersecurity tools like spam filters and phone number blocking to help protect you from phishing attacks and malicious links.
To set up spam filters on your iPhone:
To set up spam filters on your Android mobile device:
McAfee Mobile Security is a mobile security app that helps protect your phone from malware, phishing attacks, and other online threats. McAfee Mobile Security is available for Android and iOS cell phones.
One of the benefits of using McAfee Mobile Security is that it can help detect and block smishing attacks. With identity monitoring, McAfee Mobile Security monitors your sensitive information like email accounts, credit card numbers, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, and more to protect against identity theft. They notify you if they find any security breaches.
Other benefits include:
These days, our lives are more intertwined with our mobile devices than ever. We use them to stay connected with our loved ones on social media, conduct our business, and even access our most personal, sensitive data. It’s no surprise that mobile cybersecurity is becoming increasingly important.
McAfee Mobile Security is a comprehensive security solution that helps protect your device from viruses, malware, and other online threats. It also offers a variety of other features, like a secure VPN to protect your credit card numbers and other personal data.
Whether you’re browsing your favorite website, keeping up with friends on social media, or shopping online at Amazon, McAfee Mobile Security provides the peace of mind that comes from knowing your mobile device is safe and secure.
So why wait? Don‘t let the smishers win. Get started today with McAfee Mobile Security and rest easy knowing your mobile device and sensitive information are protected.
The post What Is Smishing and Vishing, and How Do You Protect Yourself? appeared first on McAfee Blog.
A nonprofit organization is suing the state of Massachusetts on behalf of thousands of low-income families who were collectively robbed of more than a $1 million in food assistance benefits by card skimming devices secretly installed at cash machines and grocery store checkout lanes across the state. Federal law bars states from replacing these benefits using federal funds, and a recent rash of skimming incidents nationwide has disproportionately affected those receiving food assistance via state-issued prepaid debit cards.
The Massachusetts SNAP benefits card looks more like a library card than a payment card.
On Nov. 4, The Massachusetts Law Reform Institute (MLRI) filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of low-income families whose Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits were stolen from their accounts. The SNAP program serves over a million people in Massachusetts, and 41 million people nationally.
“Over the past few months, thieves have stolen over a million SNAP dollars from thousands of Massachusetts families – putting their nutrition and economic stability at risk,” the MLRI said in a statement on the lawsuit. “The criminals attach a skimming device on a POS (point of sale) terminal to capture the household’s account information and PIN. The criminals then use that information to make a fake card and steal the SNAP benefits.”
In announcing the lawsuit, the MRLI linked to a story KrebsOnSecurity published last month that examined how skimming thieves increasingly are targeting SNAP payment card holders nationwide. The story looked at how the vast majority of SNAP benefit cards issued by the states do not include the latest chip technology that makes it more difficult and expensive for thieves to clone them.
The story also highlighted how SNAP cardholders usually have little recourse to recover any stolen funds — even in unlikely cases where the victim has gathered mountains of proof to show state and federal officials that the fraudulent withdrawals were not theirs.
Deborah Harris is a staff attorney at the MLRI. Harris said the goal of the lawsuit is to force Massachusetts to reimburse SNAP skimming victims using state funds, and to convince The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) — which funds the program that states draw from — to change its policies and allow states to replace stolen benefits with federal funds.
“Ultimately we think it’s the USDA that needs to step up and tell states they have a duty to restore the stolen benefits, and that USDA will cover the cost at least until there is better security in place, such as chip cards,” Harris told KrebsOnSecurity.
“The losses we’re talking about are relatively small in the scheme of total SNAP expenditures which are billions,” she said. “But if you are a family that can’t pay for food because you suddenly don’t have money in your account, it’s devastating for the family.”
The USDA has not said it will help states restore the stolen funds. But on Oct. 31, 2022, the agency released guidance (PDF) whose primary instructions were included in an appendix titled, Card Security Options Available to Households. Notably, the USDA did not mention the idea of shifting to chip-based SNAP benefits cards.
The recently issued USDA guidance.
“The guidance generally continues to make households responsible for preventing the theft of their benefits as well as for suffering the loss when benefits are stolen through no fault of the household,” Harris said. “Many of the recommendations are not practical for households who don’t have a smartphone to receive text messages and aren’t able to change their PIN after each transaction and keep track of the new PIN.”
Harris said three of the four recommendations are not currently available in Massachusetts, and they are very likely not currently available in other states. For example, she said, Massachusetts households do not have the option of freezing or locking their cards between transactions. Nor do they receive alerts about transactions. And they most certainly don’t have any way to block out-of-state transactions.
“Perhaps these are options that [card] processors and states could provide, but they are not available now as far as we know,” Harris said. “Most likely they would take time to implement.”
The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) recently published Five Ways State Agencies Can Support EBT Users at Risk of Skimming. CLASP says while it is true states can’t use federal funds to replace benefits unless the loss was due to a “system error,” states could use their own funds.
“Doing so will ensure families don’t have to go without food, gas money, or their rent for the month,” CLASP wrote.
That would help address the symptoms of card skimming, but not a root cause. Hardly anyone is suggesting the obvious, which is to equip SNAP benefit cards with the same security technology afforded to practically everyone else participating in the U.S. banking system.
There are several reasons most state-issued SNAP benefit cards do not include chips. For starters, nobody says they have to. Also, it’s a fair bit more expensive to produce chip cards versus plain old magnetic stripe cards, and many state assistance programs are chronically under-funded. Finally, there is no vocal (or at least well-heeled) constituency advocating for change.
A copy of the class action complaint filed by the MLRI is available here.
Since 1996, United Nations members have commemorated Nov. 16 as International Day of Tolerance. As a word, tolerance can mean different things to different people and cultures. The UN defines tolerance as: “respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human.” I define it slightly differently. To me, tolerance is acceptance. Tolerance is inclusion. Tolerance is humanity. Tolerance is letting people be and live authentically as they choose.
Being able to live authentically is key. It’s about creating an environment for everyone to fit in and feel a sense of belonging. In a way, this means obfuscating the “standard” and stop paying attention to the degrees of variation from it. Tolerance is a step one in that process and a critical step toward a more diverse and tolerant world.
But if this is the goal, I say we have lots of work left in promoting this within our workforce, especially in the cybersecurity industry. I wrote extensively about this in a blog last year on why diversity matters so much to create stronger cybersecurity organizations. I pointed out that cybersecurity as a technology is multi-faceted and constantly changing. So, it would make sense that a highly diverse organization would provide different perspectives and more creative solutions to these challenges.
Even in the face of this logical goal of creating more diverse workforces, legacy recruiting, education, and even hiring practices are holding us back as an industry. I’ll look at one workforce populations specifically, women in cybersecurity. Currently, women constitute less than 25 percent of the workforce in cybersecurity. Of course, this is inclusive of all roles in cybersecurity meaning that I think it’s fair to say that the percentage of women in technical cybersecurity roles (e.g., software and hardware engineering) would be much lower. That’s discouraging, especially when there are still more than 700,000 cybersecurity positions that remain unfilled, many of them being high-paying roles.
Perhaps the more important question is “why?” The International Information System Security Certification Consortium (ISC2) commissioned a study to examine this issue closely and came up with some important conclusions that I’ll summarize.
In promoting the International Day of Tolerance, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon listed three ways we as a global society can be more tolerant: education, inclusion, and opportunities. As it happens, those are also exactly the approaches required to create more diverse workforces.
Of the three, I believe education (the earlier the better) is key as it’s foundational to being able to take advantage of inclusion and opportunities. Yes, we must continue to invest in STEM education and encourage more girls and minorities to take part. But the harder challenge is to somehow overcome the perception issue among large parts of these populations that the STEM field is not for them.
I believe that will require an investment in time and interaction in the form of mentoring and community outreach. For example, the Cisco Women in Technology employee resource organization that I’m proud to be the executive sponsor for, started a coding bootcamp targeting underrepresented populations. There will be many more bootcamps next year including weeklong camps in the summer. We need more of this, much more and I know there are many companies in cybersecurity who have similar aspirations and programs.
So, on this International Day of Tolerance, I ask my fellow cybersecurity professionals to at least think of ways they can influence someone in an underrepresented population to explore a career in the STEM field including cybersecurity. Take part in local volunteer activities at a school, especially in an inner-city one, like the kind that the Cisco Networking Academy is renowned for. Join and be an active participant in one of many cybersecurity organizations and affinity groups. Become a sponsor and a mentor to a girl or a minority and help encourage them to get ready to join this exciting and lucrative industry.
But whatever you do, get started. Author and activist Rachel Cargle spoke to us earlier this year as part of our Black History Month celebration about what it means to show up with purpose toward addressing many injustices that still exist today. “There’s an incredible disconnect here between humanity and dignity and all of this stuff in the country, and that should hopefully push you to action,” she said. Indeed, as these are issues that have existed for decades, and we will not solve them in a day, a month, or even a year. But if we don’t start, I’m afraid that the diversity issues that I’ve highlighted will be much the same in the International Day of Tolerance for years to come.
We’d love to hear what you think. Ask a Question, Comment Below, and Stay Connected with Cisco Secure on social!
Cisco Secure Social Channels
It’s important to know that not all websites are safe to visit. In fact, some sites may contain malicious software (malware) that can harm your computer or steal your personal contact information or credit card numbers.
Phishing is another common type of web-based attack where scammers try to trick you into giving them your personal information, and you can be susceptible to this if you visit a suspicious site.
Identity theft is a serious problem, so it’s important to protect yourself when browsing the web. Online security threats can be a big issue for internet users, especially when visiting new websites or following site links.
So how can you tell if you’re visiting a safe website or an unsafe website? You can use a few different methods. This page discusses key things to look for in a website so you can stay safe online.
When you’re visiting a website, a few key indicators can help determine whether the site is safe. This section explores how to check the URL for two specific signs of a secure website.
“Https” in a website URL indicates that the website is safe to visit. The “s” stands for “secure,” and it means that the website uses SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) encryption to protect your information. A verified SSL certificate tells your browser that the website is secure. This is especially important when shopping online or entering personal information into a website.
When you see “https” in a URL, the site is using a protocol that encrypts information before it’s sent from your computer to the website’s server. This helps prevent anyone from intercepting and reading your sensitive information as it’s transmitted.
The padlock icon near your browser’s URL field is another indicator that a webpage is safe to visit. This icon usually appears in the address bar and means the site uses SSL encryption. Security tools and icon and warning appearances depend on the web browser.
Let’s explore the cybersecurity tools on the three major web browsers:
Overall, the ”https” and the locked padlock icon are good signs that your personal data will be safe when you enter it on a website. But you can ensure a website’s security is up to par in other ways. This section will explore five in-depth methods for checking website safety.
McAfee WebAdvisor is a free toolbar that helps keep you safe online. It works with your existing antivirus software to provide an extra layer of protection against online threats. WebAdvisor also blocks unsafe websites and lets you know if a site is known for phishing or other malicious activity. In addition, it can help you avoid online scams and prevent you from accidentally downloading malware. Overall, McAfee WebAdvisor is a useful tool that can help you stay safe while browsing the web.
When you’re browsing the web, it’s important to be able to trust the websites you’re visiting. One way to determine if a website is trustworthy is to look for trust seals. Trust seals are logos or badges that indicate a website is safe and secure. They usually appear on the homepage or checkout page of a website.
There are many types of trust seals, but some of the most common include the Better Business Bureau (BBB) seal, VeriSign secure seal, and the McAfee secure seal. These seals indicate that a third-party organization has verified the website as safe and secure.
While trust seals can help determine whether a website is trustworthy, it’s important to remember that they are not foolproof. Website owners can create a fake trust seal, so it’s always important to do your own research to ensure a website is safe before entering personal information.
Another way to determine if a website is safe to visit is to check for a privacy policy. A privacy policy is a document that outlines how a website collects and uses personal information. It should also state how the site protects your data from being accessed or shared by scammers, hackers, or other unauthorized individuals.
If a website doesn’t have a privacy policy, that’s a red flag that you shouldn’t enter any personal information on the site. Even if a website does have a privacy policy, it’s important to read it carefully so you understand how the site uses your personal data.
It’s important to do some preliminary research before visiting a new website, especially if you’re shopping online or entering personal data like your address, credit card, or phone number. One way to determine if a website is safe and trustworthy is to check third-party reviews. Several websites provide reviews of other websites, so you should be able to find several reviews for any given site.
Trustpilot is one example of a website that provides reviews of other websites.
Look for common themes when reading reviews. If most of the reviews mention that a website is safe and easy to use, it’s likely that the site is indeed safe to visit. However, if a lot of negative reviews mention problems with viruses or malware, you might want to avoid the site.
You can also analyze the website design when deciding whether a website is safe to visit. Look for spelling errors, grammatical mistakes, and anything that appears off. If a website looks like it was made in a hurry or doesn’t seem to be well-designed, that’s usually a red flag that the site might not be safe.
Be especially careful of websites that have a lot of pop-ups. These sites are often spammy or contain malware. Don’t download anything from a website unless you’re absolutely sure it’s safe. These malicious websites rarely show up on the top of search engine results, so consider using a search engine to find what you’re looking for rather than a link that redirects you to an unknown website.
If you’re unsure whether a website is safe to visit, download McAfee WebAdvisor for free. McAfee WebAdvisor is a program that helps protect you from online threats, such as malware and viruses. It also blocks pop-ups and other intrusive ads so you can browse the web without worry. Plus, it’s completely free to download and use.
Download McAfee WebAdvisor now and stay safe while browsing the web.
The post How to Tell Whether a Website Is Safe or Unsafe appeared first on McAfee Blog.
A recent scoop by Reuters revealed that mobile apps for the U.S. Army and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were integrating software that sends visitor data to a Russian company called Pushwoosh, which claims to be based in the United States. But that story omitted an important historical detail about Pushwoosh: In 2013, one of its developers admitted to authoring the Pincer Trojan, malware designed to surreptitiously intercept and forward text messages from Android mobile devices.
Pushwoosh says it is a U.S. based company that provides code for software developers to profile smartphone app users based on their online activity, allowing them to send tailor-made notifications. But a recent investigation by Reuters raised questions about the company’s real location and truthfulness.
The Army told Reuters it removed an app containing Pushwoosh in March, citing “security concerns.” The Army app was used by soldiers at one of the nation’s main combat training bases.
Reuters said the CDC likewise recently removed Pushwoosh code from its app over security concerns, after reporters informed the agency Pushwoosh was not based in the Washington D.C. area — as the company had represented — but was instead operated from Novosibirsk, Russia.
Pushwoosh’s software also was found in apps for “a wide array of international companies, influential nonprofits and government agencies from global consumer goods company Unilever and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) to the politically powerful U.S. gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA), and Britain’s Labour Party.”
The company’s founder Max Konev told Reuters Pushwoosh “has no connection with the Russian government of any kind” and that it stores its data in the United States and Germany.
But Reuters found that while Pushwoosh’s social media and U.S. regulatory filings present it as a U.S. company based variously in California, Maryland and Washington, D.C., the company’s employees are located in Novosibirsk, Russia.
Reuters also learned that the company’s address in California does not exist, and that two LinkedIn accounts for Pushwoosh employees in Washington, D.C. were fake.
“Pushwoosh never mentioned it was Russian-based in eight annual filings in the U.S. state of Delaware, where it is registered, an omission which could violate state law,” Reuters reported.
Pushwoosh admitted the LinkedIn profiles were fake, but said they were created by a marketing firm to drum up business for the company — not misrepresent its location.
Pushwoosh told Reuters it used addresses in the Washington, D.C. area to “receive business correspondence” during the coronavirus pandemic. A review of the Pushwoosh founder’s online presence via Constella Intelligence shows his Pushwoosh email address was tied to a phone number in Washington, D.C. that was also connected to email addresses and account profiles for over a dozen other Pushwoosh employees.
Pushwoosh was incorporated in Novosibirsk, Russia in 2016.
The dust-up over Pushwoosh came in part from data gathered by Zach Edwards, a security researcher who until recently worked for the Internet Safety Labs, a nonprofit organization that funds research into online threats.
Edwards said Pushwoosh began as Arello-Mobile, and for several years the two co-branded — appearing side by side at various technology expos. Around 2016, he said, the two companies both started using the Pushwoosh name.
A search on Pushwoosh’s code base shows that one of the company’s longtime developers is a 41-year-old from Novosibirsk named Yuri Shmakov. In 2013, KrebsOnSecurity interviewed Shmakov for the story, “Who Wrote the Pincer Android Trojan?” wherein Shmakov acknowledged writing the malware as a freelance project.
Shmakov told me that, based on the client’s specifications, he suspected it might ultimately be put to nefarious uses. Even so, he completed the job and signed his work by including his nickname in the app’s code.
“I was working on this app for some months, and I was hoping that it would be really helpful,” Shmakov wrote. “[The] idea of this app is that you can set it up as a spam filter…block some calls and SMS remotely, from a Web service. I hoped that this will be [some kind of] blacklist, with logging about blocked [messages/calls]. But of course, I understood that client [did] not really want this.”
Shmakov did not respond to requests for comment. His LinkedIn profile says he stopped working for Arello Mobile in 2016, and that he currently is employed full-time as the Android team leader at an online betting company.
In a blog post responding to the Reuters story, Pushwoosh said it is a privately held company incorporated under the state laws of Delaware, USA, and that Pushwoosh Inc. was never owned by any company registered in the Russian Federation.
“Pushwoosh Inc. used to outsource development parts of the product to the Russian company in Novosibirsk, mentioned in the article,” the company said. “However, in February 2022, Pushwoosh Inc. terminated the contract.”
However, Edwards noted that dozens of developer subdomains on Pushwoosh’s main domain still point to JSC Avantel, an Internet provider based in Novosibirsk, Russia.
Pushwoosh employees posing at a company laser tag event.
Edwards said the U.S. Army’s app had a custom Pushwoosh configuration that did not appear on any other customer implementation.
“It had an extremely custom setup that existed nowhere else,” Edwards said. “Originally, it was an in-app Web browser, where it integrated a Pushwoosh javascript so that any time a user clicked on links, data went out to Pushwoosh and they could push back whatever they wanted through the in-app browser.”
An Army Times article published the day after the Reuters story ran said at least 1,000 people downloaded the app, which “delivered updates for troops at the National Training Center on Fort Irwin, Calif., a critical waypoint for deploying units to test their battlefield prowess before heading overseas.”
In April 2022, roughly 4,500 Army personnel converged on the National Training Center for a war games exercise on how to use lessons learned from Russia’s war against Ukraine to prepare for future fights against a major adversary such as Russia or China.
Edwards said despite Pushwoosh’s many prevarications, the company’s software doesn’t appear to have done anything untoward to its customers or users.
“Nothing they did has been seen to be malicious,” he said. “Other than completely lying about where they are, where their data is being hosted, and where they have infrastructure.”
Edwards also found Pushwoosh’s technology embedded in nearly two dozen mobile apps that were sold to cities and towns across Illinois as a way to help citizens access general information about their local communities and officials.
The Illinois apps that bundled Pushwoosh’s technology were produced by a company called Government 311, which is owned by Bill McCarty, the current director of the Springfield Office of Budget and Management. A 2014 story in The State Journal-Register said Gov 311’s pricing was based on population, and that the app would cost around $2,500 per year for a city with approximately 25,000 people.
McCarty told KrebsOnSecurity that his company stopped using Pushwoosh “years ago,” and that it now relies on its own technology to provide push notifications through its 311 apps.
But Edwards found some of the 311 apps still try to phone home to Pushwoosh, such as the 311 app for Riverton, Ill.
“Riverton ceased being a client several years ago, which [is] probably why their app was never updated to change out Pushwoosh,” McCarty explained. “We are in the process of updating all client apps and a website refresh. As part of that, old unused apps like Riverton 311 will be deleted.”
Edwards said it’s far from clear how many other state and local government apps and Web sites rely on technology that sends user data to U.S. adversaries overseas. In July, Congress introduced an amended version of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 2023, which included a new section focusing on data drawn from online ad auctions that could be used to geolocate individuals or gain other information about them.
Business Insider reports that if this section makes it into the final version — which the Senate also has to pass — the Office for the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will have 60 days after the Act becomes law to produce a risk assessment. The assessment will look into “the counterintelligence risks of, and the exposure of intelligence community personnel to, tracking by foreign adversaries through advertising technology data,” the Act states.
Edwards says he’s hoping those changes pass, because what he found with Pushwoosh is likely just a drop in a bucket.
“I’m hoping that Congress acts on that,” he said. “If they were to put a requirement that there’s an annual audit of risks from foreign ad tech, that would at least force people to identify and document those connections.”
InfraGard, a program run by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to build cyber and physical threat information sharing partnerships with the private sector, this week saw its database of contact information on more than 80,000 members go up for sale on an English-language cybercrime forum. Meanwhile, the hackers responsible are communicating directly with members through the InfraGard portal online — using a new account under the assumed identity of a financial industry CEO that was vetted by the FBI itself.
On Dec. 10, 2022, the relatively new cybercrime forum Breached featured a bombshell new sales thread: The user database for InfraGard, including names and contact information for tens of thousands of InfraGard members.
The FBI’s InfraGard program is supposed to be a vetted Who’s Who of key people in private sector roles involving both cyber and physical security at companies that manage most of the nation’s critical infrastructures — including drinking water and power utilities, communications and financial services firms, transportation and manufacturing companies, healthcare providers, and nuclear energy firms.
“InfraGard connects critical infrastructure owners, operators, and stakeholders with the FBI to provide education, networking, and information-sharing on security threats and risks,” the FBI’s InfraGard fact sheet reads.
In response to information shared by KrebsOnSecurity, the FBI said it is aware of a potential false account associated with the InfraGard Portal and that it is actively looking into the matter.
“This is an ongoing situation, and we are not able to provide any additional information at this time,” the FBI said in a written statement.
KrebsOnSecurity contacted the seller of the InfraGard database, a Breached forum member who uses the handle “USDoD” and whose avatar is the seal of the U.S. Department of Defense.
USDoD’s InfraGard sales thread on Breached.
USDoD said they gained access to the FBI’s InfraGard system by applying for a new account using the name, Social Security Number, date of birth and other personal details of a chief executive officer at a company that was highly likely to be granted InfraGard membership.
The CEO in question — currently the head of a major U.S. financial corporation that has a direct impact on the creditworthiness of most Americans — told KrebsOnSecurity they were never contacted by the FBI seeking to vet an InfraGard application.
USDoD told KrebsOnSecurity their phony application was submitted in November in the CEO’s name, and that the application included a contact email address that they controlled — but also the CEO’s real mobile phone number.
“When you register they said that to be approved can take at least three months,” USDoD said. “I wasn’t expected to be approve[d].”
But USDoD said that in early December, their email address in the name of the CEO received a reply saying the application had been approved (see redacted screenshot to the right). While the FBI’s InfraGard system requires multi-factor authentication by default, users can choose between receiving a one-time code via SMS or email.
“If it was only the phone I will be in [a] bad situation,” USDoD said. “Because I used the person[‘s] phone that I’m impersonating.”
USDoD said the InfraGard user data was made easily available via an Application Programming Interface (API) that is built into several key components of the website that help InfraGard members connect and communicate with each other.
USDoD said after their InfraGard membership was approved, they asked a friend to code a script in Python to query that API and retrieve all available InfraGard user data.
“InfraGard is a social media intelligence hub for high profile persons,” USDoD said. “They even got [a] forum to discuss things.”
To prove they still had access to InfraGard as of publication time Tuesday evening, USDoD sent a direct note through InfraGard’s messaging system to an InfraGard member whose personal details were initially published as a teaser on the database sales thread.
That InfraGard member, who is head of security at a major U.S. technology firm, confirmed receipt of USDoD’s message but asked to remain anonymous for this story.
USDoD acknowledged that their $50,000 asking price for the InfraGard database may be a tad high, given that it is a fairly basic list of people who are already very security-conscious. Also, only about half of the user accounts contain an email address, and most of the other database fields — like Social Security Number and Date of Birth — are completely empty.
“I don’t think someone will pay that price, but I have to [price it] a bit higher to [negotiate] the price that I want,” they explained.
While the data exposed by the infiltration at InfraGard may be minimal, the user data might not have been the true end game for the intruders.
USDoD said they were hoping the imposter account would last long enough for them to finish sending direct messages as the CEO to other executives using the InfraGuard messaging portal. USDoD shared the following redacted screenshot from what they claimed was one such message, although they provided no additional context about it.
A screenshot shared by USDoD showing a message thread in the FBI’s InfraGard system.
USDoD said in their sales thread that the guarantor for the transaction would be Pompompurin, the administrator of the cybercrime forum Breached. By purchasing the database through the forum administrator’s escrow service, would-be buyers can theoretically avoid getting ripped off and ensure the transaction will be consummated to the satisfaction of both parties before money exchanges hands.
Pompompurin has been a thorn in the side of the FBI for years. Their Breached forum is widely considered to be the second incarnation of RaidForums, a remarkably similar English-language cybercrime forum shuttered by the U.S. Department of Justice in April. Prior to its infiltration by the FBI, RaidForums sold access to more than 10 billion consumer records stolen in some of the world’s largest data breaches.
In November 2021, KrebsOnSecurity detailed how Pompompurin abused a vulnerability in an FBI online portal designed to share information with state and local law enforcement authorities, and how that access was used to blast out thousands of hoax email messages — all sent from an FBI email and Internet address.
Update, 10:58 p.m. ET: Updated the story after hearing from the financial company CEO whose identity was used to fool the FBI into approving an InfraGard membership. That CEO said they were never contacted by the FBI.
Update, 11:15 p.m. ET: The FBI just confirmed that it is aware of a potential false account associated with the InfraGard portal. The story now includes their full statement.
This is a developing story. Updates will be noted here with timestamps.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) today seized four-dozen domains that sold “booter” or “stresser” services — businesses that make it easy and cheap for even non-technical users to launch powerful Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks designed knock targets offline. The DOJ also charged six U.S. men with computer crimes related to their alleged ownership of the popular DDoS-for-hire services.
The booter service OrphicSecurityTeam[.]com was one of the 48 DDoS-for-hire domains seized by the Justice Department this week.
The DOJ said the 48 domains it seized helped paying customers launch millions of digital sieges capable of knocking Web sites and even entire network providers offline.
Booter services are advertised through a variety of methods, including Dark Web forums, chat platforms and even youtube.com. They accept payment via PayPal, Google Wallet, and/or cryptocurrencies, and subscriptions can range in price from just a few dollars to several hundred per month. The services are generally priced according to the volume of traffic to be hurled at the target, the duration of each attack, and the number of concurrent attacks allowed.
Prosecutors in Los Angeles say the booter sites supremesecurityteam[.]com and royalstresser[.]com were the brainchild of Jeremiah Sam Evans Miller, a.k.a. “John the Dev,” a 23-year-old from San Antonio, Texas. Miller was charged this week with conspiracy and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The complaint against Miller alleges Royalstresser launched nearly 200,000 DDoS attacks between November 2021 and February 2022.
Defendant Angel Manuel Colon Jr., a.k.a Anonghost720 and Anonghost1337, is a 37-year-old from Belleview, Fla. Colon is suspected of running the booter service securityteam[.]io. He was also charged with conspiracy and CFAA violations. The feds say the SecurityTeam stresser service conducted 1.3 million attacks between 2018 and 2022, and attracted some 50,000 registered users.
Charged with conspiracy were Corey Anthony Palmer, 22, of Lauderhill, Fla, for his alleged ownership of booter[.]sx; and Shamar Shattock, 19, of Margate, Fla., for allegedly operating the booter service astrostress[.]com, which had more than 30,000 users and blasted out some 700,000 attacks.
Two other alleged booter site operators were charged in Alaska. John M. Dobbs, 32, of Honolulu, HI is charged with aiding and abetting violations of the CFAA related to the operation of IPStresser[.]com, which he allegedly ran for nearly 13 years until last month. During that time, IPstresser launched approximately 30 million DDoS attacks and garnered more than two million registered users.
Joshua Laing, 32, of Liverpool, NY, also was charged with CFAA infractions tied to his alleged ownership of the booter service TrueSecurityServices[.]io, which prosecutors say had 18,000 users and conducted over 1.2 million attacks between 2018 and 2022.
Purveyors of stressers and booters claim they are not responsible for how customers use their services, and that they aren’t breaking the law because — like most security tools — stresser services can be used for good or bad purposes. For example, all of the above-mentioned booter sites contained wordy “terms of use” agreements that required customers to agree they will only stress-test their own networks — and that they won’t use the service to attack others.
Dobbs, the alleged administrator of IPStresser, gave an interview to ZDNet France in 2015, in which he asserted that he was immune from liability because his clients all had to submit a digital signature attesting that they wouldn’t use the site for illegal purposes.
“Our terms of use are a legal document that protects us, among other things, from certain legal consequences,” Dobbs told ZDNet. “Most other sites are satisfied with a simple checkbox, but we ask for a digital signature in order to imply real consent from our customers.”
But the DOJ says these disclaimers usually ignore the fact that most booter services are heavily reliant on constantly scanning the Internet to commandeer misconfigured devices that are critical for maximizing the size and impact of DDoS attacks.
“None of these sites ever required the FBI to confirm that it owned, operated, or had any property right to the computer that the FBI attacked during its testing (as would be appropriate if the attacks were for a legitimate or authorized purpose),” reads an affidavit (PDF) filed by Elliott Peterson, a special agent in the FBI’s Anchorage field office.
“Analysis of data related to the FBI-initiated attacks revealed that the attacks launched by the SUBJECT DOMAINS involved the extensive misuse of third-party services,” Peterson continued. “All of the tested services offered ‘amplification’ attacks, where the attack traffic is amplified through unwitting third-party servers in order to increase the overall attack size, and to shift the financial burden of generating and transmitting all of that data away from the booter site administrator(s) and onto third parties.”
According to U.S. federal prosecutors, the use of booter and stresser services to conduct attacks is punishable under both wire fraud laws and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030), and may result in arrest and prosecution, the seizure of computers or other electronics, as well as prison sentences and a penalty or fine.
The charges unsealed today stemmed from investigations launched by the FBI’s field offices in Los Angeles and Alaska, which spent months purchasing and testing attack services offered by the booter sites.
A similar investigation initiating from the FBI’s Alaska field office in 2018 culminated in a takedown and arrest operation that targeted 15 DDoS-for-hire sites, as well as three booter store defendants who later pleaded guilty.
The Justice Department says its trying to impress upon people that even buying attacks from DDoS-for-hire services can land Internet users in legal jeopardy.
“Whether a criminal launches an attack independently or pays a skilled contractor to carry one out, the FBI will work with victims and use the considerable tools at our disposal to identify the person or group responsible,” said Donald Alway, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office.
“Potential users and administrators should think twice before buying or selling these illegal services,” said Special Agent Antony Jung of the FBI Anchorage field office. “The FBI and our international law enforcement partners continue to intensify efforts in combatting DDoS attacks, which will have serious consequences for offenders.”
The United Kingdom, which has been battling its fair share of domestic booter bosses, in 2020 started running online ads aimed at young people who search the Web for booter services. And in Europe, prosecutors have even gone after booter customers.
In conjunction with today’s law enforcement action, the FBI and the Netherlands Police joined authorities in the U.K. in announcing they are now running targeted placement ads to steer those searching for booter services toward a website detailing the potential legal risks of hiring an online attack.
“The purpose of the ads is to deter potential cyber criminals searching for DDoS services in the United States and around the globe, as well as to educate the public on the illegality of DDoS activities,” the DOJ said in a press release.
Here is the full list of booter site domains seized (or in the process of being seized) by the DOJ:
api-sky[.]xyz
astrostress[.]com
blackstresser[.]net
booter[.]sx
booter[.]vip
bootyou[.]net
brrsecurity[.]org
buuter[.]cc
cyberstress[.]us
defconpro[.]net
dragonstresser[.]com
dreams-stresser[.]io
exotic-booter[.]com
freestresser[.]so
instant-stresser[.]com
ipstress[.]org
ipstress[.]vip
ipstresser[.]com
ipstresser[.]us
ipstresser[.]wtf
ipstresser[.]xyz
kraysec[.]com
mcstorm[.]io
nightmarestresser[.]com
orphicsecurityteam[.]com
ovhstresser[.]com
quantum-stresser[.]net
redstresser[.]cc
royalstresser[.]com
securityteam[.]io
shock-stresser[.]com
silentstress[.]net
stresser[.]app
stresser[.]best
stresser[.]gg
stresser[.]is
stresser[.]net/stresser[.]org
stresser[.]one
stresser[.]shop
stresser[.]so
stresser[.]top
stresserai[.]com
sunstresser[.]com
supremesecurityteam[.]com
truesecurityservices[.]io
vdos-s[.]co
zerostresser[.]com
For many Aussies, identity theft was always something that happened to other people. People on TV, usually. But the recent spate of data breaches at Optus, Medibank and Energy Australia has made many of us pay far more attention than ever to one of the fastest growing crimes in our country.
According to the Department of Home Affairs, 1 in 4 Aussies will be the victim of identity theft over the course of their lives with an annual economic impact of more than $2 billion. And with the financial fallout from the recent data breaches only just starting to be counted, these statistics will no doubt increase dramatically next year.
Identity theft is when a cybercriminal gains access to your personal information to steal money or gain other benefits. Armed with your personal info, they can apply for real identity documents in your name but with another person’s photograph. This enables them to then apply for loans or benefits in your name, sign up for memberships or even apply for credit cards.
And it goes without saying that the financial and emotional fallout from identity theft can be huge. Since the Optus and Medibank hacking stories broke just a few months ago, there has been multiple stories of Aussie families who have had their identities stolen and who are in a world of pain. This Melbourne family who have had over $40,000 stolen from ATM withdrawals alone is just one example.
Your personal information is any piece of information or data that can confirm who you are or how to find you. It may be a single piece of information, or several pieces used together. It’s often referred to as personally identifiable information (PII). So, it includes your name, parents’ name, address, date of birth, phone numbers, email address, usernames/passwords or passphrases, bank account details, school or university attended, location check-ins even RSVPS for events.
Every time you register with a new shopping site or social media platform, you will be asked to share some personally identifiable information. However, what you share may be stolen or even misused – just think about the recent list of Australian companies who had their customers’ private information stolen by hackers. So that’s why you need to ensure you are only sharing your information with trusted online sites and take every possible step to protect your personal information online.
While there are no guarantees in life, there are steps you can take to ensure your online identity is as safe as possible. Here are my top 5 tips:
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) or 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) is a no-brainer because it makes a hacker’s life a lot harder. In short, it requires the user to provide two or more verification factors to gain access to an account or app. This might be a text, email or even a code generated by an authentication app. So, even if a hacker has your password and username, they still need that final piece of information before they can get their hands on your account!
Now this may take a bit of work to set up but using a unique and complex password on every account is one of the best things you can do to protect your online identity. And here’s the rationale – if you use the same password on all your accounts and your login details are stolen then hackers have access to all the accounts that are accessed with that password. Yikes!!! So, a unique password for each account is a great measure. I love using a password manager to make this process a little easier. Not only do they generate complex passwords, but they remember them too! All you need to do is remember your Master Password which needs to be extremely complex!!!
Updates are most commonly about addressing security weaknesses. And yes, I know they can be a pain but if you ignore them, you are essentially making it easier for hackers to find their way into your life via weak spots. And don’t forget to ensure your security software remains updated too!
I always recommend keeping a backup of all your important info in case something goes wrong. This should include all your photos, key documents and all your personally identifiable information. A hard drive works well but saving to the cloud is also a good option. I once dropped a hard drive and lost treasured family photos, so the cloud is my personal preference.
We all know knowledge is power so investing in top notch security and identity monitoring software will help keep you ahead of threats. McAfee+, McAfee’s new all in one privacy, identity and device protection solution is a fantastic way for Aussies to protect themselves online. It features identity monitoring and a password manager but also an unlimited VPN, a file shredder, protection score and parental controls. And the Rolls Royce version called McAfee+ Advanced, also offers subscribers additional identity protections including access to licensed restoration experts who can help you repair your identity and credit, in case you’re affected by a data breach. It also gives subscribers access to lost wallet protection which help you cancel and replace your ID, credit cards if they are lost or stolen.
Public, unsecured Wi-Fi can make life so much easier when you’re out and about but it’s also a tried and tested way for scammers to access your personal information. Unsecured Wi-Fi is free Wi-Fi that is available in public places such as libraries, cafes, or shopping centres. So, instead of using Wi-Fi, just use the data in your phone plan. Or alternatively invest in a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that cleverly encrypts everything you share on your device.
About 2 months ago, I embarked on a project to clean up my online life. I’m working through the list of sites I have accounts with and am closing those I no longer use, I’m also doing a huge password audit to ensure they are all unique to each site and are super complex, thanks to my password manager. Now, I’m not quite done yet, but things are in better shape than they were. Why not consider doing the same? With the holiday season fast approaching, why not dedicate a little of your poolside time to practicing a little cyber hygiene.
Till next time, keep those identities safe!
Alex
The post The Best Way To Protect Your Online Identity appeared first on McAfee Blog.
Most people who operate DDoS-for-hire businesses attempt to hide their true identities and location. Proprietors of these so-called “booter” or “stresser” services — designed to knock websites and users offline — have long operated in a legally murky area of cybercrime law. But until recently, their biggest concern wasn’t avoiding capture or shutdown by the feds: It was minimizing harassment from unhappy customers or victims, and insulating themselves against incessant attacks from competing DDoS-for-hire services.
And then there are booter store operators like John Dobbs, a 32-year-old computer science graduate student living in Honolulu, Hawaii. For at least a decade until late last year, Dobbs openly operated IPStresser[.]com, a popular and powerful attack-for-hire service that he registered with the state of Hawaii using his real name and address. Likewise, the domain was registered in Dobbs’s name and hometown in Pennsylvania.
Dobbs, in an undated photo from his Github profile. Image: john-dobbs.github.io
The only work experience Dobbs listed on his resume was as a freelance developer from 2013 to the present day. Dobbs’s resume doesn’t name his booter service, but in it he brags about maintaining websites with half a million page views daily, and “designing server deployments for performance, high-availability and security.”
In December 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice seized Dobbs’s IPStresser website and charged him with one count of aiding and abetting computer intrusions. Prosecutors say his service attracted more than two million registered users, and was responsible for launching a staggering 30 million distinct DDoS attacks.
The government seized four-dozen booter domains, and criminally charged Dobbs and five other U.S. men for allegedly operating stresser services. This was the Justice Department’s second such mass takedown targeting DDoS-for-hire services and their accused operators. In 2018, the feds seized 15 stresser sites, and levied cybercrime charges against three men for their operation of booter services.
Dobbs’s booter service, IPStresser, in June 2020. Image: archive.org.
Many accused stresser site operators have pleaded guilty over the years after being hit with federal criminal charges. But the government’s core claim — that operating a booter site is a violation of U.S. computer crime laws — wasn’t properly tested in the courts until September 2021.
That was when a jury handed down a guilty verdict against Matthew Gatrel, a then 32-year-old St. Charles, Ill. man charged in the government’s first 2018 mass booter bust-up. Despite admitting to FBI agents that he ran two booter services (and turning over plenty of incriminating evidence in the process), Gatrel opted to take his case to trial, defended the entire time by court-appointed attorneys.
Prosecutors said Gatrel’s booter services — downthem[.]org and ampnode[.]com — helped some 2,000 paying customers launch debilitating digital assaults on more than 20,000 targets, including many government, banking, university and gaming websites.
Gatrel was convicted on all three charges of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, including conspiracy to commit unauthorized impairment of a protected computer, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and unauthorized impairment of a protected computer. He was sentenced to two years in prison.
Now, it appears Dobbs is also planning to take his chances with a jury. On Jan. 4, Dobbs entered a plea of not guilty. Neither Dobbs nor his court-appointed attorney responded to requests for comment.
But as it happens, Dobbs himself provided some perspective on his thinking in an email exchange with KrebsOnSecurity back in 2020. I’d reached out to Dobbs because it was obvious he didn’t mind if people knew he operated one of the world’s most popular DDoS-for-hire sites, and I was genuinely curious why he was so unafraid of getting raided by the feds.
“Yes, I am the owner of the domain you listed, however you are not authorized to post an article containing said domain name, my name or this email address without my prior written permission,” Dobbs replied to my initial outreach on March 10, 2020 using his email address from the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
A few hours later, I received more strident instructions from Dobbs, this time via his official email address at ipstresser[.]com.
“I will state again for absolute clarity, you are not authorized to post an article containing ipstresser.com, my name, my GitHub profile and/or my hawaii.edu email address,” Dobbs wrote, as if taking dictation from a lawyer who doesn’t understand how the media works.
When pressed for particulars on his business, Dobbs replied that the number of IPStresser customers was “privileged information,” and said he didn’t even advertise the service. When asked whether he was concerned that many of his competitors were by then serving jail time for operating similar booter services, Dobbs maintained that the way he’d set up the business insulated him from any liability.
“I have been aware of the recent law enforcement actions against other operators of stress testing services,” Dobbs explained. “I cannot speak to the actions of these other services, but we take proactive measures to prevent misuse of our service and we work with law enforcement agencies regarding any reported abuse of our service.”
What were those proactive measures? In a 2015 interview with ZDNet France, Dobbs asserted that he was immune from liability because his clients all had to submit a digital signature attesting that they wouldn’t use the site for illegal purposes.
“Our terms of use are a legal document that protects us, among other things, from certain legal consequences,” Dobbs told ZDNet. “Most other sites are satisfied with a simple checkbox, but we ask for a digital signature in order to imply real consent from our customers.”
Dobbs told KrebsOnSecurity his service didn’t generate much of a profit, but rather that he was motivated by “filling a legitimate need.”
“My reason for offering the service is to provide the ability to test network security measures before someone with malicious intent attacks said network and causes downtime,” he said. “Sure, some people see only the negatives, but there is a long list of companies I have worked with over the years who would say my service is a godsend and has helped them prevent tens of thousands of dollars in downtime resulting from a malicious attack.”
“I do not believe that providing such a service is illegal, assuming proper due diligence to prevent malicious use of the service, as is the case for IPstresser[.]com,” Dobbs continued. “Someone using such a service to conduct unauthorized testing is illegal in many countries, however, the legal liability is that of the user, not of the service provider.”
Dobbs’s profile on GitHub includes more of his ideas about his work, including a curious piece on “software engineering ethics.” In his January 2020 treatise “My Software Engineering Journey,” Dobbs laments that nothing in his formal education prepared him for the reality that a great deal of his work would be so tedious and repetitive (this tracks closely with a 2020 piece here called Career Choice Tip: Cybercrime is Mostly Boring).
“One area of software engineering that I think should be covered more in university classes is maintenance,” Dobbs wrote. “Projects are often worked on for at most a few months, and students do not experience the maintenance aspect of software engineering until they reach the workplace. Let’s face it, ongoing maintenance of a project is boring; there is nothing like the euphoria of completing a project you have been working on for months and releasing it to the world, but I would say that half of my professional career has been related to maintenance.”
Allison Nixon is chief research officer at the New York-based cybersecurity firm Unit 221B. Nixon is part of a small group of researchers who have been closely tracking the DDoS-for-hire industry for years, and she said Dobbs’s claim that what he’s doing is legal makes sense given that it took years for the government to recognize the size of the problem.
“These guys are arguing that their services are legal because for a long time nothing happened to them,” Nixon said. “It’s difficult to argue something is illegal if no one has ever been arrested for it before.”
Nixon says the government’s fight against the booter services — and by extension other types of cybercrimes — is hampered by a legal system that often takes years to cycle through cybercrime cases.
“With cybercrime, the cycle between the crime and investigation and arrest can often take a year or more, and that’s for a really fast case,” Nixon said. “If someone robbed a store, we’d expect a police response within a few minutes. If someone robs a bank’s website, there might be some indication of police activity within a year.”
Nixon praised the 2022 and 2018 booter takedown operations as “huge steps forward,” but added that “there need to be more of them, and faster.”
“This time lag is part of the reason it’s so difficult to shut down the pipeline of new talent going into cybercrime,” she said. “They think what they’re doing is legal because nothing has happened, and because of the amount of time it takes to shut these things down. And it’s really a big problem, where we see a lot of people becoming criminals on the basis that what they’re doing isn’t really illegal because the cops won’t do anything.”
In December 2020, Dobbs filed an application with the state of Hawaii to withdraw IP Stresser Inc. from its roster of active companies. But according to prosecutors, Dobbs would continue to operate his DDoS-for-hire site until at least November 2022.
Two months after our 2020 email interview, Dobbs would earn his second bachelor’s degree (in computer science; his resume says he earned a bachelor’s in civil engineering from Drexel University in 2013). The federal charges against Dobbs came just as he was preparing to enter his final semester toward a master’s degree in computer science at the University of Hawaii.
Nixon says she has a message for anyone involved in operating a DDoS-for-hire service.
“Unless you are verifying that the target owns the infrastructure you’re targeting, there is no legal way to operate a DDoS-for-hire service,” she said. “There is no Terms of Service you could put on the site that would somehow make it legal.”
And her message to the customers of those booter services? It’s a compelling one to ponder, particularly now that investigators in the United States, U.K. and elsewhere have started going after booter service customers.
“When a booter service claims they don’t share logs, they’re lying because logs are legal leverage for when the booter service operator gets arrested,” Nixon said. “And when they do, you’re going to be the first people they throw under the bus.”
Millions of Americans receiving food assistance benefits just earned a new right that they can’t yet enforce: The right to be reimbursed if funds on their Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards are stolen by card skimming devices secretly installed at cash machines and grocery store checkout lanes.
On December 29, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, which — for the first time ever — includes provisions for the replacement of stolen EBT benefits. This is a big deal because in 2022, organized crime groups began massively targeting EBT accounts — often emptying affected accounts at ATMs immediately after the states disperse funds each month.
EBT cards can be used along with a personal identification number (PIN) to pay for goods at participating stores, and to withdraw cash from an ATM. However, EBT cards differ from debit cards issued to most Americans in two important ways. First, most states do not equip EBT cards with smart chip technology, which can make the cards more difficult and expensive for skimming thieves to clone.
More critically, EBT participants traditionally have had little hope of recovering food assistance funds when their cards were copied by card-skimming devices and used for fraud. That’s because while the EBT programs are operated by individually by the states, those programs are funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which until late last year was barred from reimbursing states for stolen EBT funds.
The protections passed in the 2023 Appropriations Act allow states to use federal funds to replace stolen EBT benefits, and they permit states to seek reimbursement for any skimmed EBT funds they may have replaced from their own coffers (dating back to Oct. 1, 2022).
But first, all 50 states must each submit a plan for how they are going to protect and replace food benefits stolen via card skimming. Guidance for the states in drafting those plans was issued by the USDA on Jan. 31 (PDF), and states that don’t get them done before Feb. 27, 2023 risk losing the ability to be reimbursed for EBT fraud losses.
Deborah Harris is a staff attorney at The Massachusetts Law Reform Institute (MLRI), a nonprofit legal assistance organization that has closely tracked the EBT skimming epidemic. In November 2022, the MLRI filed a class-action lawsuit against Massachusetts on behalf of thousands of low-income families who were collectively robbed of more than $1 million in food assistance benefits by card skimming devices secretly installed at cash machines and grocery store checkout lanes across the state.
Harris said she’s pleased that the USDA guidelines were issued so promptly, and that the guidance for states was not overly prescriptive. For example, some security experts have suggested that adding contactless capability to EBT cards could help participants avoid skimming devices altogether. But Harris said contactless cards do not require a PIN, which is the only thing that stops EBT cards from being drained at the ATM when a participant’s card is lost or stolen.
Then again, nothing in the guidance even mentions chip-based cards, or any other advice for improving the physical security of EBT cards. Rather, it suggests states should seek to develop the capability to perform basic fraud detection and alerting on suspicious transactions, such as when an EBT card that is normally used only in one geographic area suddenly is used to withdraw cash at an ATM halfway across the country.
“Besides having the states move fast to approve their plans, we’d also like to see a focused effort to move states from magstripe-only cards to chip, and also assisting states to develop the algorithms that will enable them to identify likely incidents of stolen benefits,” Harris said.
Harris said Massachusetts has begun using algorithms to look for these suspicious transaction patterns throughout its EBT network, and now has the ability to alert households and verify transactions. But she said most states do not have this capability.
“We have heard that other states aren’t currently able to do that,” Harris said. “But encouraging states to more affirmatively identify instances of likely theft and assisting with the claims and verification process is critical. Most households can’t do that on their own, and in Massachusetts it’s very hard for a person to get a copy of their transaction history. Some states can do that through third-party apps, but something so basic should not be on the burden of EBT households.”
Some states aren’t waiting for direction from the federal government to beef up EBT card security. Like Maryland, which identified more than 1,400 households hit by EBT skimming attacks last year — a tenfold increase over 2021.
Advocates for EBT beneficiaries in Maryland are backing Senate Bill 401 (PDF), which would require the use of chip technology and ongoing monitoring for suspicious activity (a hearing on SB401 is scheduled in the Maryland Senate Finance Commission for Thursday, Feb. 23, at 1 p.m.).
Michelle Salomon Madaio is a director at the Homeless Persons Representation Project, a legal assistance organization based in Silver Spring, Md. Madaio said the bill would require the state Department of Human Services to replace skimmed benefits, not only after the bill goes into effect but also retroactively from January 2020 to the present.
Madaio said the bill also would require the state to monitor for patterns of suspicious activity on EBT cards, and to develop a mechanism to contact potentially affected households.
“For most of the skimming victims we’ve worked with, the fraudulent transactions would be pretty easy to spot because they mostly happened in the middle of the night or out of state, or both,” Madaio said. “To make matters worse, a lot of families whose benefits were scammed then incurred late fees on many other things as a result.”
It is not difficult to see why organized crime groups have pounced on EBT cards as easy money. In most traditional payment card transactions, there are usually several parties that have a financial interest in minimizing fraud and fraud losses, including the bank that issued the card, the card network (Visa, MasterCard, Discover, etc.), and the merchant.
But that infrastructure simply does not exist within state EBT programs, and it certainly isn’t a thing at the inter-state level. What that means is that the vast majority of EBT cards have zero fraud controls, which is exactly what continues to make them so appealing to thieves.
For now, the only fraud controls available to most EBT cardholders include being especially paranoid about where they use their cards, and frequently changing their PINs.
According to USDA guidance issued prior to the passage of the appropriations act, EBT cardholders should consider changing their card PIN at least once a month.
“By changing PINs frequently, at least monthly, and doing so before benefit issuance dates, households can minimize their risk of stolen benefits from a previously skimmed EBT card,” the USDA advised.
The Biden administration today issued its vision for beefing up the nation’s collective cybersecurity posture, including calls for legislation establishing liability for software products and services that are sold with little regard for security. The White House’s new national cybersecurity strategy also envisions a more active role by cloud providers and the U.S. military in disrupting cybercriminal infrastructure, and it names China as the single biggest cyber threat to U.S. interests.
The strategy says the White House will work with Congress and the private sector to develop legislation that would prevent companies from disavowing responsibility for the security of their software products or services.
Coupled with this stick would be a carrot: An as-yet-undefined “safe harbor framework” that would lay out what these companies could do to demonstrate that they are making cybersecurity a central concern of their design and operations.
“Any such legislation should prevent manufacturers and software publishers with market power from fully disclaiming liability by contract, and establish higher standards of care for software in specific high-risk scenarios,” the strategy explains. “To begin to shape standards of care for secure software development, the Administration will drive the development of an adaptable safe harbor framework to shield from liability companies that securely develop and maintain their software products and services.”
Brian Fox, chief technology officer and founder of the software supply chain security firm Sonatype, called the software liability push a landmark moment for the industry.
“Market forces are leading to a race to the bottom in certain industries, while contract law allows software vendors of all kinds to shield themselves from liability,” Fox said. “Regulations for other industries went through a similar transformation, and we saw a positive result — there’s now an expectation of appropriate due care, and accountability for those who fail to comply. Establishing the concept of safe harbors allows the industry to mature incrementally, leveling up security best practices in order to retain a liability shield, versus calling for sweeping reform and unrealistic outcomes as previous regulatory attempts have.”
In 2012 (approximately three national cyber strategies ago), then director of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) Keith Alexander made headlines when he remarked that years of successful cyber espionage campaigns from Chinese state-sponsored hackers represented “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.”
The document released today says the People’s Republic of China (PRC) “now presents the broadest, most active, and most persistent threat to both government and private sector networks,” and says China is “the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do so.”
Many of the U.S. government’s efforts to restrain China’s technology prowess involve ongoing initiatives like the CHIPS Act, a new law signed by President Biden last year that sets aside more than $50 billion to expand U.S.-based semiconductor manufacturing and research and to make the U.S. less dependent on foreign suppliers; the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative; and the National Strategy to Secure 5G.
As the maker of most consumer gizmos with a computer chip inside, China is also the source of an incredible number of low-cost Internet of Things (IoT) devices that are not only poorly secured, but are probably more accurately described as insecure by design.
The Biden administration said it would continue its previously announced plans to develop a system of labeling that could be applied to various IoT products and give consumers some idea of how secure the products may be. But it remains unclear how those labels might apply to products made by companies outside of the United States.
One could convincingly make the case that the world has witnessed yet another historic transfer of wealth and trade secrets over the past decade — in the form of ransomware and data ransom attacks by Russia-based cybercriminal syndicates, as well as Russian intelligence agency operations like the U.S. government-wide Solar Winds compromise.
On the ransomware front, the White House strategy seems to focus heavily on building the capability to disrupt the digital infrastructure used by adversaries that are threatening vital U.S. cyber interests. The document points to the 2021 takedown of the Emotet botnet — a cybercrime machine that was heavily used by multiple Russian ransomware groups — as a model for this activity, but says those disruptive operations need to happen faster and more often.
To that end, the Biden administration says it will expand the capacity of the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF), the primary federal agency for coordinating cyber threat investigations across law enforcement agencies, the intelligence community, and the Department of Defense.
“To increase the volume and speed of these integrated disruption campaigns, the Federal Government must further develop technological and organizational platforms that enable continuous, coordinated operations,” the strategy observes. “The NCIJTF will expand its capacity to coordinate takedown and disruption campaigns with greater speed, scale, and frequency. Similarly, DoD and the Intelligence Community are committed to bringing to bear their full range of complementary authorities to disruption campaigns.”
The strategy anticipates the U.S. government working more closely with cloud and other Internet infrastructure providers to quickly identify malicious use of U.S.-based infrastructure, share reports of malicious use with the government, and make it easier for victims to report abuse of these systems.
“Given the interest of the cybersecurity community and digital infrastructure owners and operators in continuing this approach, we must sustain and expand upon this model so that collaborative disruption operations can be carried out on a continuous basis,” the strategy argues. “Threat specific collaboration should take the form of nimble, temporary cells, comprised of a small number of trusted operators, hosted and supported by a relevant hub. Using virtual collaboration platforms, members of the cell would share information bidirectionally and work rapidly to disrupt adversaries.”
But here, again, there is a carrot-and-stick approach: The administration said it is taking steps to implement Executive Order (EO) 13984 –issued by the Trump administration in January 2021 — which requires cloud providers to verify the identity of foreign persons using their services.
“All service providers must make reasonable attempts to secure the use of their infrastructure against abuse or other criminal behavior,” the strategy states. “The Administration will prioritize adoption and enforcement of a risk-based approach to cybersecurity across Infrastructure-as-a-Service providers that addresses known methods and indicators of malicious activity including through implementation of EO 13984.”
Ted Schlein, founding partner of the cybersecurity venture capital firm Ballistic Ventures, said how this gets implemented will determine whether it can be effective.
“Adversaries know the NSA, which is the elite portion of the nation’s cyber defense, cannot monitor U.S.-based infrastructure, so they just use U.S.-based cloud infrastructure to perpetrate their attacks,” Schlein said. “We have to fix this. I believe some of this section is a bit pollyannaish, as it assumes a bad actor with a desire to do a bad thing will self-identify themselves, as the major recommendation here is around KYC (‘know your customer’).”
One brief but interesting section of the strategy titled “Explore a Federal Cyber Insurance Backdrop” contemplates the government’s liability and response to a too-big-to-fail scenario or “catastrophic cyber incident.”
“We will explore how the government can stabilize insurance markets against catastrophic risk to drive better cybersecurity practices and to provide market certainty when catastrophic events do occur,” the strategy reads.
When the Bush administration released the first U.S. national cybersecurity strategy 20 years ago after the 9/11 attacks, the popular term for that same scenario was a “digital Pearl Harbor,” and there was a great deal of talk then about how the cyber insurance market would soon help companies shore up their cybersecurity practices.
In the wake of countless ransomware intrusions, many companies now hold cybersecurity insurance to help cover the considerable costs of responding to such intrusions. Leaving aside the question of whether insurance coverage has helped companies improve security, what happens if every one of these companies has to make a claim at the same time?
The notion of a Digital Pearl Harbor incident struck many experts at the time as a hyperbolic justification for expanding the government’s digital surveillance capabilities, and an overstatement of the capabilities of our adversaries. But back in 2003, most of the world’s companies didn’t host their entire business in the cloud.
Today, nobody questions the capabilities, goals and outcomes of dozens of nation-state level cyber adversaries. And these days, a catastrophic cyber incident could be little more than an extended, simultaneous outage at multiple cloud providers.
The full national cybersecurity strategy is available from the White House website (PDF).
FreshRSS 